Supreme Court of India: Composition, Jurisdiction and Judicial Review | UPSC & State PCS
The Supreme Court stands at the top of India's judicial system.
But its importance is much greater than simply being the country's highest court of appeal.
It protects Fundamental Rights, settles constitutional disputes between the Union and States, interprets the Constitution, reviews laws and executive actions, and ensures that even Parliament remains within constitutional limits.
That is why the Supreme Court is often described as both:
the guardian of the Constitution
and
the protector of Fundamental Rights.
The main constitutional provisions relating to the Supreme Court are found in Articles 124 to 147.
Why Does India Need a Supreme Court?
India has a written Constitution.
The powers of Parliament, State Legislatures, governments and constitutional institutions are all limited by that Constitution.
Someone therefore has to answer questions such as:
- Has Parliament crossed a constitutional limit?
- Has a government violated a Fundamental Right?
- Who is correct in a dispute between the Union and a State?
- Is a constitutional amendment valid?
- Has a lower court interpreted the law correctly?
The Supreme Court performs this constitutional role.
It does not govern the country.
It does not make ordinary policy.
Its primary job is to ensure that public power is exercised according to the Constitution and law.
Article 124 — Establishment and Constitution of the Supreme Court
Article 124 provides for the Supreme Court of India.
The Court consists of:
Chief Justice of India + such number of other judges as Parliament may provide by law.
The present statutory maximum strength is:
Chief Justice of India + 33 other judges = 34 judges.
The actual number of judges serving at a particular time can change because of retirement, appointment or vacancies. The Supreme Court's official website maintains the current list of judges.
An important exam point is that the figure 34 is not frozen permanently in the Constitution.
Parliament can change the sanctioned strength through legislation.
Who Can Increase the Number of Supreme Court Judges?
Parliament.
This is an old but useful Prelims fact.
The number has been increased several times through amendments to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act.
So if a question gives:
- President,
- Chief Justice of India,
- Parliament,
- Law Commission,
the answer is:
Parliament.
Appointment of Supreme Court Judges
Article 124 provides that Supreme Court judges are formally appointed by the:
President of India.
But the actual appointment process today operates through the Collegium system.
The Constitution itself does not use the word “Collegium”.
The system developed through Supreme Court judgments interpreting the constitutional consultation process.
The Supreme Court continues to publish Collegium resolutions relating to appointments and transfers.
How Did the Collegium System Develop?
The present system did not emerge in one judgment.
It developed gradually.
First Judges Case — 1981
The Court initially gave greater weight to the executive in judicial appointments.
Second Judges Case — 1993
The Supreme Court changed the position and gave primacy to the judiciary in the appointment process.
This became the foundation of the Collegium system.
Third Judges Case — 1998
The consultation process was expanded.
For appointments to the Supreme Court, the Collegium came to consist of:
Chief Justice of India + four senior-most Supreme Court judges.
The system therefore evolved through judicial interpretation rather than through an express constitutional provision.
Appointment of the Chief Justice of India
The Chief Justice of India is formally appointed by the President.
By established convention, the senior-most Supreme Court judge considered fit to hold the office is appointed as Chief Justice of India.
This is different from saying that the Constitution explicitly contains a seniority rule.
It does not.
The rule operates through constitutional convention and appointment practice.
What Was the NJAC?
The Collegium system has often been criticised for lack of transparency and accountability.
Parliament attempted to replace it through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act.
The proposed body was called the:
National Judicial Appointments Commission — NJAC.
However, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act.
The Court held that judicial independence is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution and restored the Collegium system.
The Government has officially acknowledged that after the 2015 judgment the earlier Collegium arrangement became operative again.
Collegium Debate: Why Is It Controversial?
There are two sides to the debate.
Argument in favour
Supporters say judicial appointments must remain protected from excessive executive control.
Otherwise, judges may feel pressure from the government whose actions they are expected to review.
Criticism
Critics point to:
- lack of transparency,
- unclear selection criteria,
- delays,
- limited public accountability,
- concerns about diversity and representation.
A balanced Mains answer should therefore not simply say:
“Collegium is good”
or
“Collegium is bad.”
The real constitutional challenge is:
How can appointments remain independent from political control while becoming more transparent, diverse and accountable?
Qualifications for a Supreme Court Judge
A person must be a citizen of India.
In addition, the person must satisfy at least one of the following:
Route 1
Has been a judge of one or more High Courts for at least five years.
Route 2
Has been an advocate of one or more High Courts for at least ten years.
Route 3
Is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.
The third route is especially important for Prelims because students often forget it.
Is a Minimum Age Prescribed?
No specific minimum age is given in Article 124 for appointment as a Supreme Court judge.
Instead, the Constitution specifies professional qualifications.
This is different from offices such as President or Governor, where minimum age is expressly prescribed.
Retirement Age
A Supreme Court judge retires at:
65 years of age.
Compare this with a High Court judge:
62 years.
Easy memory:
SC → 65
HC → 62
Oath of a Supreme Court Judge
A Supreme Court judge takes an oath to:
- bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution,
- uphold India's sovereignty and integrity,
- perform duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will,
- uphold the Constitution and laws.
Unlike the President's oath, which is directly written in Article 60, the oath for judges is provided in the Third Schedule.
Removal of a Supreme Court Judge
The Constitution deliberately makes removal difficult.
Why?
Because a judge should not fear removal simply for giving a judgment against the government.
Article 124(4) provides that a Supreme Court judge may be removed only on the ground of:
proved misbehaviour
or
incapacity.
Removal Procedure
The process involves Parliament and the President.
A removal motion must be supported in each House by:
- a majority of the total membership of that House, and
- a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting.
Both Houses must pass the address in the same session.
After that, the President issues the order of removal.
This special majority makes judicial removal intentionally difficult.
Is It Correct to Call This Impeachment?
In everyday exam language, the phrase “impeachment of judges” is often used.
Technically, however, the Constitution uses the word removal for Supreme Court judges.
The word “impeachment” is expressly associated with the President under Article 61.
Using “removal of a Supreme Court judge under Article 124(4)” is therefore more constitutionally precise.
Why Is Judicial Independence Important?
Imagine that judges could be:
- removed easily,
- threatened with salary cuts,
- transferred for political reasons,
- punished for unpopular judgments.
In such a system, judicial review would become meaningless.
That is why the Constitution provides several safeguards.
Safeguards for Judicial Independence
Important protections include:
Security of tenure
Judges cannot be removed through an ordinary political majority.
Difficult removal procedure
Article 124(4) requires a special parliamentary majority.
Salaries and service conditions
These receive constitutional protection.
Conduct of judges
Article 121 restricts discussion in Parliament about the conduct of Supreme Court and High Court judges except when a removal motion is under consideration.
Independent establishment
The Supreme Court has constitutional control over its own officers and servants under Article 146.
Post-retirement restriction
A retired Supreme Court judge cannot plead or act in any court or before any authority within India.
Together, these safeguards seek to ensure that judges can decide cases according to law rather than political pressure.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court does not exercise only one kind of jurisdiction.
Its major jurisdictions include:
- Original jurisdiction
- Writ jurisdiction
- Appellate jurisdiction
- Special Leave jurisdiction
- Advisory jurisdiction
- Review jurisdiction
The Court also has important powers under Articles 129, 141 and 142.
The Supreme Court's official jurisdiction page confirms these different constitutional roles.
Original Jurisdiction — Article 131
Original jurisdiction means that the case begins directly in the Supreme Court rather than reaching it through an appeal.
Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over certain federal disputes.
These include disputes:
- between the Government of India and one or more States,
- between the Union and one or more States on one side and other State or States on the other,
- between two or more States.
But there is an important condition.
The dispute must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
This jurisdiction reflects India's federal structure.
Example
Suppose two private companies have a commercial dispute.
They cannot simply approach the Supreme Court under Article 131.
Article 131 is not a general original jurisdiction for all disputes.
It is mainly a special jurisdiction for constitutional disputes between governments within the Indian federation.
UPSC Prelims PYQ — 2014
UPSC asked:
The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the Centre and the States falls under its:
A. Advisory jurisdiction
B. Appellate jurisdiction
C. Original jurisdiction
D. Writ jurisdiction
Answer: C. Original jurisdiction.
The question looks simple, but it tests whether you know the purpose of Article 131.
Article 32 — Writ Jurisdiction
Article 32 is one of the most important provisions in the Constitution.
It gives a person the right to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of:
Fundamental Rights.
Dr B.R. Ambedkar famously regarded Article 32 as the Constitution's “heart and soul.”
Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right.
This means the right to seek constitutional remedies is not merely an ordinary statutory facility.
What Can the Supreme Court Issue Under Article 32?
The Court can issue:
- Habeas Corpus
- Mandamus
- Prohibition
- Certiorari
- Quo Warranto
These are constitutional writs.
Habeas Corpus
Literally connected with producing the body before the court.
It is used to protect personal liberty against unlawful detention.
The court asks:
By what authority has this person been detained?
If the detention is unlawful, release may be ordered.
Mandamus
Mandamus means a command.
It may be issued to require a public authority to perform a public or legal duty that it has failed to perform.
Prohibition
Issued by a superior court to prevent a lower court or tribunal from continuing proceedings beyond its jurisdiction.
Think:
Stop before the decision is completed.
Certiorari
Used to quash an order or decision of a lower court or tribunal where jurisdictional or other recognised legal errors exist.
Simple distinction:
Prohibition → stop proceedings
Certiorari → quash decision/order
Quo Warranto
The court asks:
By what authority are you holding this public office?
It is used to challenge unlawful occupation of a public office.
Article 32 vs Article 226
This comparison is extremely important.
| Supreme Court — Article 32 | High Court — Article 226 |
|---|---|
| Enforcement of Fundamental Rights | Fundamental Rights + other legal rights |
| Article 32 itself is a Fundamental Right | Article 226 is a constitutional power of High Courts |
| Supreme Court | High Courts |
| Scope narrower in subject matter | Scope wider because it extends to “any other purpose” |
So remember:
Article 226 has wider subject-matter scope.
That does not mean High Courts are constitutionally superior to the Supreme Court.
It simply means their writ jurisdiction can also protect ordinary legal rights.
The Supreme Court's official jurisdiction page confirms this distinction.
Appellate Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court is also India's highest appellate court.
Cases can reach it from High Courts in:
- constitutional matters,
- civil matters,
- criminal matters,
subject to the constitutional and statutory requirements.
Important Articles include:
132 → Constitutional cases
133 → Civil cases
134 → Criminal cases
Special Leave Petition — Article 136
Article 136 gives the Supreme Court an unusually wide discretionary appellate power.
The Court may grant special leave to appeal from a judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order passed by a court or tribunal in India, subject to constitutional limitations.
This is commonly called:
SLP — Special Leave Petition.
But Article 136 does not mean that every unsuccessful litigant has an automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court.
It is a discretionary power.
The Court decides whether the case deserves its intervention.
Why Is Article 136 Important?
It allows the Supreme Court to correct serious injustice even where an ordinary statutory appeal may not exist.
At the same time, if Article 136 were treated as a routine second or third appeal in every case, the Supreme Court would be overwhelmed.
So the constitutional idea is extraordinary corrective jurisdiction, not automatic appeal.
Advisory Jurisdiction — Article 143
The President of India may refer certain questions to the Supreme Court for its opinion.
This is known as the Court's:
Advisory Jurisdiction.
The question may involve:
- an important question of law,
- an important question of fact,
- a matter of public importance falling within Article 143.
The Court's role here is different from deciding an ordinary dispute between two litigating parties.
The Supreme Court's official jurisdiction page recognises this special advisory jurisdiction.
Is the Supreme Court's Advisory Opinion the Same as an Ordinary Judgment?
No.
An advisory opinion under Article 143 has a special constitutional character.
Under Article 143(1), the Court may also decline to answer a reference in an appropriate case.
For exam purposes, do not confuse:
Article 131 → federal dispute
with
Article 143 → President seeks opinion.
Article 129 — Court of Record
The Supreme Court is a:
Court of Record.
This has two broad implications.
First, its records and judicial proceedings have authoritative evidentiary value.
Second, it has the power to punish for:
contempt of itself.
The Supreme Court's official page also recognises its contempt jurisdiction.
What Is Contempt of Court?
The broad idea is to protect the administration of justice.
Contempt may include conduct that unlawfully interferes with:
- court proceedings,
- judicial authority,
- administration of justice.
But contempt power should not be misunderstood as a right of judges to suppress every criticism.
Reasoned criticism of judicial decisions is part of a democratic society.
The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to protect justice, not personal prestige.
Article 141 — Law Declared by Supreme Court
Article 141 says:
The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
This gives Supreme Court interpretations enormous importance.
When the Supreme Court interprets a constitutional provision, lower courts must follow the law declared by it.
This helps maintain consistency in India's legal system.
Article 142 — Complete Justice
Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing:
complete justice
in a cause or matter before it.
This is a powerful constitutional provision.
It gives the Court flexibility where ordinary legal remedies may not fully resolve a difficult case.
But Article 142 should not be understood as unlimited power to ignore the Constitution or rewrite every law.
Its purpose is to ensure justice within the constitutional system.
Article 137 — Review of Judgments
Even the Supreme Court can make an error.
Article 137 therefore allows it to:
review its own judgments or orders.
A review petition is not simply another appeal.
It is available on limited legal grounds.
The Supreme Court's official jurisdiction guidance confirms its review power under Article 137 and the Supreme Court Rules.
What Is a Curative Petition?
Normally, litigation should eventually come to an end.
But the Supreme Court recognised that in an extremely rare case, even after a review petition has been dismissed, a grave miscarriage of justice may still need correction.
This led to the concept of a:
Curative Petition
in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002).
A curative petition is not mentioned by name in the Constitution.
It is a judicially developed remedy.
It is available only in very exceptional circumstances.
The Supreme Court's official jurisdiction page recognises curative petitions under the Supreme Court Rules after dismissal of review.
Review vs Curative Petition
| Review Petition | Curative Petition |
|---|---|
| Based on Article 137 | Judicially evolved remedy |
| Comes after final judgment | Comes after review has failed |
| Limited grounds | Even narrower and exceptional |
| Corrects recognised legal error | Prevents gross miscarriage of justice |
Easy order:
Judgment → Review → Curative
Constitution Bench
Not every case is heard by all Supreme Court judges.
Most cases are decided by smaller benches.
Article 145(3) requires a bench of at least five judges where a case involves a substantial question of law concerning interpretation of the Constitution, and for certain Presidential references.
Such a bench is commonly called a:
Constitution Bench.
Larger benches of seven, nine, eleven or thirteen judges may also be formed where important precedent needs reconsideration or particularly significant constitutional questions arise.
Why Does Bench Strength Matter?
India follows the principle of precedent.
A smaller bench normally cannot overrule a judgment of a larger bench.
This helps maintain consistency and stability in constitutional law.
The famous Kesavananda Bharati case was decided by a 13-judge Bench, one of the largest benches in Supreme Court history. The Supreme Court maintains the case in its official landmark-judgment collection.
Judicial Review
Judicial review means the power of courts to examine whether:
- a law,
- executive action,
- constitutional action,
- and in appropriate cases a constitutional amendment
is consistent with the Constitution.
If it violates constitutional limits, the court may declare it invalid.
This makes the Constitution—not Parliament, not the executive, and not the judiciary itself—the supreme law.
Where Does Judicial Review Come From?
There is no single Article titled:
“Judicial Review.”
Instead, the power flows from several constitutional provisions.
Important ones include:
- Article 13
- Article 32
- Article 131
- Article 136
- Article 226
- constitutional supremacy itself.
The Supreme Court has also held judicial review to be part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Why Is Judicial Review Necessary?
Suppose Parliament passes a law that violates freedom of speech.
If Parliament itself were the final judge of whether that law is constitutional, Fundamental Rights could become weak.
Judicial review creates an independent constitutional check.
Its main purposes include:
- protecting Fundamental Rights,
- preserving federal balance,
- maintaining constitutional supremacy,
- controlling arbitrary executive power,
- enforcing limits on Parliament.
Judicial Review Is Not the Same as Judicial Supremacy
This distinction is useful in Mains.
India does not follow pure parliamentary supremacy like the traditional British model.
Nor does the judiciary have unlimited authority.
The Indian model is better understood as:
Constitutional supremacy.
Parliament makes laws.
The executive implements them.
Courts interpret and review them.
Each institution must remain within the Constitution.
UPSC Prelims PYQ — 2019
UPSC asked:
- No High Court has jurisdiction to declare a Central law constitutionally invalid.
- A constitutional amendment cannot be questioned before the Supreme Court.
Which statements were correct?
Answer: Neither statement was correct.
High Courts can review the constitutional validity of Central laws, and constitutional amendments can also be examined under the Basic Structure Doctrine.
This is a perfect example of why Article 226 and Basic Structure must be studied together.
Basic Structure Doctrine
This is one of the most important contributions of the Supreme Court to Indian constitutional law.
The doctrine was developed in:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
The Court held that Parliament has very wide power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.
But Parliament cannot:
destroy or alter the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
The official Supreme Court website hosts the Kesavananda Bharati judgment.
Is Basic Structure Defined in the Constitution?
No.
The Constitution itself does not contain a final list called:
“Basic Structure”.
The doctrine has developed through judicial decisions.
Different cases have recognised different features.
Features Associated with Basic Structure
Important examples include:
- supremacy of the Constitution,
- republican and democratic form of government,
- secularism,
- federalism,
- separation of powers,
- rule of law,
- judicial review,
- independence of judiciary,
- free and fair elections,
- dignity and liberty,
- limited power of constitutional amendment.
Do not treat this as a permanently closed list.
The doctrine has evolved case by case.
Why Is Basic Structure So Important?
Without this doctrine, a sufficiently large parliamentary majority could theoretically use Article 368 to destroy the constitutional system itself.
For example, it could attempt to:
- abolish judicial review,
- end free elections,
- destroy federalism,
- remove constitutional limits on government.
Basic Structure creates a final constitutional boundary.
Parliament can amend the Constitution.
It cannot use amendment power to destroy the Constitution's identity.
Minerva Mills Case — 1980
In Minerva Mills v. Union of India, the Supreme Court strengthened the doctrine.
The Court emphasised that:
- Parliament's amending power is limited,
- judicial review is important,
- harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of the constitutional balance.
The judgment is especially useful for understanding that:
limited amending power itself is part of Basic Structure.
I.R. Coelho Case — 2007
The Ninth Schedule was created to protect certain laws from Fundamental Rights challenges.
But could Parliament put any law in the Ninth Schedule and make it permanently immune from review?
The Supreme Court said no.
In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, it held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be tested if they damage the Basic Structure.
So remember:
Ninth Schedule ≠ total immunity from judicial review.
L. Chandra Kumar Case
In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court held that judicial review by High Courts under Article 226/227 and by the Supreme Court under Article 32 is part of the Basic Structure.
Tribunals can play an important role.
But their decisions cannot completely exclude constitutional judicial review by the higher judiciary.
This case connects:
Tribunals + Judicial Review + Basic Structure.
Maneka Gandhi Case — 1978
The Maneka Gandhi judgment transformed the interpretation of Article 21.
The Court rejected a narrow understanding of “procedure established by law”.
Procedure affecting life or personal liberty must meet constitutional standards of fairness and reasonableness.
The case also strengthened the connection between:
Article 14 + Article 19 + Article 21.
This became a major foundation for later rights jurisprudence.
Puttaswamy Case — 2017
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, a nine-judge Bench unanimously recognised the:
Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right.
Privacy was linked to:
- dignity,
- liberty,
- autonomy,
- Article 21,
- and the broader Fundamental Rights framework.
The Supreme Court continues to rely on Puttaswamy's principles in later privacy cases.
For Mains, Puttaswamy is useful in questions dealing with:
- digital privacy,
- surveillance,
- data protection,
- bodily autonomy,
- individual liberty.
S.R. Bommai Case
In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, the Supreme Court placed important constitutional limits on the use of Article 356.
The case showed that even a Presidential proclamation relating to State constitutional machinery can be subject to judicial review.
It also strengthened:
- federalism,
- floor-test principle,
- constitutional limits on central power.
This is why Supreme Court cases often shape areas far beyond the judiciary itself.
Public Interest Litigation — PIL
Traditionally, courts required the person approaching them to show that he or she had personally suffered a legal injury.
This is called:
locus standi.
But what happens when the victims are:
- bonded labourers,
- prisoners,
- children,
- poor communities,
- people unable to reach the court themselves?
The Supreme Court relaxed traditional standing rules in matters involving public interest.
This gave rise to Public Interest Litigation.
The Supreme Court's official jurisdiction page explains that a public-spirited individual or group may approach the Court in appropriate public-interest matters, and historically even letters and similar communications have sometimes been treated as petitions.
Why Was PIL Important?
PIL helped make constitutional justice accessible to groups that often lacked:
- money,
- legal knowledge,
- social power.
It played an important role in issues involving:
- bonded labour,
- prison conditions,
- environment,
- women's rights,
- child rights,
- food and livelihood,
- government accountability.
Problems with PIL
PIL can also be misused.
Sometimes petitions may be filed for:
- publicity,
- political rivalry,
- private disputes,
- business competition,
- obstruction rather than genuine public interest.
That is why courts increasingly examine whether a petitioner has genuine public-interest standing.
A useful Mains line is:
PIL should remain a tool of social justice, not become Publicity Interest Litigation or Private Interest Litigation.
Judicial Activism
Judicial activism broadly refers to an active judicial approach in protecting constitutional values and rights.
Examples can include:
- expanding Fundamental Rights,
- using PIL,
- issuing guidelines where legal gaps seriously affect rights,
- closely reviewing arbitrary State action.
Judicial activism has contributed significantly to constitutional governance.
But it also raises another question:
When does activism become judicial overreach?
Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach
The distinction is not always easy.
Judicial activism
Court actively enforces the Constitution and rights within its legitimate role.
Judicial overreach
The judiciary enters deeply into matters that properly belong to elected or administrative institutions without sufficient constitutional basis.
A balanced democracy requires both:
judicial courage
and
judicial restraint.
Separation of Powers
India does not follow an absolutely rigid separation of powers.
There is interaction between:
- Legislature,
- Executive,
- Judiciary.
But each has a core constitutional role.
The judiciary should not run everyday administration.
The executive cannot decide constitutional validity of its own actions finally.
Parliament cannot destroy judicial independence.
The idea is therefore not complete isolation.
It is:
institutional balance with constitutional checks.
Supreme Court vs High Court
This comparison is very important.
| Supreme Court | High Court |
|---|---|
| Highest court in India | Highest court within its territorial jurisdiction |
| Articles 124–147 | Mainly Articles 214–231 |
| Judges retire at 65 | Judges retire at 62 |
| Article 32 writ jurisdiction | Article 226 writ jurisdiction |
| Article 32 → Fundamental Rights | Article 226 → Fundamental Rights + other legal rights |
| Article 131 federal original jurisdiction | No equivalent Centre–State original jurisdiction |
| Article 143 advisory jurisdiction | No equivalent Presidential advisory power |
| Law declared binds all courts under Article 141 | Decisions bind subordinate courts within its jurisdiction |
| Final constitutional court | Constitutional court at State/territorial level |
Is Supreme Court Writ Power Wider Than High Court Writ Power?
No.
This is a classic trap.
In terms of subject matter:
High Court's Article 226 jurisdiction is wider.
Why?
Because High Courts can issue writs for:
Fundamental Rights + other legal rights.
Supreme Court's Article 32 jurisdiction is specifically for:
enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Supreme Court as Guardian of Federalism
The Court also protects the constitutional division of power between:
- Union,
- States.
Article 131 is one example.
Judicial review of legislation under the Seventh Schedule is another.
S.R. Bommai and other cases have further shaped the federal balance.
Therefore, the Supreme Court is not only a rights court.
It is also a federal constitutional court.
Supreme Court as Guardian of Fundamental Rights
Article 32 gives direct access to the Supreme Court when Fundamental Rights require enforcement.
Important cases have expanded the practical meaning of rights such as:
- equality,
- personal liberty,
- dignity,
- privacy,
- free speech.
The Court therefore does more than simply read constitutional words.
Its interpretation determines how those rights work in real life.
Important Articles for Revision
Article 124 — Establishment and judges
Article 125 — Salaries of judges
Article 126 — Acting Chief Justice
Article 127 — Ad hoc judges
Article 128 — Retired judges sitting in Supreme Court
Article 129 — Court of Record
Article 130 — Seat of Supreme Court
Article 131 — Original jurisdiction
Article 132 — Constitutional appeals
Article 133 — Civil appeals
Article 134 — Criminal appeals
Article 136 — Special Leave Petition
Article 137 — Review
Article 139 — Additional writ powers by Parliament
Article 139A — Transfer of certain cases
Article 141 — Law declared by Supreme Court binding
Article 142 — Complete justice
Article 143 — Advisory jurisdiction
Article 145 — Rules and Constitution Bench
Article 146 — Officers and servants
Article 147 — Interpretation
Also remember:
Article 32 → Constitutional Remedies
Article 226 → High Court writs
Article 127 — Ad Hoc Judges
If the required quorum of Supreme Court judges is not available, Article 127 allows an eligible High Court judge to sit temporarily as an ad hoc Supreme Court judge after the constitutional requirements are satisfied.
This is not the same as permanent appointment to the Supreme Court.
Article 128 — Retired Judges
The Chief Justice of India may, with the required consent and prior constitutional approval framework, request a retired Supreme Court judge or another qualified former judge to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge.
This can help the Court in appropriate circumstances.
But a retired judge cannot simply return automatically.
The constitutional procedure must be followed.
Important Prelims Traps
Trap 1
The Constitution fixes the Supreme Court permanently at 34 judges.
Wrong.
Parliament determines the number by law.
Trap 2
The Collegium is expressly mentioned in Article 124.
Wrong.
It developed through Supreme Court judgments.
Trap 3
A distinguished jurist can never become a Supreme Court judge.
Wrong.
Article 124 expressly provides this route.
Trap 4
Minimum age of 45 years is prescribed for a Supreme Court judge.
Wrong.
The Constitution does not prescribe such a minimum age.
Trap 5
Supreme Court judges retire at 62.
Wrong.
Supreme Court → 65
High Court → 62
Trap 6
A Supreme Court judge can be removed by a simple majority of Parliament.
Wrong.
A special constitutional majority is required.
Trap 7
Article 32 can enforce every ordinary legal right.
Wrong.
Article 32 is for Fundamental Rights.
Trap 8
Article 226 is narrower than Article 32.
Wrong.
High Court writ jurisdiction extends to Fundamental Rights and other legal rights.
Trap 9
Every appeal can automatically be taken to Supreme Court under Article 136.
Wrong.
Special Leave is discretionary.
Trap 10
A President seeks the Supreme Court's opinion under Article 131.
Wrong.
Advisory jurisdiction → Article 143.
Trap 11
Basic Structure is fully defined in the Constitution.
Wrong.
It is a judicially developed doctrine.
Trap 12
A constitutional amendment can never be struck down.
Wrong.
It can be invalidated if it damages the Basic Structure.
Trap 13
All Ninth Schedule laws are completely immune from judicial review.
Wrong.
I.R. Coelho is the important correction.
Trap 14
Curative Petition is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
Wrong.
It is a judicially evolved remedy.
Trap 15
A Constitution Bench always means all Supreme Court judges.
Wrong.
A constitutional interpretation matter under Article 145(3) requires at least five judges.
Five Practice MCQs
Q1. Consider the following statements:
- Parliament can change the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court.
- The Collegium system is expressly defined in Article 124.
- A distinguished jurist may constitutionally qualify for appointment as a Supreme Court judge.
Which statements are correct?
A. 1 only
B. 1 and 3 only
C. 2 and 3 only
D. 1, 2 and 3
Answer: B. 1 and 3 only
The Collegium evolved through judicial interpretation; the Constitution does not mention it by name.
Q2. Which jurisdiction allows the Supreme Court to hear certain disputes directly between the Union and States?
A. Appellate jurisdiction
B. Advisory jurisdiction
C. Original jurisdiction
D. Review jurisdiction
Answer: C. Original jurisdiction
Article 131 deals with this federal jurisdiction.
Q3. Consider the following:
- Article 32 — Fundamental Rights
- Article 136 — Special Leave Petition
- Article 141 — Law declared by Supreme Court binding on all courts
- Article 143 — Advisory jurisdiction
Which are correctly matched?
A. 1 and 2 only
B. 1, 2 and 3 only
C. 1, 3 and 4 only
D. 1, 2, 3 and 4
Answer: D.
All four are correctly matched.
Q4. With reference to the Basic Structure Doctrine:
- It is expressly defined in the Constitution.
- It was developed in Kesavananda Bharati.
- Parliament may amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its Basic Structure.
- Judicial review has been recognised as part of Basic Structure.
Which statements are correct?
A. 1 and 2 only
B. 2 and 3 only
C. 2, 3 and 4 only
D. All four
Answer: C. 2, 3 and 4 only
The Constitution does not itself contain a final definition of Basic Structure.
Q5. Which statement is correct?
A. A Curative Petition is provided directly under Article 137.
B. Article 226 is limited only to Fundamental Rights.
C. A Supreme Court judge retires at 65 years.
D. The President decides Centre–State disputes under Article 131.
Answer: C.
Article 137 deals with review. Curative jurisdiction was judicially evolved.
UPSC PYQ Connection
Supreme Court questions are often not asked under the heading “Supreme Court”.
UPSC may test the topic through:
- judicial review,
- Centre–State disputes,
- Fundamental Rights,
- writs,
- Basic Structure,
- tribunals,
- parliamentary amendments,
- privacy,
- contempt,
- federalism.
For example, the 2019 Prelims question tested whether High Courts could invalidate Central laws and whether constitutional amendments could be reviewed.
The correct answer required understanding:
Article 226 + Judicial Review + Basic Structure.
Similarly, the 2014 Prelims question directly tested Article 131 by asking about Centre–State disputes.
This shows why preparing isolated Articles is not enough.
Mains Perspective: Judicial Review vs Democracy
A common criticism is:
“Why should unelected judges be able to strike down laws passed by elected representatives?”
This is an important democratic question.
The answer lies in constitutional democracy.
India is not based only on majority rule.
It is also based on:
- Fundamental Rights,
- constitutional limitations,
- federalism,
- rule of law,
- separation of powers.
Parliament receives democratic authority from elections.
But Parliament itself receives its legal authority from the Constitution.
Judicial review ensures that democratic power remains constitutional power.
But Can Courts Go Too Far?
Yes, this possibility should also be acknowledged.
Judges are not elected to formulate every public policy.
Excessive judicial involvement in areas requiring:
- technical expertise,
- budget allocation,
- continuous administration,
- political balancing
can create institutional problems.
A mature judicial system therefore needs both:
independence
and
self-restraint.
Mains Practice Question
“Judicial review is essential for constitutional supremacy, but judicial independence must be balanced with accountability and institutional restraint.” Discuss.
A good answer can begin with:
- written Constitution,
- Article 13,
- Article 32,
- Article 226,
- Basic Structure.
Then explain the role of the Supreme Court in:
- Fundamental Rights,
- federalism,
- constitutional amendments,
- executive accountability.
Use cases such as:
- Kesavananda Bharati,
- Minerva Mills,
- I.R. Coelho,
- Puttaswamy.
Then discuss concerns:
- judicial overreach,
- appointment transparency,
- pendency,
- accountability,
- institutional boundaries.
Conclude by arguing for:
independent but accountable judiciary within constitutional separation of powers.
Another High-Value Mains Question
“The Basic Structure Doctrine has transformed the Supreme Court from an interpreter of the Constitution into a guardian of its constitutional identity.” Examine.
A strong answer should explain:
- Article 368 amendment power,
- Kesavananda Bharati,
- limited amending power,
- Minerva Mills,
- judicial review,
- I.R. Coelho,
- democratic criticism of the doctrine,
- its role in preventing constitutional destruction.
Do not present Basic Structure merely as a list of features.
Explain why the doctrine exists.
Challenges Before the Supreme Court
The institution faces several practical and constitutional challenges.
Pendency
A large caseload can delay justice.
Appointment delays
Vacancies in constitutional courts can affect disposal of cases.
Collegium transparency
The appointment process continues to face questions of openness and accountability.
Access to justice
Reaching the Supreme Court can be expensive and geographically difficult for ordinary citizens.
Constitutional vs appellate workload
The Court must balance its role as:
- a constitutional court,
- and the final appellate court for a very large country.
Judicial restraint
Courts must protect constitutional values without routinely taking over functions of elected or administrative institutions.
What Reforms Can Strengthen the Judiciary?
A balanced reform approach may include:
- filling judicial vacancies on time,
- making appointment criteria more transparent,
- improving diversity on the Bench,
- strengthening court infrastructure,
- greater use of technology,
- improving case management,
- reducing unnecessary government litigation,
- strengthening High Courts so fewer routine matters require Supreme Court intervention,
- prioritising Constitution Bench matters.
The aim should be:
faster justice without weakening judicial independence.
Topper-Level Linkages
A basic answer says:
“Article 32 protects Fundamental Rights.”
A stronger answer says:
“Article 32 converts Fundamental Rights from moral promises into judicially enforceable guarantees by giving direct constitutional access to the Supreme Court.”
A basic answer says:
“Supreme Court has judicial review.”
A stronger answer says:
“Judicial review ensures that India's democracy remains constitutional rather than merely majoritarian, because even elected institutions derive and limit their authority through the Constitution.”
A basic answer says:
“Basic Structure limits Parliament.”
A stronger answer says:
“The Basic Structure Doctrine reconciles two constitutional principles: Parliament must possess enough power to amend a living Constitution, but no temporary political majority should possess the power to destroy its constitutional identity.”
That is the difference between factual and analytical Polity preparation.
60-Second Revision
124 → Supreme Court + Judges
129 → Court of Record
131 → Centre–State original jurisdiction
132 → Constitutional appeals
133 → Civil appeals
134 → Criminal appeals
136 → Special Leave Petition
137 → Review
141 → Supreme Court law binding
142 → Complete Justice
143 → President seeks advice
145 → Court rules + Constitution Bench
32 → Fundamental Rights writs
226 → High Court writ jurisdiction
Numbers You Should Remember
34 → present sanctioned maximum strength including CJI
65 → retirement age of Supreme Court judge
62 → retirement age of High Court judge
5 years → High Court judge experience route for SC qualification
10 years → High Court advocate experience route
5 judges → minimum Constitution Bench under Article 145(3)
Cases You Should Never Forget
Kesavananda Bharati, 1973
→ Basic Structure
Maneka Gandhi, 1978
→ Expanded Article 21
Minerva Mills, 1980
→ Limited amendment power + judicial review
S.R. Bommai, 1994
→ Federalism + Article 356 review
L. Chandra Kumar, 1997
→ Judicial review + tribunals
Rupa Ashok Hurra, 2002
→ Curative Petition
I.R. Coelho, 2007
→ Ninth Schedule + Basic Structure review
Puttaswamy, 2017
→ Right to Privacy
NJAC Judgment, 2015
→ Collegium restored + judicial independence
Five Things You Should Never Mix Up
Article 32 vs 226
SC for Fundamental Rights vs HC for FR + other legal rights
Article 131 vs 143
Federal dispute vs Presidential reference
Review vs Curative
Constitutional review power vs exceptional judicially evolved remedy
Judicial Review vs Appeal
Constitutional validity vs reconsideration by higher court
Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach
Active constitutional protection vs entering another institution's legitimate domain
Final Takeaway
The Supreme Court is powerful, but its power is not the purpose of the institution.
Its purpose is to protect the Constitution.
It protects citizens when Fundamental Rights are violated.
It protects federalism when constitutional boundaries between governments are disputed.
It protects constitutional democracy when Parliament or the executive crosses constitutional limits.
At the same time, the judiciary itself must respect institutional limits.
That is why the best way to understand the Supreme Court is not as an institution standing above democracy.
It is part of the constitutional system that makes democracy meaningful.
Parliament represents democratic will.
The executive governs.
The judiciary ensures that both remain within constitutional limits.
In one line:
The Supreme Court is strongest when it protects the Constitution without trying to replace the institutions that the Constitution itself has created.
Sources and Standard References
Read the Official Constitution of India
Supreme Court Collegium Resolutions
Official McGraw Hill — Indian Polity by M. Laxmikanth
