This Article is written by Dhwani Goyal of Bcom.llb of 8th Sem. at Banasthali Vidyapith during her internship at LeDroit India.
Introduction-
The Supreme Court of India is the highest constitutional court in the country and the court of last resort. It has been granted a very broad authority so that it can carry out its holy tasks. The Court interprets and upholds the Constitution, considers appeals from subordinate court orders, defends and shields citizens’ fundamental rights, and settles interstate disputes.
Original jurisdiction-
- The ability of the court to hear a case and make a decision in its capacity as the court of first instance is known as original jurisdiction.
The Apex Court’s original jurisdiction is clarified in Article 131. It states that the Court’s original jurisdiction will be within its authority:
When the Union Government and one or more states disagree - Legal rights must be a pertinent question in conflicts under this Article. No other court has the authority to hear the cases outlined in this article. The Apex Court was granted so broad power by the framers of the Constitution with the intention of resolving issues of this kind before the highest federal court, once and for all.
Nonetheless, the caveat to Article 131 specifies that any treaty, accord, or comparable document may exclude the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Section 204 of the Government of India Act, 1935 serves as the foundation for this article.
Furthermore, Article 131’s phrasing suggests that it must be read “subject” to and in compliance with other constitutional provisions.
Furthermore, Article 131’s phrasing suggests that it must be read “subject” to and in compliance with other constitutional provisions. Thus, other constitutional provisions, such as those pertaining to conflicts over the management and distribution of interstate river flows (Article 262) or presidential recommendations to the Finance Commission (Article 280), may limit the original jurisdiction under Article 131.
The State of Bihar was the plaintiff in the historic case of State of Bihar V. Union of India (1969), while the defendants included the Union Government (the first defendant), Hindustan Steel Limited, and Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. The main question on the Court’s agenda was whether the plaintiff’s cause of action could be brought under Article 131. The plaintiff filed an action under that Article.
The Court decided that Article 131 does not require the Court to decide on the merits of the entire dispute, merely the legal right in question. The Court additionally determined that the petition under Article 131 could not be maintained since only in the absence of a private party would the dispute fall under the purview of Article 131. The petition would not fall under Article 131’s purview even if the private party and the government were both impleaded together.
Writ Jurisdiction-
In addition, the Court has original jurisdiction over disputes involving the defense of an individual’s fundamental rights. In situations where fundamental rights are violated, anyone can petition the Supreme Court, and the court has the authority to grant writs in order to provide the proper remedy. The British legal system introduced the idea of writs to India, giving the courts the authority to grant prerogative writs.
It is important to remember that Article 32 guarantees the enforcement of basic rights through a remedy. The right to use the Supreme Court’s power to enforce fundamental rights is a fundamental right in and of itself, as this Article is included in Part III.
In cases where a common topic is under consideration by many high courts, or by the Apex Court and multiple high courts, the Supreme Court has the authority to remove the matter from the High Court and handle its own resolution provided it is deemed to be of public importance.
In accordance with Article 139A, the Court may remove a matter from the High Court and reach a decision on its own if it involves a significant legal question and is pending before the Apex Court, any High Court, or two or more High Courts.
It is important to remember that the Court’s original jurisdiction is appellate, concurrent, and not exhaustive with regard to the enforcement of basic rights. This is crucial because, in the case that any fundamental rights were violated, the citizens would have no other choice but to file a complaint with the Supreme Court.
Parliament may grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court by legislation under Article 138. For instance, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 gives the Apex Court the authority to start international commercial arbitration.
Appellate Jurisdiction-
A certificate issued by the relevant High Court under Article 132(1), 133(1), or 134 of the Constitution may be used to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court with regard to any judgment, decree, or final order of a High Court in both civil and criminal cases involving a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution. In civil cases, appeals also lie to the Supreme Court if the relevant High Court certifies that: (a) the case contains a significant legal issue of public significance; and (b) the High Court believes the issue in question requires decision by the Supreme Court.
In criminal cases, an appeal is routed to the Supreme Court if the High Court: (a) reverses an accused person’s order of acquittal and sentences him to death, life in prison, or a minimum of 10 years in prison; (b) withdraws a case from any court under its jurisdiction for trial before the Supreme Court and finds the accused guilty and sentences him to death, life in prison, or a minimum of 10 years in prison; or (c) certifies that the case is appropriate for appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court may be granted further authority by Parliament to consider and hear appeals from any decision, final order, or sentence in a criminal case involving a High Court.
In addition, the Supreme Court has extensive appellate jurisdiction over all Indian courts and tribunals. This is because Article 136 of the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order made in any case or matter by any court or tribunal operating within Indian territory.
Types of Appellate Jurisdiction-
- Appeal for a right to justice
The primary reason for this appeal is the party’s right to justice since they were not happy with the ruling from a lower court, even though they had already received it. They then filed appeals with additional courts, but they were likewise denied permission by those other courts. After then, they can apply to the higher court for this case. They carefully consider all the information provided before making a final judgment to reject this case.
- Discretionary appeal
There are two primary grounds for this appeal. The first is the appellate court’s discretion to decide whether or not to accept a party’s appeal. Additionally, they have the option to select the case file that the party appeals after receiving a ruling from the lower court. The other is appellate jurisdiction, which has the authority to accept the party’s case file and render a final judgment only after thoroughly reviewing the entirety of the case and all available evidence. This time, the party making the appeal must abide by and accept the ruling.
- Appellate jurisdiction
In relation to the Supreme Court, appellate jurisdiction is authorized by a diploma awarded by the High Court and pertains to matters below “Article 133(1), 132(1), or 134,” which are various types of judgments and final orders rendered by the High Court that are applicable in both civil and criminal cases. The Supreme Court of India has extensive appellate authority over all other courts in the country. It may, at its discretion, grant special leave for an appeal below “Article 136” against a judgment, decision, or decree in any kind of case or matter decided by any court. This system includes both criminal and civil law. The criminal law is a system that allows for the identification and punishment of those who commit crimes, while the system law is concerned with the private relationship members who are all connected to the criminal issues.
Advisory Jurisdiction-
Under Article 143 of the Constitution, the President of India may directly refer cases to the Supreme Court for advisory review, neither the Australian nor the United States constitutions expressly provide for the existence of such an advisory jurisdiction. The American Supreme Court actually declined to consider the Executive’s requests, stating that it would instead concentrate on more specific issues pertaining to the nation’s legal system.
On the other hand, the Governor-General may request the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on significant legal matters under Section 60 of the Canadian Supreme Court Act, 1906.The Government of India Act, 1935 contains a comparable clause that allowed the Federal Court to offer an advisory opinion on matters presented to it (Section 213(1)). Later, the terms “Governor-General” and “Federal Court” were substituted with “President” and “Supreme Court,” respectively, in the draft constitution.
The Re Delhi Laws Act Case was the first case to reach the Supreme Court through this jurisdiction. In this instance, the Court took into account a statute’s legality in relation to delegated legislation. The case was heard by a bench of seven judges, all of whom had different views. Judges disagreed on the extent to which the legislature might assign certain legislative authority to the executive, even though they all agreed that the legislature could do so. Generally speaking, the bench voiced two opinions:
- The Parliament may assign as much or as little of its legislative authority as it pleases, but it may not renounce its authority or efface itself.
- The “essential” legislative function of the Parliament, which included formulating policy and enacting it into a legally-binding code of conduct, could not be assigned to another organization.
- The Cauvery Dispute Tribunal was established by the Central Government to investigate the disagreement between the states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over the Cauvery River.In one of its rulings, the Tribunal ordered the State of Karnataka to release a specific volume of water to Tamil Nadu.The Karnataka government issued an ordinance allowing them to disregard the Tribunal’s order, refusing to respect the Tribunal’s ruling.
- The President sent a request for the Supreme Court’s opinion in order to settle the disagreement. The Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956 was broken, and the Karnataka government was made to sit as a judge in its own case, according to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the impugned ordinance was unconstitutional.
A five-judge panel of the Supreme Court argued in Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India that the Presidential reference asking the Court to rule on whether a temple once stood where the Babri Masjid now stands was superfluous and unnecessary, and that it also went against the idea of secularism favoring one religious group over another. As a result, the bench said the question need not be answered.
The Apex Court ruled in Special Reference No. of 2002 that it was well within its authority to respond to and advise the President in a reference made under Article 143(1) if the questions referred are likely to come up in the future, are important to the public, or have not yet been decided by the Supreme Court.
A number of other significant cases, such as Re Kerala Education Bill, Re BeruBari, Re Sea Customs Act, Special Court Reference case, Re Presidential Bill, and Re Special Courts Bill, were also sent to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion.
Conclusion-
In India, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the legal hierarchy. It has broad authority and is in charge of upholding the nation’s legal system and reining in the abuses of power by the executive and legislative branches. It is evident that the Federal Court and Privy Council’s respective areas of jurisdiction were granted to the Supreme Court. Parliament has the authority to further expand the Court’s extensive jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the inherent authority of the Court cannot be restricted or limited by any Act of Parliament.
The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction has changed during the last few decades. The Supreme Court’s authority has been expanded by the idea of public interest litigation, which also guarantees that the impoverished and oppressed can petition the Court to have their rights upheld. Public interest litigation has brought before the Supreme Court a number of significant issues including social justice, the environment, and human rights. Because of its epistolary jurisdiction, the Supreme Court can truly protect basic rights.
