These Constitutional Law Unit III class notes LL.B provide an in-depth study guide on the judicial process, court hierarchy, judicial review powers, and Supreme Court jurisdictions under the Constitution of India. The judicial branch serves as the ultimate custodian of the Constitution, exercising judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 to protect fundamental rights and maintain constitutional supremacy against legislative and executive excesses. Through landmark rulings on the appointment and transfer of Supreme Court judges, expansive constitutional jurisdictions, and the evolution of Public Interest Litigation and judicial activism in India, the judiciary ensures democratic accountability and accessible justice for all citizens.
Judicial Process and Nature of Judicial Review
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any legislative enactment or administrative action that runs contrary to constitutional mandates is void. Judicial review is the power exercised by superior courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative statutes, executive actions, administrative decisions, and quasi-judicial orders.
The doctrine of judicial review originated in the United States in the historic decision of Marbury v. Madison (1803), where Chief Justice John Marshall established that courts possess an inherent authority to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution. In India, the power of judicial review is explicitly anchored in constitutional text, particularly Articles 13, 32, 136, 226, and 227.
In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1125), a seven-judge Constitution Bench held that the power of judicial review vested in the Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 constitutes an integral and essential part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Consequently, this power cannot be abrogated, curtailed, or excluded even by a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
Judicial review serves two primary constitutional functions:
- Legitimizing State Action: Affirming the constitutional validity of legitimate executive policies and legislative measures enacted for public welfare.
- Protecting Fundamental Rights: Restraining governmental encroachment on constitutional liberties and preventing arbitrary exercises of state power.
Hierarchy and Structure of the Indian Judicial System
India maintains a single integrated judicial hierarchy headed by the Supreme Court, ensuring uniformity in the administration of civil, criminal, and constitutional laws throughout the territory of India. The court structure comprises:
- Supreme Court of India: The apex constitutional court established under Article 124, exercising country-wide jurisdiction and supervisory authority.
- High Courts: Constitutional courts of record in each State and Union Territory established under Article 214, exercising wide original, appellate, and supervisory powers under Articles 226 and 227.
- District and Sessions Courts: The principal civil and criminal courts of original jurisdiction at the district level, presided over by District Judges and Sessions Judges.
- Subordinate Judiciary: Subordinate Judges, Senior Civil Judges, Munsif Courts, and Magistrates (Chief Judicial Magistrates, Metropolitan Magistrates, and Judicial Magistrates of First and Second Class).
Independence of the Judiciary, Composition, and Qualification of Judges
To ensure that judges discharge their constitutional duties without executive pressure or legislative interference, the Constitution provides several institutional safeguards:
- Security of tenure, with retirement ages fixed at 65 years for Supreme Court judges and 62 years for High Court judges.
- Rigorous removal process through parliamentary impeachment on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity under Article 124(4) and Article 124(5), requiring a special majority in both Houses of Parliament.
- Salaries, allowances, and administrative expenses charged directly on the Consolidated Fund of India, immune from annual parliamentary voting.
- Prohibition on discussing the judicial conduct of judges in Parliament or State Legislatures, except during impeachment proceedings under Article 121 and Article 211.
- Immunity from civil and criminal liability for judicial actions performed in good faith in the discharge of official duties.
- Restriction on post-retirement practice: Supreme Court judges are barred from pleading before any court or authority in India under Article 124(7).
Composition and Qualification of Supreme Court Judges
Under Article 124(1), the Supreme Court initially consisted of the Chief Justice and seven puisne judges. Parliament has progressively increased the sanctioned judicial strength through statutory amendments to meet growing case dockets. To qualify for appointment as a Supreme Court judge, a person must be a citizen of India and satisfy one of the following criteria:
- Must have served as a Judge of a High Court (or of two or more such Courts in succession) for at least five consecutive years; or
- Must have practiced as an Advocate of a High Court (or of two or more such Courts in succession) for at least ten consecutive years; or
- Must be, in the opinion of the President of India, a distinguished jurist.
Appointment and Transfer of Judges: Evolution of the Collegium System
The procedure for the appointment and transfer of Supreme Court judges evolved through a series of landmark judicial interpretations known as the Judges Cases:
The First Judges Case: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149), the Supreme Court held that the word 'consultation' in Articles 124(2) and 217(1) did not mean 'concurrence'. The ultimate power of appointment rested with the executive government, and the President was not bound to follow the advice of the Chief Justice of India, provided the consultation was full and effective.
The Second Judges Case: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (1993)
In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441, a nine-judge Constitution Bench overruled S.P. Gupta. The Court held that the Chief Justice of India holds primacy in judicial appointments. The CJI must form an opinion in consultation with two senior-most colleagues, creating the foundation of the Collegium system to safeguard judicial independence from executive dominance.
The Third Judges Case: Special Reference No. 1 of 1998
In response to a presidential reference under Article 143, the Supreme Court clarified the consultation process and collegium composition:
- The Chief Justice of India must consult a collegium of four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court for appointments to the apex court.
- Recommendations require consensus; if two or more collegium members express adverse views, the CJI must not send the recommendation to the government.
- For High Court transfers under Article 222, the CJI must consult the collegium of four senior-most judges along with the Chief Justices of both High Courts involved.
- For High Court judicial appointments, the CJI consults two senior-most Supreme Court judges alongside the State High Court collegium.
The Fourth Judges Case: National Judicial Appointments Commission (2015)
Parliament enacted the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act to replace the collegium with a commission including the Union Law Minister and eminent persons. In 2015, a five-judge bench struck down the 99th Amendment as unconstitutional, ruling that executive involvement in judicial selections violated the basic structure doctrine regarding judicial independence.
Scope and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India
The constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India is remarkably broad, spanning original, appellate, advisory, supervisory, and review powers under Articles 129 through 143 of the Constitution.
Court of Record and Contempt Powers (Article 129)
Under Article 129, the Supreme Court is a court of record whose proceedings and decisions carry permanent evidentiary value. The Court possesses inherent power to punish for contempt of itself. In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC 406, the apex court affirmed that its contempt jurisdiction extends to protecting subordinate courts across the country.
Original Federal Jurisdiction (Article 131)
Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction in legal disputes between:
- The Government of India and one or more States.
- The Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other.
- Two or more States inter se.
The dispute must involve a question of legal right, not a purely political disagreement. In State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1978), the Court confirmed that a suit by a State challenging a central commission of inquiry was maintainable under Article 131.
Appellate Jurisdiction (Articles 132, 133, 134, and 136)
The Supreme Court serves as the highest appellate tribunal in India:
- Constitutional Appeals (Article 132): Appeals against High Court judgments involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.
- Civil Appeals (Article 133): Appeals in civil proceedings where the High Court certifies under Article 134A that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance needing Supreme Court resolution.
- Criminal Appeals (Article 134): Appeals in criminal cases where a High Court has reversed an acquittal and sentenced an accused to death, or certified the case as fit for appeal.
- Special Leave Petitions (Article 136): An extraordinary discretionary power allowing the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed by any court or tribunal in India (except armed forces tribunals).
- Complete Justice Power (Article 142): The Supreme Court may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
- Curative Petition Jurisdiction: Formulated in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388, curative petitions enable the Court to reconsider final judgments to prevent abuse of process and gross miscarriage of justice.
Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143)
Under Article 143, the President may refer questions of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion. In In Re Kerala Education Bill (1958), the Court clarified that the word 'may' indicates the Court is not bound to answer if there are valid reasons to decline. In In Re Special Courts Bill (1978), the Court held that opinions delivered under Article 143 are binding on all lower courts. In the Ayodhya Reference (1994), the Court declined to answer a historical dispute deemed inappropriate for advisory opinion.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Epistolary Jurisdiction
Pioneered by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Public Interest Litigation modified traditional rules of locus standi. In conventional litigation, only a person whose legal right was directly infringed could approach the court. In PIL, any public-spirited citizen or organisation acting in good faith can initiate proceedings on behalf of marginalized, impoverished, or disadvantaged groups unable to access justice.
Under epistolary jurisdiction, the Supreme Court treats informal letters, telegrams, or newspaper reports as writ petitions under Article 32 to address bonded labour (Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India), undertrial detention (Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar), custodial violence (DK Basu v. State of West Bengal), and environmental degradation (MC Mehta v. Union of India).
Judicial Activism versus Judicial Restraint
Judicial Activism occurs when courts step in to compel administrative action, enforce positive constitutional duties, or fill statutory vacuums created by executive inaction or legislative delay. Notable examples include the formulation of the Vishaka Guidelines on workplace sexual harassment and continuing mandamus in environmental protection cases.
Judicial Restraint is the counter-balancing doctrine where judges defer to legislative wisdom and executive expertise, particularly in economic policies, fiscal planning, and complex administrative decisions. The judiciary exercises self-restraint by refraining from striking down socio-economic legislation unless it is manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional.
Summary for LL.B Examination Preparation
Understanding Unit III requires mastering the constitutional balance between judicial independence, review powers, and separation of powers. Law students should focus on the procedural mechanisms of Articles 32 and 226, the jurisdictional scope of Articles 129 through 143, the evolution of the Collegium system, and the transformative impact of Public Interest Litigation on Indian democracy.