Supreme Court - Clarity Desk Hub IAS

Let’s begin by understanding the judicial structure in India and how it differs from the American system.

⚖️ Integrated Judiciary vs. Dual Judiciary

In America, the judicial system is dual —
👉 Federal laws are interpreted and enforced by the federal judiciary,
👉 while state laws are interpreted by the state judiciary.
So, they have two parallel court systems — one for the Centre, one for the States.

But in India, things are different.
Our Constitution has established an integrated judicial system — meaning one unified hierarchy of courts.

At the top stands the Supreme Court,
below it — High Courts in the states,
and under each High Court — subordinate courts, i.e. District Courts and other lower courts.

So, whether the law is made by the Centre or by the State, it is enforced through the same set of courts.

This structure was borrowed from the Government of India Act, 1935.

👉 Hence, even though India is a federal country, its judiciary is unitary in structure but federal in spirit, because there is one system of law and justice applicable throughout the country.

⚖️ Establishment of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India was inaugurated on 28 January 1950 — just two days after the Constitution came into force.

It replaced the Federal Court of India (which was set up under the 1935 Act) and also took over the functions of the Privy Council, which was earlier the highest appellate body for India during British rule.

Therefore, the jurisdiction (the scope of power) of the Supreme Court is wider than that of the Federal Court.

Constitutional Provisions

Articles 124 to 147 in Part V of the Constitution deal with every aspect of the Supreme Court —
its organisation, independence, jurisdiction, powers, and procedures.

The Parliament also has the power to make laws regulating these matters.

⚖️ Composition and Appointment

(a) Present Strength

As of 2025, the Supreme Court consists of 34 judges —
👉 1 Chief Justice of India (CJI) and
👉 33 other judges.

Originally, the total strength was 8 judges (1 + 7).
Over time, Parliament has increased this number to match the growing workload:

Year	Total Judges (including CJI)
1950	8
1956	11
1960	14
1977	18
1986	26
2008	31
2019	34

(b) Appointment of Judges

The President of India appoints all judges of the Supreme Court.

For the Chief Justice, the President consults such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as he/she deems necessary.
For the other judges, the President must consult the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and such other judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as he/she deems necessary.

👉 Note: In the appointment of judges other than the CJI, consultation with the CJI is mandatory.

(c) Appointment of Chief Justice of India

From 1950 to 1973, there was a healthy convention — the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court became the CJI.

But in 1973, this convention was broken.
Justice A.N. Ray was appointed CJI, superseding three senior judges — because those judges had given a verdict against the government in the Kesavananda Bharati case.

Again in 1977, Justice M.U. Beg was appointed by superseding the senior-most judge.

Later, the 2nd Judges Case (1993) restored the tradition,
holding that the senior-most judge must be appointed as CJI.

🔥 Controversy over “Consultation”

Now comes one of the most exam-relevant and conceptual parts — the interpretation of the word “consultation” by the Supreme Court itself.
Let’s understand the evolution of the Judges Cases step by step.

🧩 1st Judges Case (1981)

Court said: Consultation ≠ Concurrence.
It means the President is not bound by the advice of the Chief Justice.
So, the Executive (President) had the upper hand.

🧩 2nd Judges Case (1993)

The Court reversed its earlier stand.
Now, consultation = concurrence.
So, the CJI’s advice became binding on the President.

However, the CJI had to consult two senior-most judges before giving his opinion.

👉 Thus, the collegium system was born.

🧩 3rd Judges Case (1998)

The Court clarified the procedure of the collegium:

The CJI must consult a collegium of four seniormost judges.
If two judges disagree, the recommendation should not go to the government.

So, the CJI alone cannot decide — it must be a collective decision of the senior judges.

🧩 4th Judges Case (2015)

In 2014, Parliament tried to replace the collegium with a new system —
the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) — under the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act.

But in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down both the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act as unconstitutional,
because they violated judicial independence, a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Hence, the collegium system was restored.

🎓 Qualifications, Oath, and Salary

(a) Qualifications

To be a Supreme Court judge, a person must:

Be a citizen of India, and
Fulfil any one of the following:
- Be a Judge of a High Court (or multiple High Courts in succession) for at least 5 years; or
- Be an Advocate of a High Court (or multiple High Courts) for at least 10 years; or
- Be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President.

👉 No minimum age is prescribed by the Constitution.

(b) Oath or Affirmation

Before entering office, every judge takes an oath before the President, promising:

True faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India,
To uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India,
To discharge duties faithfully, fearlessly, and impartially, and
To uphold the Constitution and the laws.

(c) Salaries and Allowances

These are decided by Parliament, and cannot be reduced to their disadvantage after appointment (except during a Financial Emergency).

As per the 2018 revision:
- CJI earns ₹2.80 lakh/month
- Other Judges earn ₹2.50 lakh/month

They also receive:

Sumptuary allowance,
Free official residence,
Medical, car, and telephone facilities, etc.

After retirement, they receive 50% of their last drawn salary as pension.

💬 Key Takeaway:

“The Supreme Court is not just the guardian of the Constitution, it is the soul of constitutional governance in India.
Through its independence, integrity, and interpretation, it maintains the delicate balance between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary — ensuring that no one oversteps the Lakshman Rekha drawn by the Constitution.”

⚖️ Tenure and Removal of Supreme Court Judges

Let’s begin with a simple but important observation:
➡️ The Constitution of India does not fix a specific “term of years” for Supreme Court judges.
Instead, it provides three ways in which a judge’s tenure may come to an end.

Tenure of Judges

A judge of the Supreme Court continues in office:

Till the age of 65 years
- This is the retirement age fixed by the Constitution.
- Any dispute about a judge’s age is decided by such authority and in such manner as Parliament provides by law.
By resignation
- A judge may resign by writing to the President of India.
By removal
- A judge can be removed by the President, but only on the recommendation of Parliament.

👉 Thus, judges do not “serve at the pleasure of the President.”
Their security of tenure ensures judicial independence.

Removal of Judges (Impeachment Process)

Now, this is one of the most technical but UPSC-favourite topics — the impeachment of judges.

A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed only on two specific grounds:

Proved misbehaviour, or
Incapacity.

Let’s decode the procedure.

Step-by-step process (as per Judges Inquiry Act, 1968):

Initiation of Motion
- A removal motion can be moved by:
  - 100 members in the Lok Sabha, or
  - 50 members in the Rajya Sabha.
- It must be given to the Speaker (in Lok Sabha) or Chairman (in Rajya Sabha).
Admission of Motion
- The Speaker/Chairman may admit or refuse to admit the motion.
Formation of Inquiry Committee
- If admitted, a three-member committee is formed to investigate the charges.
  This committee includes:
  - The Chief Justice or a Judge of the Supreme Court,
  - The Chief Justice of a High Court, and
  - A distinguished jurist.
Investigation Report
- The committee investigates and submits its report.
- If the committee finds the judge guilty, then Parliament can take up the motion.
Voting in Both Houses
- Each House must pass the motion by a special majority:
  - A majority of the total membership of that House, and
  - A two-thirds majority of members present and voting.
Presidential Order
- Once both Houses pass the motion, an address is sent to the President.
- The President then issues the removal order.

Historical Note – Justice V. Ramaswami Case (1991–93)

This is the only impeachment attempt in Indian history till date.

Justice V. Ramaswami, a judge of the Supreme Court, was accused of misbehaviour and financial irregularities.
The inquiry committee found him guilty,
but when the motion came to vote in the Lok Sabha, the Congress Party abstained, and hence the motion failed to reach the required special majority.
Thus, no judge has ever been impeached in India so far.

👉 This incident showed how impeachment, being a political process, often becomes subject to party interests.

👨‍⚖️ Acting, Ad Hoc, and Retired Judges

To ensure that the functioning of the Supreme Court never stops — even in cases of vacancy, absence, or shortage of judges — the Constitution provides for temporary arrangements.

Acting Chief Justice

The President can appoint a judge of the Supreme Court as an Acting Chief Justice of India when:

The office of the CJI is vacant; or
The CJI is temporarily absent; or
The CJI is unable to perform duties due to any reason (illness, travel, etc.).

👉 This ensures that the Court continues to function smoothly even when the Chief Justice is unavailable.

Ad hoc Judge

Sometimes, due to heavy workload or shortage of permanent judges, the Court may not have the required quorum.

In that case:

The Chief Justice of India can request a High Court judge to sit in the Supreme Court temporarily as an ad hoc judge.
But this can be done only:
- after consulting the Chief Justice of that High Court, and
- with the previous consent of the President.

The ad hoc judge:

Must be qualified for appointment as a Supreme Court judge,
Must prioritize the sittings of the Supreme Court over his other duties,
And while serving, enjoys all powers, privileges, and jurisdiction of a regular Supreme Court judge.

👉 In simple words: Ad hoc judges fill temporary gaps to ensure that justice delivery doesn’t slow down.

Retired Judges

The Chief Justice of India can also request:

A retired judge of the Supreme Court, or
A retired judge of a High Court, to act as a judge of the Supreme Court for a limited time.

This requires:

Consent of the President, and
Consent of the retired judge himself/herself.

While performing this role:

The retired judge enjoys all powers and privileges of a sitting Supreme Court judge,
Is paid allowances as fixed by the President,
But is not deemed to be a permanent judge of the Supreme Court.

👉 This allows the Court to use the experience of senior retired judges when required — a sort of “judicial reinforcement.”

🏛️ Seat and Procedure of the Supreme Court

Seat of the Supreme Court

The Constitution declares Delhi as the seat of the Supreme Court.
However, it also authorises the Chief Justice of India, with the approval of the President, to appoint another place or places as the seat of the Court.

This provision is optional, not mandatory — meaning, no court can compel the CJI or the President to shift the seat.

👉 In practice, the Supreme Court has always sat in New Delhi, though proposals have been made for regional benches to improve access to justice.

Procedure of the Court

The Supreme Court enjoys great autonomy in regulating its own procedure.

It can frame rules for practice and procedure, but these must have the President’s approval.
Normally, cases are heard by:
- Single judges, or
- Division benches (2 or 3 judges).

However:

Constitutional cases and Presidential references under Article 143 are heard by a Bench of at least five judges.

Decision-making and Judgements

Judgements are pronounced in open court.
Normally, decisions are taken by majority vote.
But the Indian judiciary allows dissenting opinions —
meaning, if a judge disagrees, he/she can write a separate dissenting judgement.

👉 Such dissents often become historically significant.
For instance, Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent in the ADM Jabalpur (Emergency) case (1976) later became a moral milestone in India’s constitutional history.

💬 Concluding remark:

“In a democracy, the independence of judges is the oxygen of justice.
The elaborate procedure of removal and the fixed retirement age are not privileges — they are protections designed to ensure that a judge can say ‘No’ to power, and ‘Yes’ to the Constitution.”

⚖️ Independence of the Supreme Court

🌟 Why is Independence Important?

Let’s start with a simple question —
Why does the Supreme Court need to be independent?

Because it is not just another organ of the State —
it is the guardian of the Constitution, the protector of Fundamental Rights, and the final interpreter of the law.

To perform these roles, it must act fearlessly — free from executive interference (the government) or legislative pressure (Parliament).

As Dr. Ambedkar said, “The judiciary must be both independent and impartial.”

🏛️ Constitutional Safeguards Ensuring Independence

The Constitution provides several structural and procedural safeguards to ensure that judges can act without fear or favour. Let’s understand them one by one:

1. Mode of Appointment

Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President, but not at his/her sole discretion.

Appointments must be made in consultation with members of the judiciary — i.e., judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

👉 This limits executive influence and prevents appointments based on political considerations.
👉 Through the collegium system, the judiciary itself plays a central role in selecting judges.

Thus, the appointment process = a balance between Executive and Judiciary.

2. Security of Tenure

A judge of the Supreme Court cannot be removed at the will of the government.

They hold office:

till 65 years of age, or
until they resign or are removed through impeachment,
and that too only on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

👉 This ensures that judges do not have to please the government to keep their job.
👉 No judge has ever been successfully impeached — a testimony to this safeguard.

3. Fixed Service Conditions

The salary, allowances, leave, pension, and privileges of judges are decided by Parliament,
but once appointed, these cannot be changed to their disadvantage,
except during a Financial Emergency (Article 360).

👉 This means the government cannot “punish” a judge by cutting pay or perks.
Hence, their independence in decision-making remains intact.

4. Expenses Charged on Consolidated Fund of India

The administrative and salary expenses of the Supreme Court are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.

➡️ What does that mean?
It means Parliament cannot vote to reduce these funds — it can only discuss them.

Thus, the Court’s finances are protected from legislative control.

5. Conduct of Judges Cannot Be Discussed

Except during an impeachment process, no discussion can take place in Parliament or a State Legislature about the conduct of a Supreme Court judge in discharging his duties.

👉 This ensures that judges are not subject to political criticism for their judgments.

6. Ban on Practice After Retirement

After retirement, a Supreme Court judge cannot practice or appear before any court or authority in India.

👉 Why?
So that a judge does not act favourably in cases with the expectation of future rewards or clients after retirement.

This rule eliminates any temptation to please anyone for post-retirement gain.

7. Power to Punish for Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court has the power to punish anyone for contempt — that is, for showing disrespect, defying orders, or lowering its authority.

This power protects the dignity, independence, and authority of the Court.

8. Freedom to Appoint Its Own Staff

The Chief Justice of India can appoint the officers and servants of the Supreme Court and determine their service conditions, without any interference from the executive.

👉 This internal administrative autonomy strengthens institutional independence.

9. Jurisdiction Cannot Be Curtailed

Parliament cannot curtail the jurisdiction or powers of the Supreme Court guaranteed by the Constitution.
It can only extend them.

👉 This ensures that Parliament cannot reduce the Court’s authority or limit its reach.

💬 Essence of Judicial Independence

“Judicial independence is not the privilege of the judges —
it is the right of every citizen to get justice from a fearless and impartial court.”

⚖️ Indian and American Supreme Courts — A Comparative Study

Let’s begin with the context.
Both India and the USA are federal countries, and both have Supreme Courts at the apex of their judicial systems.
Yet, their structure, scope, and powers differ significantly — reflecting their constitutional philosophies.

While the U.S. Constitution (1787) is rigid and federal to the core,
the Indian Constitution (1950) is federal in form but unitary in spirit.

Hence, the Supreme Court of India has a different character and broader role compared to its American counterpart.

🇮🇳 vs 🇺🇸 | Comparative Table Explained

No.	Aspect	Supreme Court of India	Supreme Court of the USA
1.	Original Jurisdiction	Confined to federal cases — disputes between Centre and States or among States (Article 131).	Extends to federal cases plus disputes relating to naval forces, maritime matters, ambassadors, and foreign ministers.
2.	Appellate Jurisdiction	Very wide — includes constitutional, civil, and criminal cases.	Narrow — mainly constitutional matters and issues of federal law.
3.	Special Leave to Appeal (SLP)	Has plenary discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal in any matter (Article 136).	No such power — appeals are strictly limited by law and Constitution.
4.	Advisory Jurisdiction	Has advisory power under Article 143 — President can seek its opinion.	Has no advisory jurisdiction — cannot give opinions unless a case is formally filed before it.
5.	Judicial Review	Judicial review power exists but is limited — within the boundaries of the Constitution and the Basic Structure Doctrine.	Judicial review is extremely wide — based on the Due Process Clause and Supremacy of the Constitution.
6.	Protection of Rights	Defends rights under “procedure established by law” (Article 21).	Defends rights under “due process of law” — broader and more substantive protection.
7.	Expansion of Powers	Parliament can enlarge its jurisdiction and powers.	Jurisdiction cannot be enlarged — limited strictly to what is granted by the U.S. Constitution.
8.	Control over Lower Courts	Has judicial superintendence over High Courts and all subordinate courts due to India’s integrated judiciary.	No such power — because USA follows a dual judicial system (separate federal and state courts).

🧠 Key Conceptual Differences

1. Nature of the Judicial System

India → Integrated Judiciary
→ One unified system with the Supreme Court at the top.
→ Both Central and State laws are enforced by the same courts.
USA → Dual Judiciary
→ Separate federal courts and state courts.
→ Federal laws enforced by federal courts; state laws by state courts.

2. Judicial Review Philosophy

India follows Procedure Established by Law:
The Court checks whether the procedure prescribed by law has been followed.
USA follows Due Process of Law:
The Court not only checks the procedure but also examines the fairness, reasonableness, and morality of the law itself.

👉 Therefore, American judicial review is broader and more subjective,
while Indian judicial review is more structured and constitutional.

3. Flexibility of Jurisdiction

In India, Parliament can expand the powers of the Supreme Court (making it more adaptable to new challenges).
In the USA, the Constitution is rigid, and Congress cannot increase the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction beyond what is written in the Constitution.

4. Advisory Role

The Indian Court often acts as a constitutional advisor to the Executive.
The American Court, on the other hand, is purely adjudicatory — it never gives advice unless a dispute is formally brought before it.

💬 Philosophical Insight

“The American Supreme Court is like a referee — it steps in only when there’s a formal dispute.
The Indian Supreme Court, however, is like a guardian — it not only resolves conflicts but also guides, advises, and protects the spirit of the Constitution.”