What is the Supreme Court of India? The Supreme Court of India is the apex court of the country and the highest court in the integrated judicial system. Under Articles 124 to 147 in Part V, the Constitution deals with its composition, appointment of judges, independence, jurisdiction, powers and procedure. It is the final interpreter of the Constitution, the protector of Fundamental Rights, and the final court of appeal in the Indian judicial structure.
Why the Supreme Court Matters in Indian Polity
The Supreme Court is not just the highest court in a ladder of appeals. It is also a constitutional court. It decides federal disputes, enforces constitutional limits on Parliament and the executive, protects individual rights, and keeps the law uniform across the country.
That is why the Supreme Court has to be understood at two levels at the same time. It is an ordinary court in the sense that appeals come to it from lower courts. But it is also an extraordinary constitutional institution because it can issue writs under Article 32, interpret the Constitution, and exercise judicial review over laws and executive action.
Quick Facts
| Point | Quick fact |
|---|---|
| Constitutional location | Part V, Chapter IV, Articles 124 to 147 |
| Institutional position | Apex court of the integrated judicial system |
| Inauguration | 28 January 1950 |
| Present sanctioned strength | 34 judges: 1 Chief Justice of India and 33 other judges |
| Seat | Delhi under Article 130, unless another place is fixed with the required constitutional approval |
| Retirement age | 65 years |
| Minimum Constitution Bench | 5 judges under Article 145, clause 3 |
| Removal | President's order after a difficult parliamentary process under Article 124, clause 4 |
| Key original powers | Federal disputes under Article 131 and writs for Fundamental Rights under Article 32 |
| Important exam nuance | The collegium system is not written into the constitutional text; it is judicially evolved |
Historical and Constitutional Position of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India began functioning on 28 January 1950, shortly after the Constitution came into force. In the first phase, it sat in a part of the old Parliament House, and later moved into the present building in 1958. The official history of the Court is useful because it shows that the institution was not built as a routine appellate court alone; it was built as the top constitutional court of the Republic.
The Constitution originally envisaged a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and 7 other judges. Parliament later increased this number from time to time in response to the growth of litigation and constitutional work. The present sanctioned strength is 34.
The broader constitutional idea is equally important. India follows an integrated judiciary, not a dual judicial structure of the American type. That means the Supreme Court stands at the top of one unified judicial system. Its decisions bind all courts in the country, and its interpretation of the Constitution shapes the entire legal order.
Composition, Seat and Benches
Article 124, clause 1 provides for a Supreme Court consisting of the Chief Justice of India and such number of other judges as Parliament may by law prescribe. This is why the Constitution itself does not permanently fix the exact number of judges beyond the original framework.
| Aspect | Position | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Original structure | Chief Justice of India + 7 other judges | Shows that the Court's size could grow through parliamentary law. |
| Present sanctioned strength | 34 judges | This is the current legally sanctioned strength, not an immutable constitutional number. |
| Seat of the Court | Delhi | Article 130 allows another place only with the approval mechanism built into the Constitution. |
| Ordinary benches | Usually benches of 2 or 3 judges | Most regular litigation is handled this way. |
| Constitution Bench | 5 or more judges | Required where a substantial question of constitutional interpretation arises. |
Article 145, clause 3 is a very important nuance: if the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, or if a reference under Article 143 is to be heard, the bench must have at least 5 judges. This is why not every important case is automatically a Constitution Bench case, but every true Constitution Bench case must satisfy that minimum strength rule.
Article 130 also needs careful reading: the Constitution says the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, appoint from time to time. So Article 130 does not itself create permanent regional benches as an ordinary constitutional entitlement. It provides a constitutional mechanism for sittings elsewhere through the prescribed approval structure.
Appointment of Supreme Court Judges
The Constitution says that every judge of the Supreme Court is appointed by the President of India by warrant under his hand and seal after the required process of consultation. But the constitutional text and the current appointments practice are not identical things. The text provides the basic formal structure. The current practice has been shaped by later judicial decisions.
Constitutional text first: Article 124, clause 2 says the judges are appointed by the President after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as the President may deem necessary, and in the case of appointment of a judge other than the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of India must be consulted.
Current working practice next: today, the recommendations for appointment to the Supreme Court come through the collegium system. For appointment of Supreme Court judges, the collegium is the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most puisne judges of the Supreme Court.
One more important distinction: the Constitution does not expressly say that the senior-most Supreme Court judge shall become the Chief Justice of India, but that has become the accepted constitutional convention in ordinary practice.
| Stage in the appointments doctrine | Case / development | Constitutional significance |
|---|---|---|
| First Judges Case | S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 | This phase leaned more toward executive primacy in appointments. |
| Second Judges Case | Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1993 | This shifted primacy toward the judiciary and laid the foundation of the collegium system. |
| Third Judges Case | In re Presidential Reference, 1998 | This clarified that for Supreme Court appointments the collegium would be the Chief Justice of India plus the four senior-most judges. |
| NJAC phase | Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 2015 | The Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC framework, so the collegium system continued. |
The safest way to state the present position is this: the formal appointment is made by the President, but the effective recommendation process for Supreme Court appointments presently follows the collegium system as shaped by judicial decisions.
Acting Chief Justice, Ad Hoc Judges and Retired Judges
1. Acting Chief Justice under Article 126
If the office of the Chief Justice of India is vacant, or if the Chief Justice is unable to perform the duties of office, the President may appoint one of the judges of the Court to perform those duties.
2. Ad Hoc Judge under Article 127
When there is no quorum of the permanent judges available to hold or continue a sitting of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India may, with the previous consent of the President and after consultation with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, request a High Court judge qualified for appointment to the Supreme Court to sit as an ad hoc judge.
3. Attendance of Retired Judges under Article 128
The Chief Justice of India may, with the previous consent of the President, request a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a retired judge of a High Court qualified for appointment to the Supreme Court to sit and act as a judge of the Supreme Court.
Qualifications, Oath, Tenure and Service Conditions
| Aspect | Position | Nuance |
|---|---|---|
| Citizenship | Must be a citizen of India | This is the first constitutional requirement under Article 124, clause 3. |
| Judicial qualification | High Court judge for at least 5 years | The Constitution allows elevation from the High Court bench. |
| Professional qualification | Advocate of a High Court for at least 10 years | The Constitution also allows direct elevation from the Bar. |
| Third route | Distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President | This route exists in the text, though it is rarely discussed in practical appointments. |
| Oath | Before the President or a person appointed by the President | Do not reduce the position to the casual phrase that the President alone must personally administer every oath. |
| Retirement age | 65 years | There is no fixed tenure in years; actual length of service depends on age at appointment. |
| Resignation | By writing addressed to the President | This is the constitutionally specified form. |
| Post-retirement bar | Cannot plead or act in any court or before any authority within India | This is an important safeguard of judicial independence and institutional dignity. |
Article 125 also matters: the salaries, allowances, leave rights and pension-related service conditions of Supreme Court judges cannot be varied to their disadvantage after appointment, except in the exceptional constitutional situation of a Financial Emergency. This is another independence safeguard.
Removal of a Supreme Court Judge
The Constitution makes removal deliberately difficult. A judge of the Supreme Court cannot be removed by the executive acting alone, and cannot be removed by a casual legislative majority.
Grounds: only proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
Constitutional majority: each House of Parliament must support the address by: a majority of the total membership of that House, and not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting. The address must be passed in the same session of each House. Only after that may the President pass the removal order.
Statutory inquiry mechanism: under the law regulating the process, a notice for removal must be signed by at least 100 members of Lok Sabha or 50 members of Rajya Sabha. If the notice is admitted, an inquiry committee is set up. Only if the charge is found proved does the matter move forward to the parliamentary voting stage.
Committee composition also matters: under the statutory scheme, this inquiry committee ordinarily consists of a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. So the removal process is not a simple political vote from the beginning; it starts with a formal institutional inquiry.
Important distinction: removal of a Supreme Court judge should not be confused with the impeachment of the President of India. Both are difficult constitutional processes, but the grounds, wording and procedure are not the same.
Independence of the Supreme Court
Judicial independence is not one single clause. It is a constitutional design made up of several safeguards.
| Safeguard | How it works | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Security of tenure | Judge cannot be removed except through the difficult Article 124, clause 4 process | Protects judges from ordinary political pressure. |
| Protected service conditions | Salaries and service conditions cannot be varied to disadvantage after appointment | Reduces executive leverage over sitting judges. |
| Charged expenditure | Administrative expenses of the Court are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India | Strengthens financial independence. |
| Discussion bar | Conduct of judges cannot be discussed in Parliament except on a removal motion | Protects the judicial office from ordinary political attack. |
| Post-retirement practice bar | Retired Supreme Court judge cannot plead or act before any court or authority in India | Preserves institutional dignity and independence. |
| Court controls its own procedure | The Court makes rules regarding practice and procedure under Article 145 | Supports functional autonomy of the institution. |
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is best understood as a set of distinct constitutional powers, not as one vague authority. The major categories are original, writ, appellate, advisory and review jurisdiction.
| Type | Articles | Core scope |
|---|---|---|
| Original federal jurisdiction | Article 131 | Disputes between the Union and States, or among States, involving legal rights |
| Writ jurisdiction | Article 32 | Enforcement of Fundamental Rights |
| Appellate jurisdiction | Articles 132 to 136 | Constitutional, civil, criminal and special leave appeals |
| Advisory jurisdiction | Article 143 | Presidential reference on questions of law or fact of public importance |
| Review jurisdiction | Article 137 | Review of its own judgments or orders |
| Transfer jurisdiction | Article 139A | Transfer or withdrawal of cases involving the same substantial question of law |
Original Jurisdiction Under Article 131
This is the federal original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It applies to disputes between the Government of India and one or more States, or between States, if the dispute involves a question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
Important nuances: this is an exclusive jurisdiction. Also, not every dispute involving a State comes under Article 131. Private parties are not part of this federal jurisdiction merely because the dispute has public importance. The dispute must fit the constitutional structure of Article 131.
One more textual nuance: Article 131 contains a proviso excluding certain disputes arising out of pre-Constitution treaties, agreements, covenants, engagements, sanads or similar instruments that continue in operation after the commencement of the Constitution, or that themselves exclude this jurisdiction.
Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 32
Article 32 allows a person to move the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The Court may issue directions, orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari.
The central point is this: Article 32 is not just a procedural route. It is itself a Fundamental Right. That is why the Supreme Court is often described as the guarantor of Fundamental Rights.
Public Interest Litigation under Article 32
The Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction also became the constitutional basis for Public Interest Litigation. In appropriate matters involving public injury, public wrong, bonded labour, prison conditions, environmental injury, or denial of rights to disadvantaged sections, the Court relaxed the old rule that only a directly aggrieved person could approach it.
What changed in practical terms: a public-spirited person or organisation may in an appropriate case move the Court where those actually affected are unable to do so because of poverty, social disadvantage, disability, detention or other serious barriers.
One more nuance: the Supreme Court's own jurisdiction material notes that in this field letters, telegrams, postcards and even newspaper reports have at times been treated as writ petitions. This widening of access is often described as epistolary jurisdiction.
| Point of comparison | Article 32 | Article 226 |
|---|---|---|
| Which court? | Supreme Court | High Court |
| Purpose | Enforcement of Fundamental Rights | Enforcement of Fundamental Rights and other legal rights |
| Constitutional status | It is itself a Fundamental Right | It is a constitutional power of the High Court, not itself a Fundamental Right |
| Territorial reach | National court | Within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, subject to cause-of-action rules |
| Relative width | Narrower in subject-matter | Wider because it extends beyond Fundamental Rights |
Appellate Jurisdiction Under Articles 132 to 136
The Supreme Court is the final appellate court of the country. But even here, the appellate structure has internal distinctions that should not be mixed up.
1. Constitutional appeals
Under Article 132, appeals lie in cases involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, subject to the certificate structure.
2. Civil appeals
Under Article 133, a civil appeal lies where the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance and that the question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
3. Criminal appeals
Under Article 134, the Constitution provides specified routes for criminal appeals, and Article 134A deals with the certificate mechanism.
4. Special Leave Petition under Article 136
Article 136 gives the Supreme Court a very wide discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India, subject to the constitutional exception.
Important nuance: Article 136 is not an ordinary appeal as of right. It is an extraordinary discretionary power.
Constitutional exception: Article 136 does not extend to any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
Advisory Jurisdiction Under Article 143
The President of India may refer to the Supreme Court a question of law or fact of public importance. The Court may report its opinion to the President.
Important nuance: an advisory opinion under Article 143 is not the same as an ordinary binding judgment in adversarial litigation. The reference comes from the President, and the opinion is advisory in nature.
Review, Curative and Transfer Powers
Under Article 137, the Supreme Court may review its own judgments or orders. This is not a fresh appeal. It is a limited constitutional power exercised under the Court's rules and settled standards.
The Court's official jurisdiction material also notes that after dismissal of a review petition, a curative petition may lie only on very limited grounds under the Supreme Court Rules. This is an exceptional corrective device, not a routine second review.
Under Article 139A, the Supreme Court may transfer or withdraw certain cases involving the same or substantially the same substantial question of law. This power helps maintain uniformity in important legal questions.
Powers of the Supreme Court Beyond Basic Jurisdiction
| Power | Article | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Court of Record | Article 129 | The Court's records have evidentiary value, and it can punish for contempt of itself. |
| Further jurisdiction by law | Article 138 | Parliament may enlarge the Court's jurisdiction in the constitutionally permitted field. |
| Supplementary powers | Article 140 | Parliament may confer powers needed for more effective exercise of jurisdiction. |
| Law declared binding | Article 141 | The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India. |
| Complete justice | Article 142 | The Court may pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in a pending cause or matter. |
| Authorities must act in aid | Article 144 | All civil and judicial authorities in India must act in aid of the Supreme Court. |
| Power to frame rules | Article 145 | The Court regulates its own practice and procedure, subject to the constitutional scheme. |
| Administrative control and expenses | Article 146 | The Court has its own officers and servants, and its administrative expenses are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. |
These powers show that the Supreme Court is not only a forum where disputes are heard and decided. It is also a precedent-setting court, a constitutional-remedy court, a contempt court, and an institution with protected procedural and administrative autonomy.
1. Court of Record under Article 129
The expression court of record means more than record-keeping. The records of the Supreme Court carry evidentiary authority, and the Court also has the power to punish for contempt of itself.
Why this matters: the point is institutional authority. The Court must be able to protect the administration of justice and the authority of its proceedings.
2. Law Declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141
Article 141 says that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India. This is what gives the Court its central precedent-setting role in the Indian legal system.
Important nuance: the constitutional focus is on the law declared by the Court. That is why the doctrine of precedent is tied to clarity, certainty and consistency in legal principle, not merely to repetition of words from judgments.
3. Complete Justice under Article 142
Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. This is one of the broadest constitutional remedial powers available to the Court.
Two points should be remembered together: first, the power is real and wide. Second, it is still a judicial power exercised in a pending cause or matter. It is not a free-floating authority to act outside the constitutional framework.
Article 142, clause 2 adds another dimension: subject to parliamentary law, the Court may secure attendance, discovery or production of documents, and may investigate or punish contempt of itself.
4. Articles 144, 145 and 146 Read Together
Article 144 requires all civil and judicial authorities in India to act in aid of the Supreme Court. Article 145 allows the Court to frame rules regarding practice and procedure. Article 146 gives the Court institutional control over its staff structure and protects its administrative expenses by charging them on the Consolidated Fund of India.
Why this matters: the Supreme Court must not be understood as a body that only pronounces judgments. The Constitution also equips it with the authority, internal procedure and institutional support needed to function effectively.
Judicial Review, Constitutional Interpretation and Basic Structure
The Supreme Court is a central institution of judicial review. It examines whether laws and executive action are consistent with the Constitution. This power does not come from one article alone. It flows from the larger constitutional scheme, especially the Fundamental Rights chapter, writ jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction, and the Court's role as final constitutional interpreter.
Basic Structure Doctrine in Simple Terms
The basic structure doctrine means that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is very wide, but it is not a power to alter the identity of the Constitution itself. The Constitution can be amended, but its foundational framework cannot be damaged or destroyed.
This doctrine was evolved in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973. The Court did not deny the amending power. Instead, it placed a substantive limit on that power. That is why the correct understanding is not that amendments are forbidden, but that amendments cannot cross the constitutional line where the Constitution loses its basic character.
The doctrine is also not written into one separate article. It is a judicially evolved limitation drawn from the structure, spirit and scheme of the Constitution as a whole.
Why there is no fixed exhaustive list
The Court did not produce one final closed catalogue of basic features for all future time. That was deliberate. Different amendments may threaten different foundational features. So the doctrine works through constitutional interpretation on a case-by-case basis rather than through a mechanical checklist.
Features repeatedly recognised in case law
The list is not closed, but the Court has repeatedly treated features such as the supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic government, secularism, federalism, separation of powers, rule of law, judicial review, independence of the judiciary, parliamentary democracy, free and fair elections, and harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as belonging to the basic constitutional framework.
How this doctrine relates to ordinary laws
Its clearest and primary field is constitutional amendment. When an ordinary statute is challenged, the Court normally traces the invalidity to specific constitutional limitations such as legislative competence, Fundamental Rights, federal limitations, secularism-related provisions, or independence of the judiciary. So the basic structure doctrine should not be treated as if it were a separate stand-alone article. It is a constitutional principle emerging from several provisions read together.
What Judicial Review Actually Covers
| What is being reviewed? | What the Court checks | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Ordinary legislation | Legislative competence, consistency with Fundamental Rights, and compliance with other constitutional limitations | The Court checks whether Parliament or a State Legislature has acted within constitutional boundaries. |
| Executive and administrative action | Legality, constitutionality and conformity with constitutional safeguards | Executive action must also remain within the Constitution and the law. |
| Delegated legislation | Whether rules, regulations and subordinate measures stay within the parent statute and the Constitution | This prevents the executive from exceeding power given by Parliament. |
| Constitutional amendments | Whether the amendment damages or destroys the basic structure of the Constitution | This is why even the amending power is not unlimited. |
One important restraint should also be understood: judicial review does not mean that the Court substitutes its policy preference for that of the legislature or executive in every matter. The Court examines constitutionality, legality and constitutional limits. It does not sit as a general political supervisor over all matters of governance.
Important Doctrines Used in Constitutional Adjudication
1. Doctrine of Pith and Substance
This doctrine is used mainly in questions of legislative competence. The Court examines the true nature, real character and dominant object of the law. If, in pith and substance, the law falls within the competence of the legislature that enacted it, it is not invalid merely because it incidentally touches a subject assigned to another legislature.
2. Doctrine of Colourable Legislation
This doctrine asks whether the legislature has done indirectly what it cannot do directly. The issue here is not political motive in a loose sense, but constitutional competence. If the legislature lacks power, it cannot save the law by clever drafting or by disguising its real effect.
3. Incidental Encroachment and Harmonious Construction
When entries or constitutional provisions appear to overlap, the Court first tries to reconcile them. A small or incidental encroachment does not automatically invalidate a law. The Court reads the competing provisions harmoniously so that each is given effect as far as possible.
4. Doctrine of Severability
If only one part of a law is unconstitutional, the Court asks whether that defective part can be separated from the valid part. If the invalid portion is severable and the rest can still function sensibly, the valid remainder may survive.
5. Doctrine of Eclipse
This doctrine is especially important in relation to pre-Constitution laws under Article 13. A pre- Constitution law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is not treated as wiped out for all purposes. It is overshadowed to the extent of inconsistency. If the constitutional bar is later removed, the law may revive in that limited sense.
6. Reading Down
Where possible, the Court may interpret a provision narrowly so that it remains within constitutional bounds instead of striking it down immediately. This technique is used to preserve legislation when a constitutionally acceptable meaning is reasonably available.
Case Line of Judicial Review
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973
This case is central because it established that the Constitution can be amended, but its basic structure cannot be destroyed. From that point onward, constitutional amendments themselves became reviewable on the basic-structure standard. It is the source case for the doctrine and the reason Article 368 is understood as a wide but limited amending power.
2. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980
This case reinforced the idea that limited amending power is itself a constitutional principle. It also emphasised that judicial review and constitutional balance cannot be removed by simply enlarging the amending power in absolute terms. It is also important for the proposition that the Constitution works through harmony between liberty and social justice, not through destruction of one part by another.
3. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997
This is a very important case for examination purposes because it held that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32 is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution forming part of its basic structure.
Practical consequence: tribunals may perform a supplementary role, but they cannot replace the constitutional review jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
4. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007
This case reaffirmed that judicial review is part of the basic structure and made it clear that the power to amend the Constitution cannot be treated as equivalent to the power to frame a new Constitution. It is also important in the Ninth Schedule context because post-Kesavananda protection cannot be used to place laws completely beyond constitutional scrutiny.
This is also why the Supreme Court is closely linked to the basic structure doctrine. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973, the Court held that Parliament's amending power is very wide but not unlimited. The Constitution can be amended, but its basic structure cannot be destroyed.
Do not confuse two things here: ordinary judicial review of laws and the basic structure doctrine are related, but they are not identical. Judicial review is the broader power of constitutional scrutiny. Basic structure is a specific limit on the amending power of Parliament.
The Court's real question in a basic-structure challenge is not whether any amendment is impossible. The question is whether the amendment merely changes the Constitution or whether it so seriously damages a foundational feature that the Constitution loses its identity. That is why the doctrine is about constitutional preservation, not constitutional immobility.
A second distinction is also important: judicial review is not the same as appellate jurisdiction. In an appeal, the Court re-examines a judicial decision coming from below under the applicable appellate route. In judicial review, the Court tests the constitutional validity of law or state action on the touchstone of the Constitution.
For UPSC Prelims and Mains
For UPSC Prelims and Mains
For UPSC Prelims
- Articles 124 to 147 deal with the Supreme Court.
- Present sanctioned strength is 34, but the Constitution did not permanently fix that number.
- Retirement age of Supreme Court judges is 65 years.
- Article 32 is for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
- Article 131 is exclusive federal original jurisdiction.
- Article 136 is discretionary special leave, not ordinary appeal as of right.
- Article 129 = Court of Record; Article 141 = law declared binding; Article 142 = complete justice.
- Removal majority is majority of total membership + two-thirds of members present and voting.
- The collegium is judicially evolved, not expressly written into the Constitution.
For UPSC Mains
- Present the Supreme Court as both apex court and constitutional court.
- When writing on rights, connect the Court with Article 32 and Fundamental Rights.
- When writing on institutions, connect the Court with Parliament on appointments, removal and judicial review.
- Use the appointment section to distinguish constitutional text from the collegium doctrine.
- Use Article 32 vs Article 226 whenever the question touches constitutional remedies.
- Use basic structure doctrine to explain why the Court matters in constitutional limitation.
- Where relevant, link judicial review to the balance among the President, Parliament and the courts.
UPSC Previous Year Questions (Selected)
Q1. The Supreme Court of India derives its power of judicial review from:
A. Article 32 alone
B. Article 13 alone
C. The constitutional scheme as a whole
D. Ordinary law made by Parliament
Answer: C. Judicial review is rooted in the constitutional scheme and cannot be reduced to a single article.
Q2. Under the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 32 is meant primarily for:
A. Enforcement of legal rights in general
B. Enforcement of Fundamental Rights
C. Advisory opinion to
the President
D. Election disputes only
Answer: B. Article 32 is specifically for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Q3. A dispute between the Union and a State involving a legal right falls under the Supreme Court's:
A. Advisory jurisdiction
B. Appellate jurisdiction
C. Original jurisdiction
D. Review jurisdiction
Answer: C. This is the federal original jurisdiction under Article 131.
Practice MCQs
- Which of the following is correct about the Supreme Court of India?
A. It is part of a dual judicial system
B. It stands at the apex of the integrated judicial system
C. It can hear only constitutional disputes
D. It has no original jurisdiction - The present sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court is:
A. 31
B. 32
C. 34
D. 36 - Which Article deals with the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Union-State disputes?
A. Article 32
B. Article 131
C. Article 136
D. Article 143 - The collegium system in relation to Supreme Court appointments is:
A. expressly written in Article 124
B. created by ordinary law of Parliament
C. judicially evolved through constitutional cases
D. provided by the 42nd Amendment - Which of the following is correct about Article 136?
A. It creates an appeal as of right in all civil cases
B. It gives the Supreme Court discretionary special leave jurisdiction
C. It applies only to High Courts and never to tribunals
D. It is the Article on advisory jurisdiction - A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court must have at least:
A. 3 judges
B. 4 judges
C. 5 judges
D. 7 judges - Which statement is correct?
A. Article 32 and Article 226 are identical in scope
B. Article 32 is only for legal rights other than Fundamental Rights
C. Article 226 is wider in subject-matter than Article 32
D. High Courts cannot issue writs of habeas corpus - A retired judge of the Supreme Court:
A. may freely practise in any High Court
B. may plead in tribunals but not in courts
C. cannot plead or act in any court or before any authority within India
D. can practise only in the Supreme Court
View Answer Key
1. B | 2. C | 3. B | 4. C | 5. B | 6. C | 7. C | 8. C
Related Topics
- Parliament of India
- President of India
- Fundamental Rights
- Basic Structure Doctrine
- Governor of State
- Directive Principles of State Policy
Frequently Asked Questions
Which Articles deal with the Supreme Court of India?
Articles 124 to 147 in Part V deal specifically with the Supreme Court of India.
Is Article 32 itself a Fundamental Right?
Yes. Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right because it guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
What is the difference between Article 32 and Article 226?
Article 32 is available for enforcement of Fundamental Rights before the Supreme Court. Article 226 is wider because High Courts may issue writs for Fundamental Rights and for other legal rights also.
What is the difference between Article 131 and Article 32?
Article 131 is the Supreme Court's exclusive federal original jurisdiction in Union-State or State-State disputes involving legal rights. Article 32 is for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Can the Supreme Court sit outside Delhi?
Yes, but only through the mechanism in Article 130. The Court ordinarily sits in Delhi, and sittings elsewhere require appointment of that place by the Chief Justice of India with the approval of the President.
What is a Constitution Bench?
It is a bench of at least 5 judges of the Supreme Court constituted for cases involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation or a reference under Article 143.
Is the collegium mentioned in the Constitution?
No. The Constitution provides the formal appointment structure in Article 124. The collegium system is a judicially evolved mechanism shaped by the Judges Cases.
What is special leave petition under Article 136?
It is an extraordinary discretionary power by which the Supreme Court may grant leave to appeal from a wide range of judicial or tribunal decisions. It is not an ordinary appeal as of right, and Article 136 does not extend to courts or tribunals constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces.
What is Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court?
It is the use of the Court's constitutional jurisdiction, especially Article 32, by a public-spirited person or body in matters involving public injury or violation of the rights of disadvantaged sections. It reflects relaxation of strict locus standi in appropriate cases.
What does Article 141 mean in simple terms?
It means the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India. This gives the Court its central precedent-setting role in the judicial system.
What does Article 142 mean in simple terms?
It means the Supreme Court may pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in a cause or matter pending before it. The power is broad, but it is still a judicial power exercised within the constitutional framework.
Is there a fixed list of basic structure features?
No. There is no final closed list. The Court has identified basic features over time through different cases, depending on the nature of the constitutional change under challenge.
Can the Supreme Court review a constitutional amendment?
Yes. After the basic-structure doctrine, a constitutional amendment may be reviewed to see whether it damages or destroys the basic structure of the Constitution.
Can an ordinary law be challenged in the same way as a constitutional amendment under the basic structure doctrine?
Not in the same way. The clearest application of the doctrine is to constitutional amendments. In ordinary legislation, the Court usually identifies the specific constitutional provisions or limitations that have been violated, such as legislative competence, Fundamental Rights, or other constitutional restraints.
Can the President's advisory reference under Article 143 bind the Court like ordinary litigation?
No. The Court gives an advisory opinion under Article 143. It does not function in the same way as an ordinary binding adversarial judgment.
How is a judge of the Supreme Court removed?
A Supreme Court judge can be removed only for proved misbehaviour or incapacity, through the difficult constitutional process requiring special voting support in both Houses of Parliament, followed by the President's removal order.
Can a retired Supreme Court judge practise in Indian courts?
No. A person who has held office as a judge of the Supreme Court cannot plead or act in any court or before any authority within the territory of India.