Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India stands as the apex judicial institution of the world’s largest democracy, embodying the principles of justice, equality, and constitutional supremacy. Since its establishment in 1950, the Court has evolved into a powerful guardian of fundamental rights and constitutional values, pioneering revolutionary legal doctrines that have reshaped the landscape of Indian jurisprudence. Through landmark innovations such as the Basic Structure Doctrine and judicial activism via Public Interest Litigation, the Supreme Court has demonstrated its commitment to protecting democratic institutions while adapting to contemporary challenges. However, persistent debates surrounding the transparency of judicial appointments reflect the ongoing tension between judicial independence and democratic accountability in India’s constitutional framework.

Historical Evolution: From Colonial Legacy to Constitutional Guardian

Pre-Independence Foundations

The roots of India’s apex judiciary trace back to the colonial period when the British established separate Supreme Courts to administer justice in their Indian territories. The Supreme Court of Calcutta, established in 1774 under the Regulating Act, marked the beginning of organized higher judiciary in India. This was followed by the Supreme Courts at Madras in 1801 and Bombay in 1823, each empowered with similar jurisdictional authority as their Calcutta counterpart.

These colonial courts functioned with limited territorial jurisdiction and primarily served British commercial and administrative interests. The Indian High Courts Act of 1861 brought significant reform by abolishing these three Supreme Courts and establishing High Courts in their place, creating a more unified judicial structure that would persist until independence.

Federal Court Era (1937-1950)

The Government of India Act 1935 introduced a crucial transitional phase with the establishment of the Federal Court of India in 1937. Located initially at Delhi, this Federal Court possessed original jurisdiction over disputes between provinces and the Centre, along with appellate authority over High Court decisions. The Federal Court served as India’s highest judicial authority for thirteen years, laying institutional groundwork for the post-independence Supreme Court.

Birth of the Supreme Court (1950)

The Constitution of India, which came into force on January 26, 1950, formally established the Supreme Court of India, replacing both the Federal Court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the final appellate authority. The inaugural proceedings began on January 28, 1950, at 9:45 AM in the Chamber of Princes within the Parliament building, presided over by Justice Harilal Jekisundas Kania as the first Chief Justice of India.

The Court initially comprised one Chief Justice and seven other judges, as stipulated in Article 124(1) of the Constitution. In 1958, the Supreme Court moved from the Parliament building to its current premises on Tilak Marg, New Delhi, marking the institutional maturation of India’s apex judiciary.

Constitutional Framework and Mechanism

Constitutional Provisions

The Supreme Court’s constitutional foundation rests primarily in Part V of the Constitution, with Articles 124 to 147 comprehensively addressing its organization, independence, jurisdiction, powers, and procedures. These provisions establish a robust framework ensuring judicial independence while defining clear operational parameters.

Article 124 serves as the foundational provision, mandating the establishment of a Supreme Court comprising one Chief Justice of India and initially seven additional judges, with Parliament empowered to prescribe a larger number. The current strength stands at 34 judges including the Chief Justice, as amended by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019.

Appointment and Tenure

The constitutional framework establishes a careful balance between executive involvement and judicial independence in appointments. Article 124(2) vests the President with appointment authority, exercised after consultation with Supreme Court and High Court judges deemed necessary. This provision includes mandatory consultation with the Chief Justice of India for appointments other than the Chief Justice position.

Judges hold office until age 65 and may resign by addressing the President in writing. Removal requires impeachment proceedings under Article 124(4), ensuring judicial security and independence. The constitutional design reflects the framers’ intention to create an independent judiciary capable of checking legislative and executive power while maintaining democratic legitimacy.

Qualifications and Independence

Constitutional qualifications for Supreme Court judges reflect the premium placed on legal expertise and judicial experience. Article 124(3) requires appointees to be Indian citizens who have either served as High Court judges for five years, practiced as advocates in High Court for ten years, or are distinguished jurists in the President’s opinion.

Articles Linked to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s constitutional architecture spans multiple articles, each addressing specific aspects of its structure, powers, and functions:

Article 32: Heart and Soul of the Constitution

Article 32, termed the “heart and soul” of the Constitution by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, deserves special attention for its fundamental role in constitutional governance. This article establishes the Right to Constitutional Remedies, empowering citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.

The significance of Article 32 lies in its transformation of fundamental rights from mere paper guarantees to enforceable legal entitlements. It confers upon the Supreme Court original, wide, but not exclusive powers to issue writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari. This provision ensures that fundamental rights violations receive immediate judicial attention, positioning the Supreme Court as the ultimate guardian of constitutional liberties.

Functions of the Supreme Court

Guardian of the Constitution

The Supreme Court’s primary function as guardian of the Constitution encompasses interpretation of constitutional provisions and ensuring governmental actions conform to constitutional mandates. This role involves striking down laws that violate constitutional principles and maintaining the balance between different governmental organs. The Court’s interpretive authority extends to clarifying ambiguous constitutional language and adapting constitutional principles to contemporary challenges.

Protector of Fundamental Rights

Through Article 32, the Supreme Court serves as the ultimate protector of fundamental rights, providing citizens direct access for enforcement of constitutional guarantees. This protective function has expanded significantly through judicial interpretation, with the Court recognizing new dimensions of rights such as the right to education, clean environment, and privacy as components of the right to life under Article 21.

The Court’s protective role extends beyond individual rights to encompass group rights and collective interests. Through Public Interest Litigation, it has addressed systemic violations affecting marginalized communities, environmental degradation, and administrative failures, demonstrating its commitment to substantive justice.

Final Appellate Authority

As India’s final court of appeal, the Supreme Court ensures uniformity and consistency in legal interpretation across the country. Article 136 grants the Court discretionary power to hear appeals from any court or tribunal, creating a comprehensive appellate system that prevents conflicting interpretations of law by different High Courts.

This appellate function serves crucial federalism objectives by providing a unified forum for resolving legal disputes and ensuring equal application of laws across states. The Court’s appellate decisions create binding precedents that guide lower courts and promote legal certainty.

Federal Dispute Resolution

Article 131 empowers the Supreme Court with exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes between the Centre and states or among states. This federal arbitrator role proves essential in India’s complex federal structure, where Centre-state tensions frequently arise over legislative competence, resource allocation, and administrative authority.

Recent years have witnessed increased Centre-state litigation concerning goods and services tax implementation, COVID-19 management, and environmental regulations. The Court’s federal jurisdiction provides peaceful resolution mechanisms that strengthen democratic federalism.

Advisory Function

Under Article 143, the President may seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. While advisory opinions lack binding force, they provide authoritative guidance on complex legal issues and demonstrate the Court’s expertise in constitutional interpretation.

Notable advisory references have addressed issues such as the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, Cauvery water sharing, and natural resource allocation, showcasing the Court’s role in providing legal clarity on nationally significant matters.

Landmark Concepts and Innovations

Basic Structure Doctrine

The Basic Structure Doctrine represents the Supreme Court’s most significant constitutional innovation, fundamentally altering the relationship between Parliament’s amending power and constitutional supremacy. This doctrine emerged from the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, where a 13-judge bench deliberated for five months before delivering a razor-thin 7:6 majority verdict.

Historical Context and Development

The doctrine’s emergence reflected growing concerns about unlimited parliamentary power to amend the Constitution. By 1971, 23 constitutional amendments had raised questions about preservation of constitutional fundamentals. The 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments particularly challenged judicial review and fundamental rights, prompting constitutional litigation that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati.

The Court held that while Parliament possesses wide amending powers under Article 368, it cannot destroy or emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features of the Constitution. This principle established judicial review as a check on unlimited parliamentary sovereignty, ensuring constitutional stability while allowing adaptive amendments.

Core Elements of Basic Structure

Though the Kesavananda judgment did not provide an exhaustive list, subsequent decisions have identified several basic features:

• Supremacy of the Constitution: Constitutional provisions override ordinary legislation

• Rule of Law: Legal principles govern state action rather than arbitrary power

• Separation of Powers: Distinct functions for legislature, executive, and judiciary

• Judicial Review: Courts’ power to examine constitutional validity of laws

• Federalism: Distribution of powers between Centre and states

• Secularism: Non-establishment of religion by the state

• Democracy and Republican Government: Popular sovereignty and representative institutions

• Independence of Judiciary: Judicial autonomy from other branches

Impact and Significance

The Basic Structure Doctrine has profoundly influenced Indian constitutional law by providing a framework for evaluating constitutional amendments. It has enabled the Court to strike down amendments that would fundamentally alter constitutional character, including the 39th Amendment (election disputes) and attempts to dilute judicial review powers.

This doctrine has inspired similar developments in other jurisdictions, with courts in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Nepal adopting basic structure principles. It represents India’s unique contribution to comparative constitutional law and demonstrates judicial innovation in protecting constitutional values.

Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation

The Supreme Court’s embrace of judicial activism through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has revolutionized access to justice and expanded judicial oversight of governmental action. This transformation began in the 1980s under the leadership of Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer, who pioneered new approaches to legal standing and remedial jurisdiction.

Evolution of PIL

Traditional legal doctrine required direct injury for judicial standing, limiting court access to immediately affected parties. PIL relaxed this locus standi requirement, allowing public-spirited citizens, social organizations, and even courts themselves to initiate proceedings addressing broader public interests.

The landmark case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) established PIL foundations by recognizing that access to justice constitutes a fundamental right requiring removal of economic and social barriers. This decision transformed the Supreme Court from a traditional appellate court into an active instrument of social justice.

Areas of PIL Impact

PIL has addressed diverse social issues spanning environmental protection, human rights, administrative accountability, and social justice:

Environmental Protection: Cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India established absolute liability principles for hazardous industries and mandated environmental protection measures around the Taj Mahal. These decisions pioneered environmental jurisprudence in India and established courts as environmental guardians.

Social Justice and Human Rights: Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) addressed bonded labor exploitation, while Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) recognized livelihood as integral to the right to life. These cases expanded Article 21 interpretation to encompass socio-economic rights.

Administrative Accountability: Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997) established CBI autonomy guidelines, while various PIL cases have addressed police reforms, prison conditions, and bureaucratic accountability. This judicial oversight has enhanced governmental transparency and responsiveness.

Expanding Fundamental Rights: PIL has facilitated dynamic interpretation of fundamental rights, with courts recognizing education, health, clean environment, and privacy as constitutional entitlements. This expansive approach has made fundamental rights more meaningful for ordinary citizens.

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling

The Supreme Court’s adoption of the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling represents another significant jurisprudential innovation, allowing courts to change legal precedents while protecting past transactions from disruption. This doctrine emerged from American jurisprudence but found unique application in Indian constitutional law.

Introduction in Golaknath Case

I.C. Golaknath & Ors v. State of Punjab (1967) marked the first Indian application of prospective overruling. Justice K. Subba Rao, recognizing the need for legal evolution without disrupting settled expectations, applied this doctrine to constitutional interpretation. The Court overruled previous decisions allowing Parliament to amend fundamental rights but applied this new principle only to future amendments, preserving past constitutional changes.

Principles and Applications

The Supreme Court established three essential conditions for invoking prospective overruling:

1. Constitutional Scope: The doctrine applies only to constitutional interpretation matters

2. Supreme Court Authority: Only the Supreme Court may apply prospective overruling

3. Discretionary Application: The Court may modify prospective operation based on case circumstances

This doctrine serves multiple purposes: protecting settled transactions, providing transition time for affected institutions, avoiding unnecessary litigation reopening, and enabling smooth legal development. It represents judicial pragmatism in balancing legal evolution with social stability.

Subsequent Applications

Cases like India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1990) and various reservation-related decisions have employed prospective overruling to manage legal transitions while protecting legitimate expectations. This doctrine demonstrates the Court’s sophisticated approach to precedent management and social impact consideration.

Criticisms of the Appointment Procedure: The Collegium Controversy

The Supreme Court’s appointment mechanism has generated sustained criticism, reflecting broader tensions between judicial independence and democratic accountability in constitutional governance. The current Collegium system, while intended to protect judicial autonomy, faces persistent challenges regarding transparency, accountability, and representational fairness.

Evolution of the Collegium System

The Collegium system emerged through judicial interpretation rather than constitutional text, developing through a series of Supreme Court decisions known as the Judges Cases. The First Judges Case (1982) established judicial primacy in appointments, while subsequent decisions in 1993 and 1998 refined collegial decision-making processes.

This system grants the Chief Justice of India and senior Supreme Court judges dominant influence over judicial appointments and transfers. For Supreme Court appointments, a collegium of the Chief Justice and four senior-most judges makes recommendations to the government. High Court appointments involve the Chief Justice, two senior Supreme Court judges, the concerned High Court Chief Justice, and the senior-most High Court judge.

Transparency and Accountability Deficits

Opacity in Decision-Making: The primary criticism addresses the system’s secretive operation, with no published criteria, reasoning, or public records of collegium deliberations. While some meeting resolutions appear on the Supreme Court website since 2017, they provide minimal insight into appointment rationale or rejected candidacies.

This lack of transparency undermines public confidence and creates suspicion about arbitrary or biased decision-making. Justice J. Chelameswar’s public criticism, calling the process “absolutely opaque and inaccessible both to public and history,” highlighted internal judicial concerns about systemic secrecy.

Absence of External Oversight: The collegium operates without formal accountability mechanisms, unlike other constitutional bodies that incorporate checks and balances. No appeal or review process exists for collegium decisions, concentrating enormous power in a few judges without institutional restraints.

Procedural Inconsistencies: Recent controversies, including Justice Nagarathna’s reported dissent against specific appointments, reveal procedural irregularities where dissenting views may be overlooked in favor of majoritarian decision-making. This undermines the collegial consensus principle that supposedly guides the system.

Representational and Diversity Concerns

Demographic Skews: Data analysis reveals significant representational disparities in judicial appointments, with 79% of High Court judges (2018-2022) from upper-caste backgrounds while marginalized communities remain underrepresented. Women constitute merely 4% of Supreme Court judges, highlighting persistent gender imbalances.

Regional and Community Imbalances: The collegium system has failed to ensure adequate representation from different regions, linguistic groups, and religious communities. This lack of diversity affects the judiciary’s legitimacy and its capacity to understand varied social contexts in adjudication.

“Uncle Judge Syndrome”: Critics allege that personal networks and familial connections influence appointments, creating perception if not reality of nepotism. The concentration of power in senior judges potentially perpetuates existing biases and limits fresh perspectives in judicial leadership.

Institutional Capacity and Efficiency Issues

Delayed Appointments: Despite 331 judicial vacancies in High Courts as of 2024, the collegium system has struggled with timely appointments, affecting judicial efficiency and access to justice. Prolonged vacancy periods strain the judicial system and delay case resolution.

Government-Judiciary Tensions: The collegium’s relationship with the executive remains fraught, with governments occasionally returning names for reconsideration, creating institutional friction that serves neither judicial independence nor administrative efficiency.

Failed Reform Attempts and Future Directions

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC): The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act 2014 established the NJAC to replace the collegium system with a more transparent, broad-based appointment mechanism. However, the Supreme Court struck down NJAC in 2015, deeming it a threat to judicial independence due to excessive executive involvement.

The NJAC decision, while protecting judicial autonomy, failed to address collegium system deficiencies, creating an ongoing legitimacy crisis. Critics argue the Court rejected reform without offering substantive alternatives to existing problems.

Memorandum of Procedure (MoP): Post-NJAC, a Memorandum of Procedure attempted to introduce greater transparency and accountability in appointments while preserving collegium structure. The MoP requires consideration of experience, integrity, judicial temperament, and regional representation, along with government reasons for rejecting recommendations.

However, MoP implementation remains inconsistent, and fundamental transparency issues persist. The document represents incremental rather than transformative reform.

Comparative Perspectives: International models demonstrate that judicial independence and appointment transparency need not be mutually exclusive. The UK’s Judicial Appointments Commission, Canada’s consultative processes, and South Africa’s mixed commissions provide alternative approaches that balance autonomy with accountability.

These comparative examples suggest possibilities for reformed Indian appointment mechanisms that preserve judicial independence while incorporating democratic legitimacy, transparent criteria, and diverse representation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India’s remarkable journey from colonial-era presidency courts to a dynamic constitutional guardian reflects its central role in India’s democratic evolution. Through foundational doctrines like the Basic Structure principle and innovative mechanisms such as Public Interest Litigation, the Court has demonstrated exceptional capacity for legal evolution and social responsiveness. Its expansion of fundamental rights, environmental jurisprudence, and administrative accountability showcases judicial activism at its most constructive.

Yet persistent challenges surrounding the collegium system underscore the ongoing tension between judicial independence and democratic accountability. The opacity, representational gaps, and procedural inconsistencies in judicial appointments represent democracy’s unfinished business in ensuring both autonomous and legitimate judicial institutions.

The Supreme Court’s innovations—from prospective overruling to constitutional interpretation—have enriched global jurisprudence while serving India’s unique constitutional needs. However, reforms ensuring transparent, accountable appointment processes remain essential for maintaining public confidence in judicial institutions. As India’s democracy matures, the Supreme Court must continue evolving to balance its guardian role with democratic legitimacy, ensuring both constitutional protection and institutional accountability for generations to come

Indian Polity

Calling out the criticism of the Indian judiciary