Introduction
Indian judicial structure is characterized by a unitary structure comprising the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Lower Courts. Together, they form a unified judiciary that possesses jurisdiction over all cases arising under any law, regardless of whether it is enacted by Parliament or a state legislature. The Supreme Court holds the highest authority in the country’s legal system, while each state has its own High Court serving as the apex court within its jurisdiction. This differs from the dual court system observed in the United States, where a federal judiciary, headed by the Supreme Court, coexists with individual state-level judicial systems. Consequently, each state in the U.S. maintains its own Supreme Court, and a clear demarcation exists between the federal and state judiciaries, preventing overlap in their respective jurisdictions.
Union Judiciary
The Judiciary of the Union is primarily represented by the Supreme Court of India, referred to as the “SC,” which holds the status of the highest Constitutional Court and serves as the guardian of the Constitution, as established under article 124 of the Constitution.
Currently, the SC comprises 31 judges, led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The Court operates through smaller benches, consisting of two or three judges known as Division Benches. However, for addressing crucial matters pertaining to the interpretation of the Constitution, larger benches comprising five or more judges, referred to as Constitution Benches, are constituted as necessary. These Constitution Benches are responsible for settling fundamental questions of law.
Jurisdiction and Powers
Writ Jurisdiction: Article 32
Article 32 of the Constitution of India establishes the Supreme Court (SC) as the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights. This article empowers the SC to enforce fundamental rights, making the writ jurisdiction an integral part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
Under Article 32(1), any person whose fundamental rights have been infringed has the right to approach the SC for their enforcement. However, the provision can only be invoked when there is an infringement of a fundamental right. Judicial review of administrative, legislative, and governmental actions or non-actions is permissible for the purpose of enforcing these rights. It is important to note that Article 32 cannot be invoked solely to adjudge the validity of such actions.
In the process of enforcing a fundamental right, the SC can declare legislation to be ultra vires or beyond the competence of the enacting legislature, as long as there is an infringement of a fundamental right. The petitioner is not required to prove the exhaustion of all local remedies or the absence of an adequate alternative remedy, as these requirements are more of convenience policies than rules of law.
While the general rule is that Article 32 is invoked when there is an infringement of a fundamental right, there have been exceptional cases where the SC has entertained writ petitions that do not directly involve fundamental rights. This is usually done when the issues at hand assume great constitutional significance, requiring authoritative determination by the SC, and when there is no alternative mechanism for the SC to address the matter. An example of such deviation from the general rule is seen in the case of Tamil Nadu Cauvery NVV NU P Sangam v Union of India.
In the exercise of its powers under Article 32, the SC is not bound to follow ordinary adversarial procedures and may adopt procedures that are most effective for enforcing fundamental rights. The Constitution deliberately remains silent on this aspect to prevent procedural technicalities from hindering the enforcement of fundamental rights and to preserve the SC’s discretion. The SC has used this discretion to benefit weaker sections of society by allowing the submission of relevant material through non-conventional sources, such as letters, and by appointing commissioners to gather facts and data.
Regarding locus standi (the right to initiate legal action) under Article 32, the SC has taken a liberal view, adopting a flexible approach to a person’s entitlement to approach the Court under this provision. It is not necessary for the victim of a fundamental right violation to personally approach the SC for redress, as the SC can take cognizance and proceed suo motu (on its own) or upon a petition filed by any public-spirited person, whether natural or legal. Additionally, the SC has the implied power to award damages or compensation, making its power under Article 32 not only injunctive but also remedial in nature, maximizing its effectiveness.
The SC enjoys discretion in granting relief and is authorized to issue specific writs under Article 32(2). These include habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari. The SC can also frame writs to suit the exigencies of a particular situation and is not bound by the specified writs alone. It has the authority to grant any order, direction, or declaration it considers appropriate in the circumstances. While the SC ordinarily refrains from deciding disputed questions of fact, it retains the discretion to do so if it deems necessary.
- Habeas corpus: Used to secure release of a person who has been detained unlawfully
or without legal justification. For example, this writ may be employed when a person
is not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of his detention.
- Mandamus: Used to command a public authority to perform a public duty belonging to
its office. For example, this writ can be used to command a tribunal to determine
questions which it is bound to but has omitted to decide.
III. Prohibition: Used to restrain completion of proceedings. For example, this writ can
be issued to restrain a tribunal from acting upon an unconstitutional law.
- Quo warranto: Used to call upon the holder of a public office to demonstrate to the
court the authority under which he is holding the office. For example, this writ may be
used to test the validity of the appointment of the Chief Minister of a State and the
nomination of members to the Legislative Council by the Governor.
- Certiorari: Used to quash a decision taken by a lower tribunal when it has acted
without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction, or when there is an error apparent on the face
of record, or when findings of facts are not based on evidence, or when the principles
of natural justice have been violated, or when any fundamental right has been violated,
or when the law under which it has acted is itself unconstitutional.
Article 32, being a fundamental right itself, cannot be diluted or weakened by any legislation. However, the principles of res judicata (a matter already judged) and laches (unreasonable delay) have emerged as important self-imposed limitations to the jurisdiction of the SC.
Content of court jurisdiction: Article 129
Article 129 of the Constitution of India designates the Supreme Court (SC) as a “court of record,” granting it the authority to preserve its original records indefinitely. As a court of record, the SC possesses the power to determine questions pertaining to its own jurisdiction and has inherent jurisdiction to punish contempt. This jurisdiction extends not only to contempt of the SC itself but also to high courts, subordinate courts, and tribunals exercising appellate and supervisory powers. The purpose of this jurisdiction is to uphold the dignity, integrity, and majesty of the courts, ensure the administration of justice in a regular and orderly manner according to the law, and enforce compliance with court orders and directions. Additionally, it empowers courts to penalize lapses in adhering to these orders.
The jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution upon the SC is inalienable and cannot be diminished or diluted by legislation unless through a Constitutional amendment. Thus, the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 complement and supplement the Constitutional sanction, rather than superseding it. Contempt proceedings, which are quasi-criminal in nature, involve a dispute between the State and the alleged contemner. These proceedings can be initiated either by the SC suo motu or upon an application by a party, which can be a private person or a subordinate court. It is important to note that this litigation is not strictly adversarial in nature, as the party notifying the court of the alleged contemnacious conduct does not hold the status of a litigant.
In the context of contempt proceedings, the SC should only proceed when there is a genuine prejudice that can be considered a substantial interference. This power is exceptional and should be exercised sparingly and in the interest of the public. It is worth noting that in contempt proceedings, the SC’s primary concern is with ensuring compliance with its orders, rather than reevaluating the correctness of its earlier decision. Some examples of actions that have been deemed as contempt of court include derogatory insinuations that undermine public confidence in the authority and integrity of judges, willful disobedience or non-compliance with court orders, attempts to prejudice the court against one party, stirring up public sentiment to influence the judges, attempting to divert judges from their duties through flattery or veiled threats, and acts or publications that scandalize the court by attributing dishonesty to the judges.
Original jurisdiction to determine inter-governmental disputes: Article 131 and 131A
Article 131 of the Constitution outlines the conditions under which the Supreme Court (SC) exercises its original jurisdiction, which means it is the first and exclusive forum to hear the case. The SC’s original jurisdiction is invoked when the following requirements are met:
Dispute between specific parties: The dispute must involve parties mentioned in Article 131(a), (b), and (c) of the provision. These parties include:
- Central Government and one or more states,
- Central Government, one or more states, and any other state(s), or
- Two or more states.
This provision does not apply when a citizen or private party is involved, either jointly or alternatively, and when the Union of India is not included as the executive authority of the Union.
Question determining legal right: The dispute must involve a question, either of law or fact, that determines the existence or extent of a legal right. It excludes political rights and covers matters like the validity of central or state laws and competence under Schedule VII of the Constitution. However, the SC has clarified that the requirement of an infringement of a legal right and the need for a cause of action, as typically required in an ordinary civil suit, cannot be imported into Article 131. Thus, it doesn’t matter if a legal right has been infringed or which party claims the legal right in question.
Non-excluded questions: The question at hand must not be one that is excepted by the proviso to Article 131 or any other provision of the Constitution. This includes provisions such as Articles 262, 280, 290, and 143(2) in conjunction with the proviso to Article 131.
In cases falling under Article 131, the SC has the power, authority, and jurisdiction to issue any necessary orders or directions to serve the ends of justice. The grant of original jurisdiction under these special circumstances and for specific reasons empowers the SC to take appropriate action
Appellate Jurisdiction: Article 132, 133, 134 & 136
Appeals on Constitutional questions by certificate of the High Court, as provided under Article 132(1), refer to the process by which the Supreme Court (SC) can hear appeals related to the interpretation of the Constitution that arise from any proceeding in a High Court, regardless of whether it is a civil, criminal, or other case. However, for such an appeal to be heard by the SC, the High Court must issue a certificate certifying its importance.
The following conditions must be satisfied for the High Court to grant a certificate:
The case must involve a question of law concerning the interpretation of the Constitution. This requirement ensures that appeals dealing with Constitutional matters are given due consideration. Importantly, if the certificate is granted on this ground, the appeal will be heard by a Constitution Bench comprising five judges, reflecting the significance of the Constitutional question.
The question raised must be substantial. In this context, “substantial” means that there must be a division of opinion among judges or a significant divergence of legal viewpoints on the question. This requirement ensures that the SC is presented with matters of Constitutional interpretation that have important implications and require resolution.
The applicant seeking the appeal must have been a party to the case before the High Court. This condition ensures that only those directly involved in the original proceeding have the right to seek an appeal before the SC.
It is important to note that appellants, in their appeal to the SC, are generally not allowed to challenge the merits or appropriateness of the decision being appealed, except on the specific ground for which the certificate was granted. This means that appellants are limited to raising arguments and presenting evidence related to the Constitutional question as stated in the certificate. However, appellants may seek permission from the SC to challenge the decision on other grounds, but this requires the leave (permission) of the SC to do so.
Overall, the provision for appeals on Constitutional questions by certificate of the High Court ensures that important and substantial Constitutional matters are brought before the SC for interpretation and resolution, providing clarity and consistency in the interpretation of the Constitution.
Appeals not involving constitutional question
Appeals from civil proceedings by certificate of the High Court, as outlined in Article 133(1), provide a mechanism for the Supreme Court (SC) to hear appeals from judgments, decrees, or final orders in civil cases decided by a High Court. However, for such an appeal to be heard by the SC, the High Court must issue a certificate that satisfies the following conditions:
Substantial Question of Law of General Importance:
A substantial question of law refers to a question on which there exists, or which allows for, differing opinions among legal experts or authorities.
Divergence of opinion among High Courts on a legal issue qualifies it as a substantial question of law, irrespective of uniform rulings in the High Court from which the appeal is sought or the absence of a direct decision by that High Court.
Conversely, when there is no divergence of opinion among High Courts on a legal point, the mere absence of a decision by the referring High Court does not automatically convert it into a substantial question of law.
General Importance of the Substantial Question of Law:
The substantial question of law must be of general importance beyond the immediate parties involved in the litigation.
Examples of questions considered to be of general importance include matters related to the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and states, revenue implications affecting various states, the scope of sovereign powers, and challenges to the validity of a statute.
The High Court, granting the certificate, must be satisfied that there is an imperative necessity for the SC to authoritatively decide the question. This necessity may arise from various factors such as divergent views within the High Court, a different view taken by the High Court, or a serious violation of the law committed by the High Court.
It is important to note that the certificate does not conclusively establish the right to appeal, and the SC retains the discretion to refuse to entertain the appeal if it finds that the requirements of the provision have not been met. Additionally, the SC generally refrains from interfering with final or concurrent findings of fact unless there are compelling facts and circumstances, such as a miscarriage of justice. The SC may grant leave to the appellant to raise a question of law that is not covered by the certificate.
In summary, appeals from civil proceedings by certificate of the High Court provide a specific process for the SC to hear appeals that involve substantial questions of law of general importance, as determined by the High Court. The certificate serves as a basis for the SC to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to entertain the appeal and consider additional legal questions beyond those covered by the certificate.
Appeals from criminal proceedings under article 134
Appeals from criminal proceedings, as stated in Article 134(1), provide a mechanism for the Supreme Court (SC) to hear appeals from judgments, final orders, or sentences in criminal cases decided by a High Court.
Appeal as a Matter of Right (Article 134(a) and (b)):
Appeals on questions of fact and law can be made to the SC as a matter of right.
The SC has the authority to independently assess the guilt of the accused and review evidence only to the extent necessary to evaluate the correct application of legal principles by the High Court.
Appeal Subject to Certificate of Fitness (Article 134(c)):
Appeals under Article 134(c) require a certificate of fitness to be granted by the High Court, as they are not an automatic right.
The SC will not reexamine evidence or arguments on factual matters unless there are compelling reasons, exceptional circumstances, or a significant miscarriage of justice.
The grant of a certificate must be limited and exceptional to ensure that High Courts remain the primary courts of criminal appeal, preventing the SC from becoming an ordinary criminal appellate court.
The High Court must identify the issue of law or principle that, in its opinion, needs to be settled by the SC, and this question must be evident from the certificate.
The correctness or propriety of the decision or order has no bearing on the determination.
While general importance is not a mandatory condition under Article 134, a certificate can only be issued when there is a fundamental error or a primary question that does not pertain to factual matters or the appreciation of evidence.
The SC has established that a certificate should only be granted in cases involving an infringement of essential principles of justice, complex questions of law with significant public or private importance, or when a fair trial has not been conducted in substance.
It’s important to note that the denial of a certificate under this provision does not prevent a party from applying to the SC for special leave to appeal under Article 136. This allows the SC to exercise its discretionary power to grant leave to appeal in cases where the circumstances warrant further consideration by the court.
In summary, appeals from criminal proceedings in the SC can be made as a matter of right on questions of fact and law, or subject to the grant of a certificate of fitness by the High Court. The certificate is only granted in exceptional cases involving errors of fundamental nature or significant questions of law. The SC exercises its discretion to determine the need for further consideration based on the circumstances and the interests of justice.
Appeal by special leave of supreme court under Article 136
Appeal by special leave of SC under Article 136 refers to the discretionary power of the Supreme Court (SC) to grant permission for appeals in suitable cases, even when there is no inherent right of appeal. This provision empowers the SC to interfere and hear appeals from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India. The SC’s jurisdiction under Article 136 is meant to ensure the due and proper administration of justice.
The exercise of this jurisdiction involves two steps. First, the SC grants special leave to appeal, and second, it proceeds to hear the appeal. The discretion of the SC in granting special leave to appeal continues throughout the process, allowing it to assess the circumstances and determine if special grounds exist to interfere in the case. The SC has the authority to declare the law or point out errors made by lower courts, but it may refrain from interfering if the case does not demonstrate special circumstances.
The standards guiding the exercise of the SC’s discretion under Article 136 have been subject to extensive adjudication. The Court has emphasized that its discretionary power is plenary, indicated by the non-obstante clause in the provision. However, this exceptional power should be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of the cause of justice. Article 136 is not meant to be invoked routinely but rather in exceptional situations, such as when a question of law of general public importance arises or when a decision shocks the conscience of the Court.
The SC has been cautioned by Constitution benches that Article 136 should not turn the Court into a tribunal or a regular court of appeal. Nevertheless, the Court has acknowledged its tendency to address individual cases under Article 136, even though its jurisdiction is primarily intended to settle legal principles. The Court’s approach is driven by the need to deliver substantial justice, rectify grave injustices, and address failures in lower courts’ care, attention, or adherence to legal process and principles of natural justice.
While a Constitution Bench has suggested adopting a more uniform standard for granting special leave, the SC has found it challenging to establish a definitive formula or rule to guide the exercise of its power. The limitations on this exceptional and overriding power are inherent in its nature and character. Technicalities should not hinder the pursuit of justice, as the intent of Article 136 is to prevent injustice resulting from final decisions of courts and tribunals.
The high volume of cases under Article 136 has raised concerns about the burden on the SC’s docket. The Court has repeatedly warned that Article 136 should not open the floodgates of litigation. In one case, the SC recommended the establishment of a Constitution Bench to establish broad guidelines for the exercise of discretion under Article 136.
When the SC provides reasons for dismissing a Special Leave Petition (SLP), Article 141 is invoked, and the Court’s reasoning becomes a part of the law. However, when an SLP is summarily dismissed, Article 141 is not applicable, and it can be inferred that the SC found the case unfit for the grant of special leave.
Review jurisdiction: Article 137
Article 137 outlines the provision for the Supreme Court (SC) to review its own judgments or orders, subject to the provisions of relevant laws and rules. The SC may correct mistakes in its judgments through an order ex debitio justitiae, but this power can only be exercised when no other provision exists for such correction. It is important to note that the power of review is distinct from the appellate power, and it does not involve rehearing the original matter or rectifying errors made by lower courts.
To initiate a review, a petition must be filed within 30 days of the judgment or order to be reviewed, clearly stating the grounds for review. The SC exercises its review jurisdiction cautiously and only in exceptional cases, adhering to the grounds stipulated in Order 40 of the Supreme Court Rules 1966, which are drafted under Article 145(1)(e). For civil proceedings, review is limited to the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, including the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. In criminal proceedings, review is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record.
If a judgment being reviewed contains a manifest error of law, such as a contradiction with clear language in a statute, it can be rectified as it constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
In the landmark case of Mohd Arif v The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, the Court clarified two significant aspects of its power of review. First, it equated the scope of the power in civil and criminal proceedings, emphasizing that the concern to avoid judicial error is heightened in cases involving life or liberty. Second, it made an exception to the bar on oral hearings in death penalty cases, asserting that the fundamental right to life cannot be compromised, and therefore, limited oral hearings should be allowed in all death sentence cases.
Even after the dismissal of a review petition, it is possible to file a curative petition under the SC’s inherent power. A curative petition seeks a review of a decision that has become final after the dismissal of the review petition, based on strong grounds such as variation of the principle of natural justice, bias, or abuse of the court’s process. Curative petitions are subject to strict conditions and procedural precautions, including the requirement that the grounds must have been raised in the review petition. If a majority of a bench of the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment being complained of agree that the curative petition should be heard, it is listed before the same bench whenever possible.
Power to do complete justice: Article 142(1)
Article 142(1) of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court plenary jurisdiction to pass decrees or make orders that are necessary to achieve complete justice in any pending cause or matter, whether civil or criminal. This provision is designed to address situations that cannot be effectively resolved within the existing legal framework. While the Supreme Court enjoys a broad discretion in exercising this power, there are certain restrictions that apply.
Firstly, the power conferred by Article 142(1) can only be exercised when the Court is already exercising its jurisdiction over a case. In other words, it cannot be invoked independently. Additionally, the order or decree passed must be necessary to administer complete justice in the specific case.
The interpretation and application of Article 142(1) have shown some inconsistency within the Supreme Court. On some occasions, the Court has emphasized that this provision should not supplant or override existing statutory provisions, unless there is a compelling need for equity and absolute necessity. However, in other instances, the Court has asserted that its power under Article 142(1) is of an entirely different nature, meant to ensure “complete justice,” and is not curtailed by ordinary laws.
In summary, Article 142(1) grants the Supreme Court wide discretionary powers to issue orders or decrees for the purpose of achieving complete justice in cases where the existing legal framework may be inadequate. While the Court is bound by certain limitations and has shown varying attitudes towards the scope of this provision, its primary objective remains to administer justice comprehensively in the interest of fairness and equity.
Advisory jurisdiction: Article 143
Article 143 grants the President the power to consult and seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of public importance, whether related to law or fact, that has arisen or is likely to arise. However, the President can only refer questions of law that have not been previously decided by the Supreme Court. Examples of questions referred to the Court by the President include the constitutionality of existing laws, the constitutionality of bills for the President’s assent, the power of Tribunals under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956 to grant interim relief, and the existence of Hindu temples or religious structures at specific locations.
Under Article 143(1), the Supreme Court has the discretion to decline to express an opinion on the questions referred to it. This may occur when the question is political in nature, incapable of being answered, vague, or hypothetical. Similarly, the President is not obligated to act based on the Court’s opinion. However, if the Court does provide an opinion, the executive cannot request the Court to revise its decision, as the advisory jurisdiction does not function as an appellate jurisdiction over the Court’s own decisions.
However, Article 143(2) requires the Supreme Court to entertain a reference and deliver its opinion to the President.
While an advisory opinion is generally binding on lower courts, the Supreme Court remains free to re-examine and, if necessary, overrule its own opinion. However, since it is not a judgment, an advisory opinion does not establish a valid legal basis.
Additional jurisdiction and powers are conferred on the Supreme Court under Articles 138, 139, and 140. Article 138 allows Parliament to confer further jurisdiction and powers on the Court regarding matters in the Union List. The Court may also have jurisdiction and powers regarding any matter as agreed upon by the Government of India and state governments, provided Parliament legislates on the exercise of such jurisdiction. Article 139 empowers Parliament to authorize the Court to issue directions, orders, or writs for purposes other than those mentioned in Article 32. Under Article 140, Parliament may enact laws to confer supplemental powers on the Court, as long as they are not inconsistent with the Constitution and are deemed necessary or desirable for the Court to effectively exercise its jurisdiction.
State judiciary
High courts
Article 214: Establishment of High Courts in State Judicial System
Article 214 of the Indian Constitution provides for the establishment of a High Court (HC) for each state, serving as the highest court within the state’s judicial system. However, Parliament is empowered to establish a common High Court for two or more states under Article 231. Currently, there are 24 High Courts in India, with certain states sharing a common High Court. These states include Punjab and Haryana, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, and Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh (Guwahati High Court).
Within a state, a High Court may have multiple benches situated in different cities, allowing for regional accessibility and convenience in legal proceedings.
Independence of the Supreme Court and High Courts:
Both the Supreme Court (SC) and the High Courts are constitutionally independent entities. They are considered courts of record, which means they maintain a formal and permanent record of their proceedings.
Hierarchy and Jurisdiction:
High Courts are generally not subordinate to the Supreme Court, except in the context of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. In matters of appeal, the High Courts exercise an inferior or subordinate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. This means that the High Courts’ decisions can be reviewed and modified by the Supreme Court. However, in other areas of their jurisdiction, High Courts function independently, maintaining their own authority and finality in their respective states’ judicial matters.
Jurisdiction and Powers of High Court
In contrast to the Supreme Court, the Constitution does not provide detailed provisions specifying the jurisdiction of High Courts (HCs). However, Article 225 maintains the pre-existing jurisdiction and powers of HCs as they stood on the date of the Constitution’s commencement. This retention of jurisdiction is subject to the provisions of the Constitution itself and any laws enacted by the appropriate legislature under its constitutional authority. HCs, being institutions of long-standing historical significance, had established their jurisdiction prior to the Constitution’s enactment.
Continuation of Admiralty Jurisdiction:
Specifically, the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras continue to exercise admiralty jurisdiction, which is also inherited by the Andhra Pradesh High Court as the successor to the Madras High Court.
Range of Jurisdiction:
High Courts possess a wide range of jurisdiction, encompassing civil and criminal matters, both ordinary and extraordinary, as well as general and special cases. They exercise original jurisdiction in certain matters such as testamentary (related to wills), matrimonial, and guardianship cases as granted by relevant statutes. Additionally, HCs are conferred with advisory jurisdiction by several statutes, enabling them to provide legal opinions and guidance on certain matters.
Contempt of court jurisdiction: Article 215
High Courts (HCs) are considered courts of record, just like the Supreme Court (SC). As courts of record, HCs possess all the powers associated with such courts, including the inherent power to punish for contempt. This power extends to both the contempt of the HC itself and of subordinate courts.
Due to the nature of their jurisdiction, it is not permissible to transfer contempt proceedings from one HC to another. This is because such a transfer would deprive the original court of its jurisdiction, which is vested in it by the Constitution. The power to punish for contempt in HCs is similar to that of the SC in terms of its content, scope, and nature. It is governed by analogous considerations, ensuring consistency across the judicial system.
HCs are advised to exercise their jurisdiction in contempt matters sparingly and with great care, caution, and circumspection. They should focus primarily on issues of compliance and confine their inquiry to that aspect. Contempt proceedings can be initiated either suo motu (on the court’s own motion) or upon an application by a party.
Being superior courts of record, HCs also possess the inherent power and duty of review. This power serves as a safeguard against miscarriage of justice and ensures that the court’s record is free from significant or obvious errors and is in accordance with the law. HCs undertake reviews to maintain the accuracy and legality of their proceedings
Writ jurisdiction: Article 226
Article 226 of the Constitution grants High Courts (HCs) an extraordinary and special jurisdiction to issue writs, orders, or directions. This provision expands the pre-Constitution grant that was initially limited to the HCs of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, to all HCs across the country. Similar to Article 32 in nature, Article 226 serves as a vital mechanism for judicial review of administrative, legislative, and governmental actions or inactions. The specific writs that HCs may issue under Article 226(1) include mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
It is important to note that the jurisdiction under Article 226 is parallel to and independent of the jurisdiction under Article 32. In other words, the jurisdiction of HCs does not derogate from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (SC). However, there is a self-imposed policy limitation on this jurisdiction known as the alternative efficacious remedy rule. According to this rule, when an alternative and equally effective remedy is available to a litigant, they should pursue that remedy before seeking relief through a writ petition. While HCs are not bound by this rule, the existence of an adequate legal remedy should be taken into consideration. For example, if a statute provides specific remedies, the litigant should first exhaust those remedies before resorting to a writ petition.
A significant difference between Article 32 and Article 226 is that while Article 32 is limited to the violation of fundamental rights, Article 226 empowers HCs to grant relief for the enforcement of any Fundamental Right or “for any other purpose” as mentioned in Article 226(1), thereby encompassing even legal rights. This difference has practical implications, as the term “person or authority” in Article 226 has been interpreted broadly. Under Article 226, writs can be issued to bodies that are not instrumentalities of the State but are involved in public duties or functions. The focus is on the nature of the body rather than its form.
A HC can exercise its writ jurisdiction when the person or authority to whom the writ is issued is located or resides within the territorial jurisdiction of the HC, or when the cause of action, either wholly or partly, arises within the HC’s territorial jurisdiction, as specified in Article 226(2). It is the responsibility of the HC to determine whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within its territorial limits based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Writ jurisdiction is primarily supervisory in nature and not appellate. Its main purpose is to enable HCs to review the decision-making process rather than the decision itself. As a result, HCs are generally hesitant to delve into questions of fact, but the decision to undertake such an inquiry falls within their discretion.
Similar to the SC’s use of Article 32, HCs have also employed Article 226 as a means to provide justice to marginalized sections of society. They exercise discretion in shaping reliefs and liberalizing the concept of locus standi. HCs have also incorporated a remedial aspect into the provision by awarding compensation or damages. While the rules regarding available alternative remedies and exhaustion of local remedies are not inflexible, the principles of res judicata (a matter already adjudicated) and laches (unreasonable delay) have acted as self-imposed limitations to this jurisdiction.
Superintending jurisdiction: Article 227
Article 227 of the Constitution grants High Courts the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction. This power ensures that these subordinate bodies act within the bounds of their authority and in accordance with the law. The inclusion of tribunals is particularly significant due to their proliferation in recent times.
The jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 extends to both judicial and administrative matters. They can exercise this power suo motu, meaning they can take action on their own initiative, in the interest of justice, even after a decision by a lower court or tribunal is declared to be final and conclusive. It is important to note that this jurisdiction is supervisory in nature, not appellate.
The power of superintendence needs to be exercised sparingly and is not meant to correct mere errors of law or fact. High Courts generally refrain from interfering when a court or tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction, unless there has been a grave miscarriage of justice or a flagrant violation of law. High Courts also do not re-evaluate or reconsider the evidence or questions of fact that have already been decided, unless there are serious flaws in the evidence relied upon or if a finding of fact lacks conclusive evidence.
The availability of an alternative remedy does not automatically bar the exercise of power under Article 227. While the presence of an alternative remedy is a relevant factor, it is not an inflexible rule that precludes the High Court from taking action. The jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 is free from any statutory control or limitation.
In terms of the relationship between Articles 226 and 227, there is a distinction regarding the possibility of an intra-court appeal from a single judge to a Division Bench. Such an appeal is possible under Article 226 since proceedings fall on the original side, but it is not the case for Article 227. However, in situations where a petition could be filed under both provisions, it is common practice to treat the petition as if it were filed under Article 226. This approach protects the petitioner’s right to an intra-court appeal
Constitutional question: Article 228
Article 228 grants the High Court the power to transfer a case from a subordinate court to itself if it determines that the case involves a significant question of law related to the interpretation of the Constitution. This transfer is allowed when the determination of the constitutional question is necessary for the resolution of the case. The High Court has the option to either dispose of the entire case itself or solely determine the constitutional question and then return the case to the subordinate court for further proceedings based on the High Court’s determination. This provision enables the High Court to expedite the determination of constitutional questions in a case at the earliest opportunity.
SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY
The subordinate courts, which exist in every state, play a crucial role in the judicial system. Articles 233 to 237 of the Constitution regulate and ensure the organization, independence, and integrity of these subordinate courts. This is particularly important because it is at this level that the judiciary directly interacts with the people. The provisions have been interpreted in a manner that strengthens the control of High Courts (HCs) and reduces executive control over the subordinate judiciary.
Both the Supreme Court (SC) and HCs have the power to punish for contempt of subordinate courts, highlighting the significance of maintaining respect for the judicial process at all levels. Article 235 is a pivotal provision that vests control in the HCs. The term “control” is used comprehensively, encompassing administrative, judicial, and disciplinary aspects, including the power of general superintendence. The SC consistently emphasizes the importance of HCs exercising this control in a bona fide, judicious, and non-arbitrary manner.
In the context of the criminal judiciary, the magistracy is typically under the control of the state executive and is not governed by the aforementioned Constitutional provisions. However, Article 237 empowers the state executive to extend these provisions to any class of magistrates, with the authority to make necessary exceptions and modifications as they see fit. This grants flexibility to the state executive in applying these regulations to the criminal judiciary as deemed appropriate.
Civil Courts
The judicial structure in metropolitan areas and districts consists of different levels of courts to handle civil cases based on their value.
Metropolitan Areas:
Court of Small Causes: This court has jurisdiction over suits with a value of up to Rs. 10,000.
City Civil Court: Suits with a value higher than Rs. 10,000 are taken up by the City Civil Court.
Appeals: Appeals from the Court of Small Causes are directed to the City Civil Court. Appeals from the City Civil Court are filed directly with the High Court (HC).
Districts:
District Judge and Additional District Judge: At the top level, the District Judge and Additional District Judge preside over the district court.
Civil Judge Senior Division (or Assistant District Judge): Below the District Judge, the Civil Judge Senior Division handles cases with a value above Rs. 5 lakhs.
Civil Judge Junior Division (or Munsif): The Civil Judge Junior Division has jurisdiction over cases with a value of up to Rs. 5 lakhs.
Appeals: Decisions made by the Senior Division Judge for amounts up to Rs. 10 lakhs can be appealed at the District Court. Appeals for amounts exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs are directed to the High Court (HC).
Criminal Courts
the sentencing powers of different judicial officers within the Indian legal system:
Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge:
Authorized to pass any sentence authorized by law.
Death sentences passed by Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge are subject to confirmation by the High Court. This means that the High Court must review and approve the death sentence before it can be carried out.
Assistant Sessions Judge:
Authorized to pass any sentence authorized by law, except:
Death sentences
Life imprisonment
Imprisonment for a term exceeding 10 years
Chief Judicial Magistrate:
Authorized to pass any sentence authorized by law, except:
Death sentences
Life imprisonment
Imprisonment exceeding 7 years
First Class Magistrate:
Authorized to pass a sentence of:
Imprisonment not exceeding 3 years
Fine not exceeding Rs. 10,000
Both imprisonment and fine
Second Class Magistrate:
Authorized to pass a sentence of:
Imprisonment not exceeding 1 year
Fine not exceeding Rs. 5,000
Both imprisonment and fine
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Powers correspond to those of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Metropolitan Magistrate:
Powers correspond to those of a First Class Magistrate.
These sentencing powers indicate the authority of each judicial officer to impose specific penalties within the limits prescribed by law. The distinction in the powers ensures that different categories of magistrates have the appropriate sentencing authority based on the severity of the offenses they handle.
TRIBUNALS
the establishment of numerous quasi-judicial tribunals, which function under the control of various ministries, could potentially replace the role of the judiciary. The Supreme Court, in response to this concern, emphasized that such a scenario would violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
According to the Court, when Parliament enacts legislation to transfer judicial power to these tribunals, it must ensure that these newly created courts or tribunals possess the essential characteristics and standards of the courts they are intended to substitute. In other words, the tribunals should have the necessary attributes to fulfill their quasi-judicial functions effectively.
The Court further emphasized that tribunals cannot completely substitute the High Courts in their appellate jurisdiction, particularly when it involves deciding substantial questions of law. This means that while tribunals can handle specific types of cases and perform certain adjudicatory functions, they cannot entirely replace the authority of the High Courts in matters concerning significant legal issues.
In a concurring judgment, Justice Nariman specifically pointed out that the statute empowering the National Tax Tribunal (NTT) granted it the power to establish legal principles binding on all authorities and tribunals. This encroachment on the jurisdiction of High Courts to decide substantial questions of law, which would have a binding effect on all tribunals, was deemed incompatible with the constitutional framework.
To conclude
The Indian judiciary is organized in a hierarchical structure with different levels of courts, each having distinct powers and jurisdictions. The hierarchy of indian judicial structure begins with the Supreme Court, followed by the High Courts at the state level, and the District Courts at the district level.
Each court exercises specific powers within its civil and criminal jurisdictions. Certain jurisdictions are exclusive to a particular court, such as the Supreme Court’s authority to entertain Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) under Article 136 and its advisory jurisdiction under Article 143. However, there are also jurisdictions that are shared by both the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
In addition to the traditional courts, there are quasi-judicial bodies known as tribunals. These tribunals are established through constitutional and statutory provisions and possess some characteristics of a court. However, they cannot deprive the High Courts of their jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, which provide the High Courts with the power of writ jurisdiction.
While there are other judicial bodies in the Indian legal system, such as Lok Adalats (people’s courts) and Nyaya Panchayats (village courts), the focus of this discussion is to explain the unitary judicial structure encompassing the Supreme Court, High Courts, and District Courts.
Leave a Reply