What is the current strength of the Supreme Court of India?

The current sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court of India is 34 judges, including the Chief Justice of India. This was increased from 31 to 34 through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019. The strength has been progressively increased over the years to handle the growing caseload - from the original 8 judges in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986, 31 in 2009, and finally 34 in 2019. However, the actual working strength often remains below the sanctioned strength due to vacancies and the time taken in the appointment process.

How are Supreme Court judges appointed in India?

Supreme Court judges are appointed through the collegium system, which evolved through judicial pronouncements. The collegium consists of the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. They recommend names to the President, who is bound to accept their recommendations. The process involves consultation with High Court Chief Justices and other senior judges. Candidates must be citizens of India, have been judges of High Courts for at least 5 years, or advocates of High Courts for at least 10 years, or be distinguished jurists in the President's opinion. The collegium system replaced the earlier consultation process and was formalized after the Third Judges Case in 1998.

What is the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution?

The basic structure doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), holds that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure or essential features. The doctrine emerged as a judicial response to unlimited amending power claimed by Parliament. Key elements of basic structure include supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, independence of judiciary, doctrine of separation of powers, federalism, secularism, sovereign democratic republic, parliamentary system, and the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles. This doctrine has been used to strike down constitutional amendments that violate these core principles, such as in the Minerva Mills case (1980).

What are the three types of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court exercises three types of jurisdiction: 1) Original Jurisdiction (Article 131) - Exclusive authority to hear disputes between the Government of India and states, or between states. These cases are filed directly in the Supreme Court. 2) Appellate Jurisdiction (Articles 132-135) - Hears appeals from High Courts in constitutional, civil, and criminal matters where substantial questions of law are involved. 3) Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143) - The President can seek the Court's opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance, though this advice is not binding. Additionally, Article 136 grants special leave petition jurisdiction, allowing discretionary appeals from any court or tribunal.

What is the collegium system and why is it controversial?

The collegium system is the current method of appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, consisting of the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most Supreme Court judges. It evolved through the Second and Third Judges Cases (1993, 1998) to ensure judicial independence from executive interference. The system is controversial due to lack of transparency, absence of written criteria, no public scrutiny, and potential for nepotism. Critics argue it violates democratic principles of accountability. The government attempted to replace it with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) through the 99th Amendment, but the Supreme Court struck it down in 2015, maintaining the collegium while promising reforms for greater transparency.

Can the Supreme Court review its own judgments?

Yes, under Article 137, the Supreme Court has the power to review its own judgments or orders, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament and rules made under Article 145. However, this power is exercised very sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances such as when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, new evidence has emerged, or there has been a fundamental error in the application of law. The review petition must be filed within 30 days of the judgment. The Court generally follows the principle that review is not re-hearing and should not be used as an appeal in disguise. Recent examples include review of the Sabarimala judgment and various death penalty cases.

What is Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court?

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal innovation that allows any citizen to approach the Supreme Court on behalf of those who cannot access justice themselves. Introduced in the 1980s by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, PIL relaxes traditional standing requirements, allowing concerned citizens, NGOs, or even the Court itself to take suo motu cognizance of issues affecting public interest. PIL has been instrumental in addressing issues like environmental protection, bonded labor, custodial violence, and corruption. However, it faces criticism for potential judicial overreach and misuse by publicity seekers. The Court has developed guidelines to prevent frivolous PILs while maintaining access to justice for genuine public causes.

What is the difference between original and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

Original jurisdiction refers to cases that can be directly filed in the Supreme Court without going through lower courts first. Under Article 131, this includes disputes between the Union and states or between states themselves. The Supreme Court is the first and final court for such matters. Appellate jurisdiction, covered under Articles 132-135, involves hearing appeals from High Court decisions. These cases must first be decided by High Courts before reaching the Supreme Court. Appeals can be in constitutional matters (substantial questions of constitutional interpretation), civil matters (involving substantial questions of general importance), or criminal matters (death sentences or acquittals reversed to convictions). Special Leave Petition under Article 136 provides discretionary appellate jurisdiction from any court or tribunal.

How does the Supreme Court enforce its judgments?

The Supreme Court enforces its judgments through several mechanisms: 1) Article 141 makes Supreme Court decisions binding on all courts in India. 2) Article 142 empowers the Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice, including directions to governments and authorities. 3) Contempt of Court powers under Article 129 allow punishment for willful disobedience of court orders. 4) The Court can issue writs including mandamus to compel compliance. 5) In extreme cases, the Court can direct CBI investigation or appoint monitoring committees. 6) Article 144 requires all authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court. Recent examples include monitoring of environmental compliance, election reforms, and implementation of welfare schemes through court-appointed commissioners.

What is the retirement age of Supreme Court judges and can it be changed?

Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65 years as specified in Article 124(2). This age limit can only be changed through a constitutional amendment by Parliament. The retirement age was set considering the need for experienced judges while ensuring regular renewal of the judiciary. Judges cannot continue beyond this age even if they are in the middle of important cases. However, retired judges can be called back to sit on specific benches under Article 128 if there is a shortage of judges, though this is rarely used. The retirement age is higher than many other constitutional positions - High Court judges retire at 62, and most civil servants retire at 60, reflecting the special status and experience required for Supreme Court positions.

What is the procedure for impeachment of Supreme Court judges?

Supreme Court judges can only be removed through impeachment for 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' under Article 124(4). The procedure involves: 1) A motion signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members. 2) The motion is examined by the Speaker/Chairman for admissibility. 3) If admitted, a three-member inquiry committee is formed with a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist. 4) The committee investigates and submits its report. 5) If misbehaviour/incapacity is proved, the motion is taken up by both Houses of Parliament. 6) The motion must be passed by a majority of total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting in both Houses. 7) Only then can the President remove the judge. No Supreme Court judge has ever been successfully impeached, though Justice V. Ramaswami faced an unsuccessful impeachment attempt in 1993.

How does the Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction work under Article 143?

Under Article 143, the President can seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance that may arise. The Court's advice is not binding on the President, making this jurisdiction unique. The provision has two parts: 143(1) allows reference of any question, while 143(2) specifically covers disputes arising from pre-Constitution treaties or agreements. Notable advisory opinions include the Berubari Union case (1960), the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal case (1992), and the Ayodhya dispute reference (1993). The Court can decline to answer if the question is not of sufficient public importance or if it's not appropriate for judicial determination. This jurisdiction reflects the Court's role as the highest constitutional authority while respecting the separation of powers by making the advice non-binding.

What is the significance of Article 32 in relation to the Supreme Court?

Article 32, known as the 'Right to Constitutional Remedies' and called the 'heart and soul' of the Constitution by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, empowers citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. This article makes the Supreme Court the guardian and guarantor of fundamental rights. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court can issue five types of writs: habeas corpus (against illegal detention), mandamus (to compel performance of duty), prohibition (to prevent excess of jurisdiction), certiorari (to quash illegal orders), and quo warranto (to challenge illegal appointment to public office). Article 32 cannot be suspended except during a national emergency, and even then, only the right to approach the court is suspended, not the rights themselves. This provision has been crucial in the development of PIL and judicial activism in India.

How has the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 21 evolved over time?

The Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) has undergone revolutionary expansion since the Maneka Gandhi case (1978). Initially interpreted narrowly as mere protection against arbitrary executive action, it now encompasses a wide range of rights. The Court established that 'life' means more than mere animal existence and includes the right to live with human dignity. Through various judgments, Article 21 now includes rights to: clean environment, healthcare, education, speedy trial, legal aid, privacy, shelter, livelihood, and even the right to die with dignity. The Court has also established that any law affecting life and liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable, not merely procedurally correct. This expansive interpretation has made Article 21 the most dynamic provision of the Constitution, serving as the foundation for numerous social and economic rights.

What is the role of the Supreme Court in protecting federalism in India?

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role as the federal arbitrator in India's quasi-federal system. Under Article 131, it has exclusive original jurisdiction in disputes between the Union and states or between states themselves. The Court has protected federalism by: 1) Interpreting the distribution of legislative powers under the three lists (Union, State, Concurrent). 2) Resolving inter-state disputes over river waters, boundaries, and resources. 3) Checking the misuse of Article 356 (President's Rule) through the S.R. Bommai judgment. 4) Protecting state autonomy while maintaining national unity. 5) Balancing cooperative federalism with competitive federalism. 6) Ensuring that Union laws don't unnecessarily encroach upon state subjects. Recent cases involving GST implementation, Article 370 abrogation, and COVID-19 management have highlighted the Court's continuing role in federal balance. The Court has generally favored a strong center while protecting legitimate state interests.

← ALL TOPICS

Indian Polity & Governance

NEXT TOPIC →

President

Supreme Court

Indian Polity & Governance

Constitution VerifiedUPSC Verified

Version 1Updated 5 Mar 2026

Explore This Topic

Definition Detailed Explanation Landmark Judgments Basic Structure Amendments UPSC Importance Prelims Strategy Mains Strategy Prelims MCQs Mains Questions MCQ Practice Predicted 2026 Revision Notes Current Affairs

Article 124 of the Constitution of India states: '(1) There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven other Judges. (2) Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court a…

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court of India, established on January 26, 1950, is the apex judicial institution with 34 judges including the Chief Justice of India. Located in New Delhi, it replaced the Federal Court and serves as the guardian of the Constitution and fundamental rights.

The Court exercises three types of jurisdiction: original (exclusive disputes between governments), appellate (appeals from High Courts), and advisory (non-binding advice to President). Its most significant power is judicial review, enabling it to examine the constitutionality of laws and executive actions.

The basic structure doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), limits Parliament's amending power. Judges are appointed through the collegium system (CJI plus four senior judges) and retire at 65.

Key constitutional provisions span Articles 124-147, covering establishment, appointment, powers, and jurisdiction. Landmark judgments include Kesavananda Bharati (basic structure), Maneka Gandhi (Article 21 expansion), S.

R. Bommai (Article 356 guidelines), and recent cases on privacy, triple talaq, and Article 370. The Court can issue five types of writs under Article 32 and has pioneered Public Interest Litigation. Current challenges include case pendency (70,000+ cases), collegium transparency, and balancing judicial activism with restraint.

Recent developments include AI-powered case management, live streaming of proceedings, and increased women's representation. The Court remains central to Indian democracy as the final interpreter of the Constitution and protector of citizens' rights.

Vyyuha

Your 6-Month Blueprint, Updated Nightly

AI analyses your progress every night. Wake up to a smarter plan. Every. Single.…

Supreme Court

Quick Summary

Related Topics