Supreme Court of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Indian Supreme Court)
Jump to: navigation, search
Supreme Court of India
Emblem of the Supreme Court of India.svg
Seal of the Supreme Court
Established 1 October 1937
(Federal Court of India)
28 January 1950
Country India
Location Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi, India, 110201
Coordinates 28°37′20″N 77°14′23″E / 28.622237°N 77.239584°E / 28.622237; 77.239584Coordinates: 28°37′20″N 77°14′23″E / 28.622237°N 77.239584°E / 28.622237; 77.239584
Motto यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः॥ (Yato dharmas tato jayah) Whence law (dharma), thence victory.
Composition method Collegium System
Authorized by Constitution of India
Judge term length 65 years of age
Number of positions 31 (30+1)
Chief Justice of India
Currently Handyala Lakshminarayanaswamy Dattu[1]

The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial forum and final court of appeal under the Constitution of India, the highest constitutional court, with the power of constitutional review.

It comprises the Chief Justice of India and 30 other judges. It has original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

As the final court of appeal of the country, it takes up appeals primarily against verdicts of the High Courts of various States of the Union and other courts and tribunals.

The Supreme Court has extensive original jurisdiction for the protection of fundamental rights of citizens. It also acts as the court to settle disputes between various governments in the country. As an advisory court, it hears matters which may specifically be referred to it under the Constitution by the President of India. It also may take cognisance of matters on its own (or 'suo moto'), without anyone drawing its attention.

The law declared by the Supreme Court becomes binding on all courts within India.[2]


In 1861 the Indian 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 which had acted as the highest court in their respective regions. These new 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 Judgements from High Courts.[2]

The Supreme Court of India came into being on 28 January 1950.[3] It replaced both the Federal Court of India and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which were at the apex of the Indian court system.[3]

Supreme Court initially had its seat at Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building where the previous Federal Court of India sat from 1937 to 1950. In 1958, the Supreme Court moved to its present premises.[3] Originally, Constitution of India envisaged a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and seven Judges; leaving it to Parliament to increase this number.[4] In formative years, the Supreme Court met from 10 to 12 in the morning and then 2 to 4 in the afternoon for 28 days in a year.[2]

Court building and architecture[edit]

Central Wing of the Court where the Chief Justice's courtroom is located

The building is shaped to symbolise scales of justice with its centre-beam being the Central Wing of the building comprising the Chief Justice’s court, the largest of the courtrooms, with two court halls on either side. The Right Wing of the structure has the bar - room, the offices of the Attorney General of India & other law officers and the library of the court. The Left Wing has the offices of the court. In all there are 15 court rooms in the various wings of the building.[2][3][5]

The foundation stone of the supreme court's building was laid on 29 October 1954 by Rajendra Prasad, the first President of India. The main block of the building has been built on a triangular plot of 17 acres and has been designed in an Indo-British style by the chief architect Ganesh Bhikaji Deolalikar, the first Indian to head the Central Public Works Department. The Court moved into the building in 1958. In 1979, two new wings - the East Wing and the West Wing - were added to the complex. 1994 saw the last extension.[3]

Mother and Child Sculpture[edit]

Supreme Court building with the sculpture in the foreground

On 20 February 1980, a black bronze sculpture of 210 centimeter height was installed in lawn of the Supreme Court. It portrays Mother India in the form of the figure of a lady, sheltering the young Republic of India represented by the symbol of a child, who is upholding the laws of land symbolically shown in the form of an open book. On the book, a balance is shown, which represents dispensation of equal justice to all. The sculpture was made by the renowned artist Chintamoni Kar[2]


The design of the Court's seal is reproduced from the wheel that appears on the abacus of the Sarnath Lion capital of Asoka with 24 spokes. The inscription in Sanskrit "yatodharmastato jayah" means "whence law (dharma), thence victory". It is also referred to - as the wheel of righteousness, encompassing truth, goodness and equity.[2]

Constitution of the court[edit]


The registry of the Supreme Court is headed by the Secretary-General who is assisted by 8 registrars, several additional and deputy registrars, etc., with 1770 employees in all (221 gazetted officers, 805 non-gazetted and 744 Class IV employees)[6] Article 146 of the Constitution deals with the appointments of officers and servants of the Supreme Court registry.[7][8]

Supreme Court advocates[edit]

Main article: Advocates-on-Record

Supreme Court Rules, 2013[9] entitle only those advocates who are registered with the supreme court, called 'Advocates-on-Record' to appear, act and plead for a party in the court. Those advocates who are designated as 'Senior Advocates' by the Supreme Court or any of the High Courts can appear for clients along with an Advocate-on-Record. Any other advocate can appear for a party along with or under instructions from an Advocate-on-Record.


Size of the court[edit]

As originally enacted, the Constitution of India provided for a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and 7 judges. In the early years, a full bench of the Supreme Court sat together to hear the cases presented before them. As the work of the Court increased and cases began to accumulate, Parliament increased the number of judges from the original 8 in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986 and 31 in 2008 (current strength). As the number of the judges has increased, they have sat in smaller benches of two or three (referred to as a division bench) — coming together in larger benches of five or more (referred to as a constitution bench) when required to settle fundamental questions of law. A bench may refer a case before it to a larger bench, should the need arise.[10]


A citizen of India[11] who has been

  • a judge of one high court or more (continuously), for at least five years,[11] or
  • an advocate there, for at least ten years,[11] or
  • a distinguished jurist,[11] in the opinion of the president,

is eligible to be recommended for appointment, a judge of the supreme court.

Court demographics[edit]

I am proud to be an Indian. India is the only country where a member of the minority Parsi community with a population of 1,67,000, like myself, can aspire to attain the post of the Chief Justice of India. These things do not happen in our neighbouring countries.

Former Chief Justice of India, S. H. Kapadia[12][13]

In practice, judges of the supreme court have been selected so far, mostly from amongst judges of the high courts. Barely six - Justices S. M. Sikri, S. Chandra Roy, Kuldip Singh, Santosh Hegde, R. F. Nariman and U. U. Lalit have been appointed to the supreme court directly from the bar (i.e. who were practising advocates).[14][15]

The supreme court saw its first woman judge when Justice M. Fathima Beevi was sworn into office in 1989.[16] The sixth and the most recent woman judge in the court is Justice R. Banumathi.[17][18] In 2000 Justice K. G. Balakrishnan became the first judge from the dalit community. In 2007 he also became the first dalit Chief Justice of India. In 2010, Justice S. H. Kapadia coming from a Parsi minority community became the Chief Justice of India.[12][19]

Judicial independence[edit]

The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court Judges in various ways.

Appointments and the Collegium[edit]

Judges of Supreme Court used to be appointed by the President of India, who acted on the advice of the Union Cabinet. In the Three Judges Cases - (1982, 1993, 1998), the court held that a Supreme Court judge can be appointed by the President only on the recommendations of the collegium system — a closed group consisting of the Chief Justice of India and the four most senior associate judges of the court.[20] This has resulted in a Memorandum of Procedure laying down the process which is being presently followed for appointment of Judges to both the High Courts and the Supreme Court.[21]

The Union Cabinet and Parliament have almost no role to play in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court or to any of India's twenty-four High Courts.[22]

The position of Chief Justice of India is attained on the basis of seniority amongst the judges serving on the court.[10] The collegium system has come under a fair amount of criticism.


Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65 which is 3 years more than the retirement age of a judge of the High Court. Hence a judge at the Supreme Court who have been elevated from a High Court serves at the Supreme Court for at least more than 3 years. However, there have been suggestions, including from the judges of the Supreme Court of India, to provide for a fixed term for the judges there including the Chief Justice of India.[23]


Article 125 of the Indian Constitution leaves it to the Indian Parliament to determine the salary, other allowances, leave of absence, pension, etc. of the Supreme Court judges. However, the Parliament cannot alter any of these privileges and rights to the judge's disadvantage after his appointment.[24] A judge gets 90,000 per month, the Chief Justice earns an additional 10,000.[25]


A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed under the Constitution only on grounds of proven misconduct or incapacity and by an order of the President of India, after a notice signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha (House of the People) or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha (Council of the States) is passed by a two-third majority in each House of the Parliament.[26][27]


A person who has retired as a Judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practising in any court of law or before any other authority in India.

Power to review its own judgements[edit]

Further information: Review petition

Article 137 of the Constitution of India lays down provision for power of the Supreme Court to review its own judgments. As per this Article, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.

Under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, that have been framed under its powers under Article 145 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may review its judgment or order but no application for review is to be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Powers to punish for contempt[edit]

Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution the Supreme Court has been vested with power to punish anyone for contempt of any court in India including itself. The Supreme Court performed an unprecedented action when it directed a sitting Minister of the state of Maharashtra, Swaroop Singh Naik,[28] to be jailed for 1-month on a charge of contempt of court on 12 May 2006. This was the first time that a serving Minister was ever jailed.[29][30]

Supreme Court Practice & Procedure[edit]

The Constitution of India under Article 145 empowers the Supreme Court to frame its own rules for regulating the practice and procedure of the Court as and when required (with the approval of the President). Accordingly, "Supreme Court Rules, 1950" were framed. The 1950 Rules were replaced by the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.

[31] In 2014, Supreme Court notified the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 replacing the 1966 Rules effective from 19 August 2014.[9]

In the words of Hon 'ble Justice J.M. Shelat, "...The Court has had to evolve its own practice and procedure relating to each of the different jurisdictions by means of Rules framed under Article 145 of the Constitution. These rules have not remained static. They had to be revised from time to time as the actual experience of their working and the exigencies demanded. The Rules have sometimes come up before the Court for their construction and elucidation. Opinions expressed by the Court on such occasions have more often than not been, by way of observations, scattered in different cases and rarely as distinct decisions by themselves.[32]

Reporting and citation[edit]

Supreme Court Reports is the official journal of Reportable Supreme Court Decisions. It is published under the authority of the Supreme Court of India by the Controller of Publications, Government of India, Delhi.[33] In addition, there are many other reputed private journals that report Supreme Court decisions. Some of these other important journals are: SCR (The Supreme Court Reports), SCC(Supreme Court Cases), AIR (All India Reporter), SCALE, etc.

Several private legal houses also provide access to electronic databases, which allow the user to seamlessly search through multiple resources for Supreme Court of India judgments, some of these include: SCC Online,[34] AIR Online, Manupatra, etc.

Facilities on the campus[edit]

Legal-aid,[35][36][37] court-fee vendors, first-aid post, dental clinic, physiotherapy unit and pathology lab; rail-reservation counter, canteen, post office and a branch and an ATM of UCO Bank, Supreme Court Museum[6] can be availed by litigants and visitors.

Landmark judgments[edit]

Land reform[edit]

After some of the courts overturned state laws for redistributing land from zamindar (landlord) estates on the ground that the laws violated the zamindars' fundamental rights, the Parliament passed the 1st amendment to the Constitution in 1951, followed by the 4th amendment in 1955, to uphold its authority to redistribute land. The Supreme Court countered these amendments in 1967 when it ruled in Golaknath v. State of Punjab[38] that the Parliament did not have the power to abrogate fundamental rights, including the provisions on private property. The 25th amendment to the Constitution in 1971 curtailed the right of a citizen to property as a fundamental right and gave authority to the government to infringe private property, which led to a furore amongst the zamindars.

Emergency (1975-1977)[edit]

The independence of judiciary was severely curtailed[39] during the Indian Emergency (1975-1977) of Indira Gandhi. The constitutional rights of imprisoned persons were restricted under Preventive detention laws passed by the parliament. In the case of Shiva Kant Shukla Additional District Magistrate of Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus case, a bench of five seniormost judges of Supreme court ruled in favour of state's right for unrestricted powers of detention during emergency. Justices A.N. Ray, P. N. Bhagwati, Y. V. Chandrachud, and M.H. Beg, stated in the majority decision:[40]

(under the declaration of emergency) no person has any locus to move any writ petition under Art. 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of detention.

The only dissenting opinion was from Justice H. R. Khanna, who stated:

detention without trial is an anathema to all those who love personal liberty... A dissent is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting Judge believes the court to have been betrayed.[40]

It is believed that before delivering his dissenting opinion, Justice Khanna had mentioned to his sister: "I have prepared my judgment, which is going to cost me the Chief Justice-ship of India."[41] In January 1977, Justice Khanna was superseded despite being the most senior judge at the time and thereby Government broke the convention of appointing only the senior most judge to the position of Chief Justice of India. Justice Khanna remains a legendary figure among the legal fraternity in India for this decision.

The New York Times, wrote of this opinion: "The submission of an independent judiciary to absolutist government is virtually the last step in the destruction of a democratic society; and the Indian Supreme Court's decision appears close to utter surrender."

During the emergency period, the government also passed the 39th amendment, which sought to limit judicial review for the election of the Prime Minister; only a body constituted by Parliament could review this election.[42] Subsequently, the parliament, with most opposition members in jail during the emergency, passed the 42nd Amendment which prevented any court from reviewing any amendment to the constitution with the exception of procedural issues concerning ratification. A few years after the emergency, however, the Supreme court rejected the absoluteness of the 42nd amendment and reaffirmed its power of judicial review in the Minerva Mills case (1980).

Post-1980: an assertive court[edit]

After Indira Gandhi lost elections in 1977, the new government of Morarji Desai, and especially law minister Shanti Bhushan (who had earlier argued for the detenues in the Habeas Corpus case), introduced a number of amendments making it more difficult to declare and sustain an emergency, and reinstated much of the power to the Supreme Court. It is said that the Basic Structure doctrine, created in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, was strengthened in Indira Gandhi's case and set in stone in [Minerva Mills v. Union of India].

The Supreme Court's creative and expansive interpretations of Article 21 (Life and Personal Liberty), primarily after the Emergency period, have given rise to a new jurisprudence of public interest litigation that has vigorously promoted many important economic and social rights (constitutionally protected but not enforceable) including, but not restricted to, the rights to free education, livelihood, a clean environment,[43] food and many others. Civil and political rights (traditionally protected in the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Indian Constitution) have also been expanded and more fiercely protected. These new interpretations have opened the avenue for litigation on a number of important issues.

Recent important cases[edit]

Among the important pronouncements of the Supreme Court post 2000 is the Coelho case [I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (Judgment of 11 January 2007)]. A unanimous Bench of 9 judges reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine. It held that a constitutional amendment which entails violation of any fundamental rights which the Court regards as forming part of the basic structure of the Constitution, then the same can be struck down depending upon its impact and consequences. The judgment clearly imposes further limitations on the constituent power of Parliament with respect to the principles underlying certain fundamental rights. The judgment in Coelho has in effect restored the decision in Golak Nath regarding non-amendability of the Constitution on account of infraction of fundamental rights, contrary to the judgment in Kesavananda Bharati case.

Another important decision was of the five-judge Bench in Ashoka Kumara Thakur v. Union of India; where the constitutional validity of Central Educational Institutions (Reservations in Admissions) Act, 2006 was upheld, subject to the "creamy layer" criteria. Importantly, the Court refused to follow the 'strict scrutiny' standards of review followed by the United States Supreme Court. At the same time, the Court has applied the strict scrutiny standards in Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2007) ([1])

2G spectrum scam[edit]

Further information: 2G spectrum scam

The Supreme Court declared allotment of spectrum as "unconstitutional and arbitrary" and quashed all the 122 licenses issued in 2008 during tenure of A. Raja (then minister for communications & IT), the main official accused in the 2G scam case.[44]

Black money[edit]

Further information: Indian black money

The government refused to disclose details of about 18 Indians holding accounts in LGT Bank, Liechtenstein, evoking a sharp response from a Bench comprising Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar. The court ordered Special investigation team (SIT) to probe the matter.[45][46] Lack of enthusiasm made the court create a special investigative team (SIT).[47]

Abusing a spouse and spouse’s family using derogatory terms, amounts to cruelty[edit]

Supreme Court: In the instant case related to dissolution of marriage, the Division Bench of Vikramjit Sen and A.M Sapre, JJ., observed that a spouse abusing the other using derogatory terms; calling the police on flimsy grounds and refusing to allow close relatives to visit and reside in the matrimonial home, all this amounts to cruelty towards the other spouse, and cannot be termed as normal wear and tear of family life.

In the present case, the appellant had filed for divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that the respondent was verbally abusive towards his family and would often threaten to lodge false police complaint or commit suicide and used derogatory words like “belonging to prostitute family” for the appellant and his sister. The appellant pleaded through his counsel Vikas Mehta, that he had suffered mental agony of such degree that it became impossible for him continue the marriage with the respondent. On the contrary the respondent through her counsel Shadan Farasat pleaded that, the appellant had been living a wayward life and she was being regularly harassed by her in-laws. The respondent further filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, along with a maintenance petition seeking Rs. 2 lakhs per month as maintenance. On careful perusal of the evidences provided by the appellant, the Trial Court found the allegations leveled by the appellant to be true, therefore the order of dissolution of marriage was passed. On appeal, the Madras High Court dismissed the divorce petition terming the allegations of the appellant to be nothing more than “ordinary wear and tear” that takes place in a marriage.

On perusal of the background of the case and the arguments, the Division Bench was of the view that the appellant had sufficiently proved the instances of mental cruelty presenting various evidences and documents. The Court further observed that keeping with the requirements of Order VI Rule 2 of CPC, the Trial Court meticulously examined the evidences and gave out a well reasoned decision concluding that the respondent’s actions amounted to cruelty upon the appellant, thus the Madras High Court was not justified in setting aside the decision of the Trial Court without giving substantial reasons. Therefore, the Court restored the Trial Court’s decision to dissolve the marriage of the parties setting aside the impugned decision of the High Court. [Vinod Kumar Subbiah v. Saraswathi Palaniappan, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 386, decided on 24.04.2015]


Sections 409(3)(a), 409(3)(c), 411(3) and 412(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 invalidated[edit]

Supreme Court: Considering various provisions regarding the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) formed under the Companies Act, 2013, the Constitution Bench composed of H.L. Dattu, CJ, Dr. A.K. Sikri, Arun Mishra, R.F. Nariman and Amitava Roy, JJ held the provisions on qualifications for appointment of a technical member and also the provisions relating to the constitution of the Selection Committee to be invalid, while establishing the validity of the NCLT and NCLAT.

The present case which was represented by A.P. Datar was in reference to the striking down of certain provisions of Companies Act, 2013 which were same as that of the Companies Act, 1956, with particular emphasis on Chapter XXVII i.e. Sections 408, 409, 411(3), 412, 413, 425, 431 and 434, which were enacted without incorporating the amendments suggested by this Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, (2010) 11 SCC 1.

The Court while reiterating the 2010 judgment clearly upheld the validity of the constitution of the NCLT and the NCLAT. While striking down the provisions dealing with qualifications for appointment of a technical member, the Court stated that a Technical Member is supposed to possess experience in the field to which the Tribunal relates to, and since members of Indian Company Law Service are not experts of their field, they are not qualified to be technical members. The Court also held that the number of the members of the Selection Committee should be reduced from five to four and a casting vote should be provided to the Chairperson to remove the predominance of the bureaucracy. [Madras Bar Association v Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 484, decided on 14.05.2015].


Minority reservations[edit]

The SC refused to stay the Andhra High Court judgement quashing 4.5% sub-quota for minorities under OBC reservation quota of 27%.[50]

Online/Postal Ballot For Indians Citizens Living Abroad (NRIs)[edit]

Three judge bench presided by Honorable Chief Justice Altamas Kabir issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission of India (EC) on the PIL filed by a group of NRIs for online/postal ballot for the Indian citizens living in abroad.[51][52]

Recognition of transgender as 'third gender' in law[edit]

In April 2014, Justice KS Radhakrishnan declared transgender to be the 'third gender' in Indian law, in a case brought by the National Legal Services Authority (Nalsa) against Union of India and others.[53][54][55] The ruling said:[56]

Seldom, our society realises or cares to realise the trauma, agony and pain which the members of Transgender community undergo, nor appreciates the innate feelings of the members of the Transgender community, especially of those whose mind and body disown their biological sex. Our society often ridicules and abuses the Transgender community and in public places like railway stations, bus stands, schools, workplaces, malls, theatres, hospitals, they are sidelined and treated as untouchables, forgetting the fact that the moral failure lies in the society's unwillingness to contain or embrace different gender identities and expressions, a mindset which we have to change.

Justice Radhakrishnan said that transgender people should be treated consistently with other minorities under the law, enabling them to access jobs, healthcare and education.[57] He framed the issue as one of human rights, saying that, "These TGs, even though insignificant in numbers, are still human beings and therefore they have every right to enjoy their human rights", concluding by declaring that:[56]

(1) Hijras, eunuchs, apart from binary gender, be treated as "third gender" for the purpose of safeguarding their rights under Part III of our Constitution and the laws made by the Parliament and the State Legislature.

(2) Transgender persons' right to decide their self-identified gender is also upheld and the Centre and State Governments are directed to grant legal recognition of their gender identity such as male, female or as third gender.

Relief to over 35,000 public servants[edit]

In B.Prabhakara Rao vs. State of A.P. involved sudden reduction in age of superannuation from 58 years to 55 years of over 35,000 public servants of State Government, public sector undertakings, statutory bodies, educational institutions and Tirupathi-Tirumalai Devasthanams (TTD). They lost first round of litigation in the Supreme Court. Realising the mistake, fresh legislation was brought restoring the original age of superannuation of 58 years but providing that the benefit of new legislation would not extend to those whose reduction of age of superannuation had been upheld. In challenge to this law, Subodh Markandeya argued that all that was required was to strike down naughty “not” – which found favour with the Supreme Court bringing relief to over 35,000 public servants.[58][59]

Death warrants not be issued in a haste without following proper procedure[edit]

Supreme Court: Staying the execution of death sentence awarded to a couple for murdering 7 members of appellant’s family including an infant, the bench of Dr. A.K. Sikri and UU Lalit, J. held that a death warrant cannot be issued until all the remedies of a convict have been exhausted. When right to appeal by way of Article 136 of the Constitution has been exhausted, a convict still has a remedy left by way of filing a review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution also, his right to file mercy petition to the Governor and President under Articles 161 and 72 of the Constitution respectively also remains intact. Therefore, till the limitation period for filing review petition and thereafter, reasonable time for filing the mercy petition has not lapsed, issuing of death warrants would not be procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was held that procedural safeguards must not only be followed at the time of sentencing but also after sentencing in the form of judicial review and mercy petitions.

Further, it was held that in order to be in conformity with Article 21 of the Constitution, the procedure followed, from the confirmation of death sentence by the highest Court till the execution of the said sentence must treat the convict with human dignity to the extent which is reasonable and permissible in law. Thereby, execution of death sentence cannot be carried out in an arbitrary, hurried and secret manner without allowing the convicts to exhaust all legal remedies. The court also directed that the procedure laid down in PUDR's case and the Shatrughan Sinha guidelines must be followed by the authorities at the time of execution of death sentence.

In the present case, the death sentence was pronounced upon them by the trial court which was subsequently upheld by the HC and the SC and within 6 days of disposal of appeal in the SC, death warrants were issued by the Sessions Judge without waiting for the exhaustion of remedies of the convicts. This act of the Sessions Judge was held to be done in a haste and hence, the same was quashed and set aside.[Shabnam v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 527, decided on 27.05.2015]



Corruption and misconduct of judges[edit]

2008 saw the Supreme Court embroiled in several controversies, from serious allegations of corruption at the highest level of the judiciary,[61] expensive private holidays at the tax payers expense,[62] refusal to divulge details of judges' assets to the public,[63] secrecy in the appointments of judges',[64] to refusal to make information public under the Right to Information Act.[65] The Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan invited a lot of criticism for his comments on his post not being that of a public servant, but that of a constitutional authority.[66] He later went back on this stand.[67] The judiciary has come in for serious criticisms from former Presidents of India Pratibha Patil and A. P. J. Abdul Kalam for failure in handling its duties.[68] Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, has stated that corruption is one of the major challenges facing the judiciary, and suggested that there is an urgent need to eradicate this menace.[69]

The Cabinet Secretary of the Indian government introduced the Judges Inquiry (Amendment) Bill 2008 in Parliament for setting up of a panel called the National Judicial Council, headed by the Chief Justice of India, that will probe into allegations of corruption and misconduct by High Court and Supreme Court judges.[70][71]

Pendency of cases[edit]

According to Supreme Court newsletter, there are 58,519 cases pending in the Supreme Court, out of which 37,385 are pending for more than a year, at the end of 2011. Excluding connected cases, there are still 33,892 pending cases.[72] As per the latest pendency data made available by the Supreme Court, the total number of pending cases in the Supreme Court as on 1 April 2014 is 64,330, which includes 34,144 Admission matters (miscellaneous) and 30,186 Regular Hearing matters.[73] Recently, in May, 2014, former Chief Justice of India, Justice R.M. Lodha, proposed to make Indian judiciary work throughout the year (instead of the present system of having long vacations, specially in the higher courts) in order to reduce pendency of cases in Indian courts; however, as per this proposal there is not going to be any increase in the number of working days or working hours of any of the judges and it only meant that different judges would be going on vacation during different periods of the year as per their choice; but, the Bar Council of India rejected this proposal mainly because it would have inconvenienced the advocates who would have to work throughout the year.[74]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ "Justice H L Dattu sworn in as Chief Justice of India". The Times of India (The Times Group). 28 September 2014. Retrieved 28 September 2014. 
  2. ^ a b c d e f "History of Supreme Court of India" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 30 August 2014. 
  3. ^ a b c d e History of the Supreme Court of India, Supreme Court of India
  4. ^ "Constitution of Supreme Court of India". Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 29 March 2014. 
  5. ^ "Constitution". Supreme Court of India. 28 January 1950. Retrieved 18 September 2012. 
  6. ^ a b "Facilities at Supreme Court of India" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 14 May 2014. 
  7. ^ "Constitution of Supreme Court". Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 31 March 2013. 
  8. ^ "Organisational Chart of the Registry of the Supreme Court of India" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 26 April 2014. 
  9. ^ a b "Supreme Court Rules, 2013" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. 27 May 2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 July 2014. Retrieved 22 July 2014. 
  10. ^ a b "Supreme Court of India — History". Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 21 June 2012. 
  11. ^ a b c d "Section 124, Constitution of India". VakilNo1. Archived from the original on 26 December 2010. Retrieved 27 October 2012. 
  12. ^ a b "Minorities can rise to top jobs only in India: Chief Justice of India". The Times of India. 16 August 2012. Retrieved 16 August 2012. 
  13. ^ "Accountability law must not encroach on judicial independence, cautions CJI". The Indian Express. 16 August 2012. Retrieved 16 August 2012. 
  14. ^ Chandrachud, Abhinav (2011). "The age factor". Frontline. Archived from the original on 26 April 2014. Retrieved 26 April 2014. 
  15. ^ "Justices Arun Mishra, Adarsh Goel and lawyer Rohinton Nariman appointed Supreme Court judges". Economic Times. PTI. 26 June 2014. Retrieved 30 August 2014. 
  16. ^ "Supreme Court of India — Former Judges". Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 30 November 2014. 
  17. ^ Bhadra Sinha (11 July 2014). "From trial court to Supreme Court, woman judge may go all the way". The Hindustan Times. Retrieved 30 November 2014. 
  18. ^ A Subramani (14 August 2014). "Justice Banumathi becomes 1st woman SC judge from TN". The Times of India. Retrieved 30 November 2014. 
  19. ^ "Justice S H Kapadia sworn in as new Chief Justice of India". The Times of India. 12 May 2010. Retrieved 12 May 2010. 
  20. ^ Lord Cooke of Thorndon (2000). B. N. Kirpal, ed. Supreme But Not Infallible (Sixth Impression 2010 ed.). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. pp. 97–106. ISBN 9780195672268. Retrieved 15 January 2013. 
  21. ^ "Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2013" (PDF). Parliament of India. Retrieved 15 October 2014. 
  22. ^ Rajagopal, Krishnadas. "The Collegium Controversy". The Indian Express. 
  23. ^ Chhibber, Maneesh (25 April 2014). "CJIs must have fixed tenures: Sathasivam". Indian Express. Retrieved 26 April 2014. 
  24. ^ [[s:Constitution of India/Part V#Article 125 {Salaries, etc., of Judges}]]
  25. ^ "Salaries of SC, HC judges to increase three-fold". Times of India. Retrieved 9 June 2014. 
  26. ^ "Motion for removal of Mr. Justice Soumitra Sen, Judge, Calcutta High Court" (PDF). Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, October 2011. pp. 414–419. Retrieved 4 December 2014. 
  27. ^ Bhushan, Prashant. "A historic non-impeachment" (PDF). Frontline (4 June 1993). Retrieved 5 December 2014. 
  28. ^ Maha minister gets jail for contempt
  29. ^ "Maharashtra Minister gets one-month jail term". News (Chennai, India). 11 May 2006. Retrieved 30 November 2011. 
  30. ^ "Maha minister gets jail for contempt". News. 11 May 2006. Retrieved 30 November 2011. 
  31. ^ "Supreme Court rules,1966" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 June 2014. Retrieved 22 July 2014. 
  32. ^ B.R. Agarwala's Supreme Court Practice and Procedure (2002 ed.). Eastern Book Company. pp. 1–497. 
  33. ^ "Supreme Court Reports". Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 30 March 2013. 
  34. ^ "SCC online". EBC. Retrieved 27 June 2015. 
  35. ^ "Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society". Retrieved 1 December 2014. 
  36. ^ "Types Of Legal Services Provided". National Legal Services Authority. Retrieved 1 December 2014. 
  37. ^ "Supreme Court Legal Services Committee". Retrieved 1 December 2014. 
  38. ^ "Golaknath vs. State of Punjab". Official Supreme Court Judis site. Retrieved 9 June 2014. 
  39. ^ V R Krishna Iyer (27 June 2000). "Emergency — Darkest hour in India's judicial history". The Indian Express. Retrieved 16 September 2007. 
  40. ^ a b Jos. Peter D 'Souza (June 2001). "A.D.M. Jabalpur vs Shukla: When the Supreme Court struck down the Habeas Corpus". PUCL Bulletin. Retrieved 16 September 2007. 
  41. ^ Anil B. Divan (15 March 2004). "Cry Freedom". The Indian Express. Retrieved 16 September 2007. 
  42. ^ Ramachandra Guha. India after Gandhi: The history of the world's largest democracy. Macmillan/Picador, 2007. p. 500. 
  43. ^ Shelton, Dinah; Kiss, Alexandre (2005). Judicial handbook on Environmental Law (PDF). United Nations Environment Programme. p. 8. ISBN 92-807-2555-6. Retrieved 1 December 2014. 
  44. ^ 2G scam: SC scraps 122 licences granted under Raja's tenure, trial court to decide on Chidambaram's role - Times Of India. (2 February 2012). Retrieved on 2013-07-18.
  45. ^ "Don't let Hasan Ali leave country: SC". The Times of India. 11 February 2011. 
  46. ^ "Pranab Mukherjee refuses to spill names of LGT Bank account-holders". The Times of India. 26 January 2011. 
  47. ^ "Supreme Court: the balancing act". 8 December 2011. Retrieved 25 April 2012. 
  48. ^ "Abusing a spouse and spouse’s family using derogatory terms, amounts to cruelty". Retrieved 27 June 2015. 
  49. ^ "Sections 409(3)(a), 409(3)(c), 411(3) and 412(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 invalidated". EBC. 
  50. ^ "Supreme Court upholds AP court order quashing minority sub-quota". The Hindu. 13 June 2012. 
  51. ^ NEW DELHI, 22 Feb 2013 DHNS (22 February 2013). "SC notice to Centre, EC on online voting for NRIs". Retrieved 16 April 2014. 
  52. ^ "WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 80 OF 2013, NAGENDER CHINDAM & ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.". Supreme Court of India. 21 February 2013. Retrieved 2014-06-09. 
  53. ^ "India recognises transgender people as third gender". The Guardian. 15 April 2014. Retrieved 15 April 2014. 
  54. ^ McCoy, Terrence (15 April 2014). "India now recognizes transgender citizens as ‘third gender’". Washington Post. Retrieved 15 April 2014. 
  55. ^ "Supreme Court recognizes transgenders as 'third gender'". Times of India. 15 April 2014. Retrieved 15 April 2014. 
  56. ^ a b National Legal Services Authority ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents (Supreme Court of India 15 April 2014). Text
  57. ^ "India court recognises transgender people as third gender". BBC News. 15 April 2014. Retrieved 15 April 2014. 
  58. ^
  59. ^
  60. ^ "Death warrants not be issued in a haste without following proper procedure". Retrieved 27 June 2015. 
  61. ^ Ex-chief justice under corruption panel scanner, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, 9 June 2008
  62. ^ Are judges holidaying at public expense?, May 2008
  63. ^ Judges' asset declaration before CJI not for public eye: SC to CIC, The Indian Express, 6 November 2008
  64. ^ The case of judicial injustice, The Indian Express, 31 March 1999
  65. ^ RTI Act does not apply to my office: CJI, The Times of India, 20 April 2008
  66. ^ Is the CJI a public servant?, The Times of India, 22 April 2008
  67. ^ I am a public servant: CJI, The Times of India, 6 May 2008
  68. ^ Delayed justice leading to lynching mobs: Pratibha, The Times of India, 24 February 2008
  69. ^ Manmohan Singh calls for check on corruption in judiciary, Thaindian News, 19 April 2008
  70. ^ Pass Judges (Inquiry) Bill in next session, panel tells Govt., Zee News, India Edition, 30 September 2008
  71. ^ Bill for probe panel against errant judges cleared, iGovernment, 10 October 2008
  72. ^ "Supreme Court Quarterly Newsletter — Oct — Dec 2011" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 18 September 2012. 
  73. ^ "Number of pending matters in Supreme Court as on 1st April 2014" (PDF). Retrieved 18 April 2014. 
  74. ^ "Proposal to make judiciary work throughout the year". Retrieved 9 June 2014. 

External links[edit]