Supreme Court of India, Composition, Qualifications, Powers, Removal

Supreme Court of India: History

The Supreme Court, as we know it today, was not created in a vacuum. It is the culmination of a long and often tumultuous history, evolving from a colonial instrument of control to the powerful guardian of a sovereign republic.

The Colonial Beginnings: Dual Courts and Distant Appeals

The story begins with the Regulating Act of 1773, a significant step by the British Parliament to control the affairs of the East India Company. This Act led to the establishment of the first Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta in 1774. For a long time, India had a complex and dual judicial system. The Crown’s Supreme Courts existed alongside the Company’s Sadar Adalats (Sadar Diwani Adalat for civil cases and Sadar Nizamat Adalat for criminal cases), leading to jurisdictional conflicts.

A major reform came with the Indian High Courts Act of 1861. This act abolished the separate Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats in the presidency towns and established a unified system of High Courts in Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay. While this streamlined the judiciary, the final court of appeal for Indians remained the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London—a symbol of judicial subordination.

The Precursor: The Federal Court of India (1937)

The Government of India Act of 1935 marked a watershed moment. It proposed a federal structure for India and, to adjudicate disputes between the federal government and the provinces, it established the Federal Court of India. Inaugurated in 1937, this court was a significant step towards judicial autonomy. It sat in Delhi, in the same Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building that the Supreme Court would later occupy. However, the umbilical cord to the colonial master was not yet fully severed, as appeals could still go to the Privy Council.

The Birth of a Sovereign Guardian (1950)

On January 28, 1950, two days after India declared itself a Sovereign Democratic Republic, the Supreme Court of India was inaugurated. This was more than a change of name; it was a profound transformation. The new Supreme Court inherited the mantle of the Federal Court but also supplanted the jurisdiction of the Privy Council, becoming the ultimate and final court of appeal for all citizens. In a moment of seamless transition, the last Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Sir Harilal Jekisundas Kania, became the first Chief Justice of India.

The Constitutional Provisions for Supreme Court of India (Articles 124-147)

The soul of the Supreme Court lies in Part V, Chapter IV of our Constitution. These articles are not just legal text; they are the architectural plans for an independent and powerful judiciary.

Appointment, Salaries, and Removal of Supreme Court Judges

The Appointment Saga: The Collegium System

The process of appointing judges to the Supreme Court is one of the most debated aspects of our polity. The Constitution, in Article 124, states that the President will appoint judges after “consultation” with judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The interpretation of the word “consultation” has been the subject of a fascinating tug-of-war between the judiciary and the executive, leading to the evolution of the Collegium System.

• First Judges Case (1981): The Court held that “consultation” did not mean “concurrence,” giving the executive the final say in appointments. This gave primacy to the executive.
• Second Judges Case (1993): The Court overturned its earlier verdict, stating that “consultation” meant “concurrence.” This judgment gave birth to the Collegium system, establishing judicial primacy in appointments to safeguard the judiciary’s independence.
• Third Judges Case (1998): The Court clarified and expanded the Collegium to its present form: a body comprising the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.

In 2014, the government attempted to replace this system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) through the 99th Constitutional Amendment. The NJAC was proposed as a body with representation from the judiciary, executive, and civil society. However, in the Fourth Judges Case (2015), the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional, holding that the involvement of the executive in appointments violated the “independence of the judiciary,” which is a part of the Constitution’s basic structure.

Supreme Court Judges Qualifications for Appointment

As per Article 124(3), to be appointed as a Supreme Court judge, a person must be:

1. A citizen of India.
2. A judge of a High Court for at least five years; or
3. An advocate of a High Court for at least ten years; or
4. A distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President.

Supreme Court Judges Salaries and Allowances (Article 125)

The salaries and allowances of Supreme Court judges are determined by Parliament by law. Crucially, they are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, meaning they are not subject to the vote of Parliament. This ensures financial independence and prevents parliamentary interference with judicial remuneration.

• Chief Justice of India: Approximately ₹2,80,000 per month.
• Other Supreme Court Judges: Approximately ₹2,50,000 per month.
• In 2021, the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Bill, 2021 was introduced in Lok Sabha.
• This bill was to amend the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958.

In addition to the salary, judges are entitled to various allowances, including a rent-free official residence, official cars, staff, security, and a sumptuary allowance. Post-retirement, they are also eligible for a pension equal to 50% of their last drawn salary. These provisions are designed to attract the best legal talent and maintain the dignity and independence of the office.

Removal of Supreme Court Judges in India

To ensure judicial independence, the removal of a Supreme Court judge is made deliberately difficult. A judge can be removed only on grounds of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” as per Article 124(4). The process, governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, is as follows:

1. A removal motion must be signed by 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.
2. If admitted by the Speaker/Chairman, a three-member committee is formed to investigate the charges.
3. If the committee finds the judge guilty, the Parliament can take up the motion.
4. The motion must be passed by a special majority in both Houses (a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting).
5. Finally, the President issues the order for removal. This stringent process ensures that judges can perform their duties without fear of political repercussions. To date, no Supreme Court judge has been impeached.

Jurisdiction and Powers of the Supreme Court Judges

The Supreme Court wields a wide array of powers, making it one of the most powerful courts in the world.

• Original Jurisdiction (Article 131): This makes the Supreme Court a federal court. It has the exclusive authority to hear disputes between the Government of India and one or more states, or between two or more states. This is the first court of instance for such federal disputes.
• Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32): Dr. Ambedkar called this article the “heart and soul” of the Constitution. It allows any citizen to directly approach the Supreme Court if their Fundamental Rights are violated. The Court can issue five types of writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto.
• Appellate Jurisdiction (Articles 132-134): This is the broadest jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in all civil and criminal matters. It can hear appeals against the judgments of High Courts.
• Special Leave Petition (Article 136): This is an extraordinary and discretionary power. The Supreme Court can grant special leave to appeal against any judgment or order from any court or tribunal in the country. It is a “residual power” that allows the court to intervene wherever it feels a gross injustice has occurred.
• Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143): The President can seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on any question of law or fact of public importance. The famous Berubari Union case (1960) was an advisory opinion where the court advised on the procedure to cede Indian territory. This opinion is not binding on the President.
• A Court of Record (Article 129): This means its judgments have evidentiary value and cannot be questioned in any court. It also gives the court the power to punish for its own contempt, a power recently highlighted in the Prashant Bhushan case.

Independence of Supreme Court of India

The Constitution has erected a formidable shield to protect the judiciary’s independence from the executive and legislature. Key safeguards include:

• The collegium system for appointments.
• A very difficult removal process (security of tenure).
• Salaries and expenses charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, which are not subject to parliamentary vote.
• Prohibition of discussion on the conduct of judges in Parliament.
• Power to punish for its own contempt.
• A ban on practice after retirement for its judges.

Contemporary Challenges Facing the Supreme Court

Despite its esteemed position, the Supreme Court faces significant challenges that are a focus area for the UPSC Mains examination.

1. The Crushing Pendency of Cases: With hundreds of thousands of cases pending in the Supreme Court and over 5 crore across all courts, “justice delayed is justice denied” has become a grim reality. Causes include a massive shortage of judges, frequent adjournments, and the government being the largest litigant.
2. Judicial Activism vs. Overreach: While judicial activism, as seen in the development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), has been a force for good, there are growing concerns about judicial overreach. When the court ventures into policymaking—for instance, by banning firecrackers or setting pollution norms—it encroaches on the domain of the executive and legislature, straining the delicate principle of separation of powers.
3. Opacity in the Collegium: The primary criticism of the collegium system is its lack of transparency and accountability. The “behind-closed-doors” nature of appointments has led to allegations of nepotism, creating a trust deficit.
4. Post-Retirement Appointments: The practice of judges accepting political appointments (like governorships or seats in Parliament) immediately after retirement has raised ethical questions. It creates a perception of a potential quid pro quo, which can undermine public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality. The debate over a mandatory “cooling-off” period is ongoing.
5. Misuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL): While PIL was envisioned as a tool for justice for the marginalized, it is increasingly being misused for personal vendettas, corporate rivalry, or publicity, consuming valuable judicial time and resources.

The Way Forward: Addressing the Challenges

Addressing these multifaceted challenges requires a concerted and collaborative effort from all stakeholders.

1. Tackling Pendency:
   • Increase Judge Strength: A significant increase in the number of judges at all levels, commensurate with the population and caseload, is paramount.
   • Technological Integration: Greater use of e-courts, virtual hearings, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) for case management, transcription, and research can enhance efficiency.
   • Procedural Reforms: Streamlining procedural laws, discouraging frivolous litigation, and stricter enforcement of timelines for hearings and judgments can reduce delays.
   • Government as a Model Litigant: The government, being the largest litigant, must adopt a policy of reducing unnecessary appeals and promoting alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms.
2. Balancing Judicial Activism and Overreach:
   • Judicial Restraint: The judiciary must exercise self-restraint and respect the doctrine of separation of powers, intervening in legislative or executive matters only when absolutely necessary to uphold the Constitution.
   • Clear Guidelines for PILs: The Supreme Court itself needs to lay down stricter guidelines to curb the misuse of PILs, ensuring they remain a tool for genuine public interest causes.
3. Reforming Judicial Appointments:
   • Enhanced Transparency: While maintaining judicial independence, greater transparency in the collegium’s functioning, including clearer criteria for selection and recording of deliberations, is essential to build public trust.
   • Reviving NJAC Debate (with modifications): Re-engaging in dialogue about an appointment mechanism like the NJAC, but with modifications that address the Supreme Court’s concerns about judicial independence while incorporating principles of accountability and transparency, could be a path forward.
4. Addressing Post-Retirement Appointments:
   • Cooling-Off Period: Implementing a mandatory cooling-off period before retired judges can accept political appointments would help mitigate the perception of bias and safeguard judicial integrity.
   • Code of Conduct: Developing a clear code of conduct for retired judges regarding public engagements and appointments could also contribute to maintaining judicial dignity.

Supreme Court of India UPSC Prelims PYQs

Questions on the Supreme Court are frequently asked in both UPSC Prelims and Mains. Analysing previous year questions helps understand the trend and focus areas of the commission.

Q1. Under which Article of the Constitution is the composition of the Supreme Court mentioned?
a) Article 124
b) Article 136
c) Article 32
d) Article 226
Answer: a) Article 124

Q2. Which of the following statements is/are correct regarding the Supreme Court of India?

• It is a court of record.

• Its decisions are binding on all courts within the territory of India.

1. Parliament can increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court.
   Select the correct answer using the code below:
   a) 1 and 2 only
   b) 2 and 3 only
   c) 1, 2 and 3
   d) 1 and 3 only

 Answer: c) 1, 2 and 3

Q3. Which of the following writs is issued by the Supreme Court to enforce Fundamental Rights?
a) Habeas Corpus
b) Certiorari
c) Mandamus
d) All of the above
Answer: d) All of the above

Q4. The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the Centre and the States falls under its:
a) Advisory jurisdiction
b) Appellate jurisdiction
c) Original jurisdiction
d) Writ jurisdiction
Answer: c) Original jurisdiction

Supreme Court of India UPSC FAQs

What is the maximum strength of the Supreme Court of India?
The current sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court is 34 judges, including the Chief Justice of India.

Which articles in the Constitution deal with the Supreme Court?
Articles 124 to 147 in Part V of the Constitution deal with the Supreme Court.

What is Article 32 of the Constitution?
Article 32 empowers citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.

Who appoints the judges of the Supreme Court?
The President of India appoints Supreme Court judges based on collegium recommendations.

What are the different jurisdictions of the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court has original, appellate, advisory, and writ jurisdiction.

Can the decisions of the Supreme Court be challenged?
No regular appeal lies against Supreme Court decisions, but it can review its judgments under Article 137.What are the issues with the collegium system in the Supreme Court?
Lack of transparency, absence of accountability, and allegations of nepotism are major issues in the Supreme Court collegium system.