IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

The promulgation of Regulating Act of 1773 by the King of England paved the way for establishment of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta.

The Letters of Patent was issued on 26 March 1774 to establish the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta, as a Court of Record, with full power & authority to hear and determine all complaints for any crimes and also to entertain, hear and determine any suits or actions against any of His Majesty's subjects in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. The Supreme Courts at Madras and Bombay was established by King George – III on 26 December 1800 and on 8 December 1823 respectively.

Subsequently, the India High Courts Act 1861 was enacted to create High Courts for various provinces and abolished Supreme Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and also the Sadar Adalats in Presidency towns. These High Courts had the distinction of being the highest Courts for all cases till the creation of Federal Court of India under the Government of India Act 1935. The Federal Court had jurisdiction to solve disputes between provinces and federal states and hear appeal against Judgments from High Courts. After India attained independence in 1947, the Constitution of India came into being on 26 January 1950. The Supreme Court of India also came into existence and its first sitting was held on 28 January 1950.

The Supreme Court of India has Original, Appellate and Advisory Jurisdiction. Itsexclusive original jurisdiction extends to any legaldispute between the Government of India and oneor more States; or between the Government of Indiaand any State; or States on one side and one or moreStates on the other; or between two or more States.The Supreme Court also has an appellatejurisdiction over all Courts and Tribunals in India. Ithas discretion to grant special leave to appeal underArticle 136 of the Constitution from any judgment,decree, determination, sentence or order in any causeor matter passed or made by any Court or Tribunal inthe territory of India.

The Supreme Court has special advisory jurisdiction in matters which may specifically be referred to it by the President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution.

I. JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Original Jurisdiction: Article 131 provides that theSupreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have originaljurisdiction in any dispute -

(1) between the Government of India and one or more states, or
(2) between the Government of India and any State or States on the one side and one or more States on the other
(3) Between two or more States. Such disputes cannot be taken to any other Court of Law in India.

The disputes relating to the election of the President andVice-President are also included in the original jurisdiction of the SupremeCourt.

The Supreme Court is the protector of the Fundamental rightsof the citizens. So, the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to entertain anapplication under Article 32 for the issue of constitutional writs in theform of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo-warranto andCertiorari for the enforcement of Fundamental rights. Any disputesregarding these rights come within the original jurisdiction of theSupreme Court; in this respect, the State High Courts, too, have beengiven same powers.

There are certain limitations to the Supreme Court's originaljurisdiction, The original jurisdiction does not extend to a dispute arisingout of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or othersimilar instruments executed before the commencement of theConstitution of India. Even in respect of the Fundamental Rights, only thelegal aspects are within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. It has nothing tosay about the administrative or political disputes.

Appellate Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court, as the highest court ofappeal enjoys three kinds of appellate powers – ConstitutionalAppeals, Appeals regarding civil cases, Appeals regarding criminalcases.

Constitutional Appeals: Article 132 provides that an appeal shalllie to the Supreme Court, from any judgment, decree or final orderof a High Court; whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding ifthe High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial questionof law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. The SupremeCourt may grant special leave of appeal even if the High Courtrefuses to issue such a certificate.

Civil Appeals: An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court if theHigh Court certifies
(i) that the case involves substantial question of law,
(ii) That in the opinion of the High Court the case needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Criminal Appeals: According to Article 134(1) an appeal shall liein the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence ina criminal proceeding of a High Court if the latter (a) has an appealreversed an order of acquital of an accused person and sentencedhim to death; or (b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any casefrom a subordinate court and has in such trial convicted theaccused person and sentenced him to death, or (c) has certifiedthat the case is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Parliamentmay also confer by law, on the Supreme Court, power to entertainand hear appeals on other cases decided by the High Courts.Again under Article 136, the Supreme Court may grant leaveto appeal against any judgment, decree etc. passed by any courtor tribunal other than by courts or tribunals constituted under anylaw relating to the Armed Forces. No appeal, however, shall lie tothe Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of asingle - Judge Bench of a High Court.

Public Interest Litigation

Beginning with the first few instances in the late-1970's, the category of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has come to be associated with its own 'people-friendly' procedure. The foremost change came in the form of the dilution of the requirement of 'locus standi' for initiating proceedings. Since the intent was to ensure redressal to those who were otherwise too poor to move the courts or were unaware of their legal entitlements, the Court allowed actions to be brought on their behalf by social activists and lawyers. In numerous instances, the Court took suo moto cognizance of matters involving the abuse of prisoners, bonded laborers and inmates of mental institutions, through letters addressed to sitting judges. This practice of initiating proceedings on the basis of letters has now been streamlined and has come to be described as 'epistolary jurisdiction'.

In Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the nature of proceedings itself does not exactly fit into the accepted common-law framework of adversarial litigation. The courtroom dynamics are substantially different from ordinary civil or criminal appeals. While an adversarial environment may prevail in cases where actions are brought to highlight administrative apathy or the government's condonation of abusive practices, in most public interest-related litigation, the judges take on a far more active role in terms of posing questions to the parties as well as exploring solutions. Especially in actions seeking directions for ensuring governmental accountability or environmental protection, the orientation of the proceedings is usually more akin to collective problem-solving rather than an acrimonious contest between the counsels. Since these matters are filed straightaway at the level of the Supreme Court or the High Court, the parties do not have a meaningful opportunity to present evidence on record before the start of the court proceeding.

In matters involving complex legal considerations, the Courts also seek the services of senior counsels by appointing them as amicus curiae on a case-by-case basis.

For purposes of constitutional competence, these actions are characterized as those coming under the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of our Constitution and the various High Courts, under Article 226. The traditional extent of writ jurisdiction was of course a colonial inheritance from the British-era and the remedies that could be invoked were those of habeas corpus, quo warranto, mandamus, prohibition and certiorari. However, the Indian Courts have pushed the boundaries of constitutional remedies by evolving the concept of a 'continuing mandamus' which involves the passing of regular directions and the monitoring of their implementation by executive agencies.

Review

The Supreme Court, under Article 137, has the power to review any of its judgments or orders made by it.Review Petitions are disposed of by circulation as per listing procedures prescribed under Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. However in death sentence cases, open Court hearing has been envisaged as per the verdict in Sonu Sardar vs. Union of India with an outer limit of 30 minutes earmarked for hearing.

Curative Petitions

According to the provisions as contained in OrderXLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Court can reconsider the final Judgment/Order on aCurative Petition only on the ground which has been taken in the Review Petition, which was dismissed by circulation.

Advisory Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court’s Advisory Jurisdictionhas been discussed in Article 143 of the Constitution. Under thisArticle the President may approach the Supreme Court for adviceon questions of law or fact of public importance which may havearisen or are likely to arise. The Supreme Court may, after dueenquiry, report to the President its opinion on such matters Thomare instances of the Supreme Court having given its advice to thegovernment on many occasions.

COURT OF RECORD

The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. The first Draft Constitution of India prepared by the Constitutional Adviser under Article 108, following Section 203 of the Government of India Act, 1935, provided in its Clause 91 that the Supreme Court shall be a court of record.

Then, the second part of Article 108 says that the court shall have the power to punish for contempt of itself. Article 129 provides that the Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

The common law definition of contempt of court is: An act or omission calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice. A court of record is defined as:
1. A court whereof the acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled for a perpetual memorial and testimony, and which has power to fine and imprison for contempt of its authority.
The public have a vital stake in effective and orderly administration of justice. The Court has the duty of protecting, the interest of the community in the due administration of justice and, so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury, but, to protect and vindicate the right of the public so that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with.
In Ganga Bishan v. Jai Narain the Court emphasized that, the Constitution has left it to the judicial discretion of the Supreme Court to decide for itself the scope and limits of its jurisdiction in order to render substantial justice in matters coming before it.