Supreme Court of India
- Date:
- 1950 - present
When was the Supreme Court of India inaugurated?
What is the collegium system of judicial appointments in India?
What is the process for impeaching a Supreme Court judge in India?
What types of jurisdiction does the Supreme Court of India have?
News •
Supreme Court of India, final court of appeal and highest judicial authority in India. Located in New Delhi, the court heads the judicial branch of the Government of India and is independent of the executive and legislative branches. It has broad judicial powers, including the ability to transfer or take over cases from high courts (courts with state-level jurisdiction) and other lower courts and review laws and constitutional amendments passed by the Indian Parliament to ensure that they comply with the Constitution of India. Its autonomy and the wide scope of its judicial authority have led scholars to evaluate it as being one of the most powerful courts in the world.
History
In terms of powers, authority, and explicit constitutional provision, the Supreme Court of India succeeded an older institution called the Federal Court of India, which had been established in 1937 under the Government of India Act of 1935, during British colonial rule. Established to address disputes between British Indian provinces and the central government, it had original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction (see “Types of jurisdiction” below). However, it was not the highest court of appeal, as its rulings could be challenged in the Privy Council in Britain.
The Supreme Court of India was inaugurated on January 28, 1950, two days after the Indian Constitution went into effect. Part 5, chapter 4, of the Constitution defines the provisions for the Supreme Court in Articles 124–147. The Supreme Court not only replaced the Federal Court but also expanded on its jurisdiction by taking over appellate functions from the Privy Council. Sir Harilal Jekisundas Kania, the last chief justice of the Federal Court, became the first chief justice of India (CJI)—the principal judge of the Supreme Court.
Composition, appointments, and impeachment
The Supreme Court consists of the CJI and, as of 2019, up to 33 other judges (this number can be revised through parliamentary legislation). The seniormost judge by number of years of service is almost always appointed CJI if they are fit to serve. This practice was followed as a broad convention before 1993 and became a rule commonly known as the seniority principle after the second Judges case . The CJI is appointed by the president of India. Appointments of other judges to the Supreme Court are recommended by the CJI to the central government’s minister of law and formally approved by the president. However, the Supreme Court collegium—the CJI and a group of other senior Supreme Court judges—holds more authority over appointments than the executive (the president, the prime minister, and the council of ministers).
Evolution of the collegium system
The collegium system evolved through what are popularly known as the three Judges cases. The first Judges case (1981) upheld executive authority in judicial appointments. However, continuing concerns over political interference in court appointments led to the second Judges case (1993), which established the collegium system, shifting appointment power to the CJI and two other senior judges.
In 2015 the Supreme Court heard a petition regarding the constitutionality of the Ninety-ninth Amendment to the Constitution, which established the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). This commission was intended to replace the collegium as the authority for appointments and transfers of judges. But the Supreme Court struck down the amendment, because it challenged the independence of the judiciary.
In 1998 the third Judges “case” (actually an opinion delivered by the Supreme Court in response to the president’s query to clarify the functioning of the collegium) expanded the collegium to five judges—the CJI and the four seniormost Supreme Court judges. This collegium decides on Supreme Court appointments. In contrast, the CJI and the two seniormost Supreme Court judges give final approval to high court appointments, which are first recommended by another collegium of the relevant high court comprising its chief justice and two other seniormost judges. The executive may request reconsideration of candidates but may not reject an appointment if the collegium reiterates it. This system has ensured judicial independence in appointments.
Eligibility and appointment
To be considered for a Supreme Court judgeship, a potential candidate must be an Indian citizen no older than 65 years and must have served as a high court judge for at least 5 years or have been an advocate (a lawyer enrolled with a state bar council and certified to represent clients in court) practicing at high courts for at least 10 years. An individual the president considers to be a distinguished jurist may also be considered for a Supreme Court judgeship, but no such appointment has been made in the court’s history. Retired judges of the Supreme Court or of a high court may be appointed as Supreme Court judges for a limited period.
Although high court advocates are eligible for elevation to the Supreme Court, seniority norms usually restrict consideration to high court chief justices and judges. However, a few advocates have been elevated directly from the bar (professional body of lawyers) to the Supreme Court. Sarv Mittra Sikri and Uday Umesh Lalit were elevated to Supreme Court judgeships while serving as advocates, and they went on to become the only two CJIs (as of 2025) who had never served as high court judges.
Judicial appointments are formally made by the president after consulting Supreme Court and high court judges as deemed necessary. In practice, however, when a Supreme Court vacancy arises, the collegium follows the principle of seniority (in years of service) to consider candidates with the most seniority in the country’s high courts. After deliberations, recommendation passes from the CJI to the minister of law, the prime minister, and, finally, the president, who makes the appointment. All consultations are recorded in writing. Although the Parliament can debate judicial appointments, it cannot reject a candidate. It can only request reconsideration, and if the collegium reiterates its recommendation, the appointment must proceed.
If there is a shortage of judges to constitute a quorum (minimum number of members required to initiate proceedings; varies by type of proceeding) in hearings, high court judges can be elevated to the Supreme Court temporarily. The CJI seeks the president’s consent for this and consults with the chief justice of a high court to appoint a judge from that court as an ad hoc Supreme Court judge.
Impeachment of judges
A motion to remove a Supreme Court judge may be made in either house of Parliament (Lok Sabha, the lower house, or Rajya Sabha, the upper house). If the motion is adopted, a three-member inquiry committee is constituted to investigate the allegations against the accused judge. This committee consists of another Supreme Court judge, a chief justice of a high court, and a distinguished jurist. The committee frames charges and sends a copy to the accused to allow the person to prepare a defense. Both houses must then adopt the committee’s report by a special majority; that is, a majority of the total membership of each house must vote, and the votes for adopting the motion must account for at least two-thirds of the members present and voting. The motion is then forwarded to the president, who issues the order to remove the accused judge.
Such a motion has been initiated against a Supreme Court judge only once. Justice V. Ramaswami faced impeachment proceedings in 1993 for alleged financial irregularities during his tenure as the chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana high court from 1987 to 1989. However, the impeachment procedure was never completed, because the ruling Indian National Congress party abstained from voting on the matter.
Independence
The salaries of Supreme Court judges are drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India, a central fund that covers salaries of some government officials without requiring a parliamentary vote. This financial independence, the collegium system for appointments, and safeguards to prevent arbitrary removal of judges help keep Supreme Court judges free of political influence. Retired judges are not allowed to work as lawyers to keep them from using their influence to gain advantage in legal matters. They are also barred from acting as judges, except when appointed as acting judges for a limited time, in line with constitutional law. However, Supreme Court judges may be appointed to governmental tribunals and commissions. They may also be nominated for seats in the Parliament. For instance, in 2020 Ranjan Gogoi, the 46th CJI, was nominated to a seat in the Rajya Sabha after his retirement. These allowances are seen as challenges to the neutrality of judges, as they allow for political influence on the judges’ rulings.
Advocates
Any advocate registered with a state bar council may appear in the Supreme Court, but only advocates-on-record (AORs) may file cases and petitions. General advocates must be instructed by an AOR to appear, except in rare cases where the Supreme Court grants them permission to appear independently.
To become an AOR, an advocate must have completed four years with a state bar council, trained for a year under a Supreme Court AOR, passed the Supreme Court’s AOR examination, and established a registered office in Delhi within about 10 miles (16 km) of the Supreme Court. In addition, the advocate must employ a clerk within a month of registering as an AOR. Registered AORs have exclusive rights to file cases and address Supreme Court benches.
The Supreme Court may elevate AORs to senior advocates in recognition of their legal expertise and distinguished service. Senior advocates must be accompanied by AORs to file cases in the Supreme Court.
Types of jurisdiction
A constitutional definition of jurisdiction empowers and delimits the sphere of judicial influence of a court, ensuring that it exercises its authority in a well-defined legal framework. The Supreme Court of India has the following types of jurisdiction:
- Original jurisdiction: Some cases are considered by the Supreme Court directly, without having been heard in a high court or other lower court. Disputes between the central government and a state or between two states may be resolved only in the Supreme Court.
- Writ jurisdiction: The court has the power to issue directions, orders, or writs to enforce fundamental rights assured to citizens by the Constitution. High courts as well as the Supreme Court may issue writs. The types of writs that may be issued are habeas corpus (challenging unlawful detention), mandamus (compelling public officials to carry out a specific function), prohibition (stopping a lower court from acting outside its jurisdiction), quo warranto (challenging a person’s right to hold a public or corporate office), and certiorari (ordering a lower court to send its records to a higher court for review).
- Appellate jurisdiction: Petitioners may appeal to the Supreme Court against a high court judgment as long as that high court certifies that the case is fit for appeal because it involves substantive interpretation of general law or the Constitution. There are four types of appeals that come under this jurisdiction:
- Constitutional matters: Orders, judgments, or decrees issued by a high court in any case (civil or criminal) heard before it may be heard on appeal by the Supreme Court if the high court certifies that the case involves a substantive review of laws derived from the Constitution.
- Civil matters: Orders, judgments, or decrees issued by a high court in a civil matter (a matter not involving criminal offenses) certified by the high court as involving significant interpretation of laws of general importance may be heard on appeal by the Supreme Court.
- Criminal matters: Criminal proceedings brought before a high court may be brought on appeal before the Supreme Court if the high court has, on appeal, reversed a lower court’s acquittal of the accused person, brought a criminal matter before itself and convicted the accused and sentenced the person to death, or if the high court simply certifies that the matter is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court. The right to appeal to the Supreme Court does not stand in cases where an order for conviction from a lower court has been reversed by a high court.
- Special leave petitions: The Supreme Court may allow a litigant to appeal against any judgment or matter passed by any court in the territory of India except military courts.
- Advisory jurisdiction: The Constitution allows the president to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on any legal or public matter. In most cases, the Supreme Court is not obliged to provide its opinion; nor is the president bound to act on the Supreme Court’s opinion even if it provides one. But when the president approaches the Supreme Court with queries on agreements or treaties entered into before the Constitution went into effect in 1950, the Supreme Court is bound to provide its opinion.
Judicial review
The Supreme Court has the power to review laws passed by the legislature and to review executive actions. It may scrutinize laws passed in the Parliament, amendments to the Constitution, and actions by the executive branch of government and strike down those laws and penalize those actions it deems unconstitutional and detrimental to the rights of Indian citizens. The Supreme Court may exercise judicial review through cases in its jurisdiction or through its own initiative.
Select judgments of the Supreme Court
Some judgments of the Supreme Court come to define legal practice in the country for the judges’ insight in interpreting constitutional law or legal matters of broad public importance. Other judgments gain prominence for reflecting the court’s concessions to political situations or social mores. All such cases mark inflection points in the judicial history of the court and measure its ability to interact with as well as influence its sociopolitical context. This table provides a list of select decisions of the Supreme Court of India that have had a significant impact on jurisprudence and civilian life:
| case | year | outcome |
|---|---|---|
| I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab | 1967 | Held that the Parliament may not amend fundamental rights. |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | 1973 | Established the basic structure doctrine, which identifies some aspects of the Constitution, such as the supremacy of constitutional law and the division of powers in a democracy, as fundamental; held that the Parliament may not abrogate this basic structure through constitutional amendments. |
| ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla | 1976 | Held that fundamental rights may be suspended during the Emergency (1975–77) and that people may not challenge detentions through habeas corpus petitions; later overruled. |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | 1978 | Expanded Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures a right to life and personal liberty, to include fair procedure; expanded the ambit of freedom of speech and expression. |
| Minerva Mills v. Union of India | 1980 | Reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine; limited the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. |
| Mohammad Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum | 1985 | Granted Muslim women the right to maintenance (financial support) beyond the iddat period (in Islamic law, the period of time after a divorce or the death of a husband that a woman must wait before remarrying), overriding personal law restrictions. |
| Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation | 1985 | In a case in which the petition challenged the eviction of pavement dwellers by the Bombay Municipal Corporation, agreed with the petitioner in recognizing the right to livelihood as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, but allowed the eviction, because it was undertaken according to a law that met constitutional requirements of reasonableness and fairness. |
| Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India | 1989 | Approved $470 million settlement for Bhopal disaster victims; criticized for limiting corporate liability, but observations in the case led to the enactment of the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986. |
| Indra Sawhney v. Union of India | 1992 | In what is popularly known as the Mandal Commission case, involving a petition against 27 percent reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs; officially designated socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of the Indian population other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) in public employment, upheld OBC reservations but imposed a 50 percent limit on total reservations and excluded the “creamy layer” (wealthier and more privileged individuals among OBCs) from reservation benefits. |
| Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa | 1993 | Held that the state is liable in cases of custodial death; reinforced compensation for fundamental rights violations. |
| Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India | 1993 | In this, the second Judges case, established the collegium system; limited executive control over judicial appointments. |
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan | 1997 | Created the Vishaka Guidelines to prevent workplace sexual harassment in the absence of legislation. These guidelines formed the basis of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act of 2013. |
| Shayara Bano v. Union of India | 2017 | Declared instant triple talaq (a man’s utterance of the Arabic word for “divorce” three times in order to divorce his wife) in Muslim marriages unconstitutional; promoted gender justice and set a precedent for reform of personal law in India but sparked debate on judicial intervention in religious personal law. |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India | 2018 | Overturned part of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, thereby decriminalizing consensual sex between homosexual adults. |
| M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das | 2019 | In this, the Ayodhya land dispute case, awarded the long-contested Ram Janmabhoomi site for a Hindu temple; provided alternative land for a mosque. |
| Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal | 2019 | Declared the CJI’s office to be subject to the Right to Information Act of 2005; promoted judicial transparency. |