.svg)
6
edits
Supreme Court of India: Difference between revisions
robot: Update article
WikiDwarfBOT (talk | contribs) m (→External links: Replace {{Source}} tag) |
(robot: Update article) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description| | {{Short description|Constitutional Body in India}} | ||
{{Use Indian English|date= | {{Use Indian English|date=February 2019}} | ||
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2019}} | {{Use dmy dates|date=February 2019}} | ||
{{Infobox high court | {{Infobox high court | ||
| court_name = Supreme Court of India | | court_name = Supreme Court of India | ||
| native_name = ''' | | native_name = '''{{lang|hi-Latn|Bhāratiya Ucchatama Nyāyālaya}}''' | ||
| image = Emblem of the Supreme Court of India.svg | | image = Emblem of the Supreme Court of India.svg | ||
| imagesize = 150px | | imagesize = 150px | ||
| caption = Emblem of the Supreme Court of India | | caption = Emblem of the Supreme Court of India | ||
| established = {{start date and age|1937|10|1|df=yes}}<br /> {{small|(as [[Federal Court of India]])}}<br />{{start date and age|1950|1|28 | |image2 = Supreme Court of India - Retouched.jpg | ||
|df=yes}}<br />{{small|(as Supreme Court of India)}}<ref | |imagesize2=300| established = {{start date and age|1937|10|1|df=yes}}<br /> {{small|(as [[Federal Court of India]])}}<br />{{start date and age|1950|1|28 | ||
|df=yes}}<br />{{small|(as Supreme Court of India)}}<ref name="history" /> | |||
| city = [[New Delhi]] | | city = [[New Delhi]] | ||
| state = [[Delhi]] | | state = [[Delhi]] | ||
| location = Tilak Marg, [[New Delhi]], [[Delhi]] | |jurisdiction= [[Ministry of Law and Justice (India) | Ministry of Law and Justice]], [[Government of India]] | ||
| country = | | location = Tilak Marg, [[New Delhi]], [[Delhi]], India | ||
| coordinates = {{coord|28.622237|N|77.239584|E|region:IN_type:landmark|display=inline, title}}<!-- {{coord|45.000|-122.000|display=inline,title}} --> | | country = India | ||
| coordinates = {{coord|28.622237|N|77.239584|E|format=dms|region:IN_type:landmark|display=inline, title}}<!-- {{coord|45.000|-122.000|display=inline,title}} --> | |||
| type = [[Three Judges Cases|Collegium of the Supreme Court of India]] | | type = [[Three Judges Cases|Collegium of the Supreme Court of India]] | ||
| authority = [[Constitution of India]] | | authority = Article 124 of the [[Constitution of India]] | ||
| appeals = | | appeals = | ||
| terms = Mandatory retirement at 65 years of [[Ageing|age]] | | terms = Mandatory retirement at 65 years of [[Ageing|age]] | ||
| positions = 34 (33+1; present strength)<ref>{{cite web|title=Chief Justice & Judges|url=https://www.sci.gov.in/chief-justice-judges|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=12 October 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191025230422/https://sci.gov.in/chief-justice-judges|archive-date=25 October 2019|url-status=dead}}</ref> | | positions = 34(33+1; present strength)<ref>{{cite web|title=Chief Justice & Judges|url=https://www.sci.gov.in/chief-justice-judges|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=12 October 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191025230422/https://sci.gov.in/chief-justice-judges|archive-date=25 October 2019|url-status=dead}}</ref> | ||
| website = {{url|https://www.sci.gov.in}} | | website = {{url|https://www.sci.gov.in}} | ||
| motto = | | motto = [[International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration|IAST]]: ''[[Yato Dharmastato Jayah]]''<br />({{translation|Where there is righteousness {{small|(}}''[[dharma]]''{{small|)}}, there is victory {{small|(}}''jayah''{{small|)}}}}) | ||
| chiefjudgetitle = [[Chief Justice of India]] | | chiefjudgetitle = [[Chief Justice of India]] | ||
| chiefjudgename = [[ | | chiefjudgename = [[N. V. Ramana]] | ||
|termstart = | |termstart = 24 April 2021 | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Courts of India}} | {{Courts of India}} | ||
The '''Supreme Court of India''' is the supreme judicial | The '''Supreme Court of India''' ([[International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration|IAST]]: {{lang|hi-Latn|Bhārat kē Ucchatama Nyāyālaya}}) is the supreme judicial [[government of India|body of India]] and the highest court of the Republic of India under the [[Constitution of India|constitution]]. It is the most senior constitutional court, and has the power of [[judicial review]]. The [[Chief Justice of India|chief justice of India]] is the head and [[chief justice|chief judge]] of the Supreme Court, which consists of a maximum of 34 judges and has extensive powers in the form of [[original jurisdiction|original]], [[appellate jurisdiction|appellate]] and [[Advisory opinion|advisory jurisdictions]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Rule of law index 2016|url=http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/#|access-date=13 January 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150429071718/http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/|archive-date=29 April 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
As the constitutional court | As the apex constitutional court in India, it takes up appeals primarily against verdicts of the [[List of High Courts of India|high courts of various states of the Union]] and other courts and tribunals. It is required to safeguard the [[fundamental rights]] of citizens and settles disputes between various government authorities as well as the central government vs. state governments or state governments versus another state government in the country. As an advisory court, it hears matters which may specifically be referred to it under the [[Constitution of India|Constitution]] by the [[President of India#Judicial powers|president of India]]. The law declared by the Supreme Court becomes binding on all courts within India and also by the union and state governments.<ref name="History PDF">{{cite web|title=History of Supreme Court of India|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supct/scm/m2.pdf|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=30 August 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141222100038/http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supct/scm/m2.pdf|archive-date=22 December 2014|df=dmy-all}}</ref> As per the [[Wikisource: Constitution of India/Part V|Article 142]] of the Constitution, it is the duty of the [[president of India]] to enforce the decrees of the Supreme Court and the court is conferred with the inherent jurisdiction to pass any order deemed necessary in the interest of justice. The Supreme Court has replaced the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] as the highest court of appeal since 28 January 1950. | ||
== History == | == History == | ||
| Line 35: | Line 37: | ||
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 s''adar adalats'' in presidency towns in their respective regions. These new high courts had the distinction of being the highest courts for all cases till the creation of the [[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 appeals against judgement of the high courts. The first CJI of India was [[H. J. Kania]].<ref name="History PDF" /> | 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 s''adar adalats'' in presidency towns in their respective regions. These new high courts had the distinction of being the highest courts for all cases till the creation of the [[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 appeals against judgement of the high courts. The first CJI of India was [[H. J. Kania]].<ref name="History PDF" /> | ||
The Supreme Court of India came into being on 28 January 1950.<ref name="history">History of the Supreme Court of India</ref> It replaced both the [[Federal Court of India]] and the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] which were then at the apex of the Indian court system. The first proceedings and inauguration, however, took place on 28 January 1950 at 9:45 am, when the judges took their seats. Which is thus regarded as the official date of establishment.<ref> | The Supreme Court of India came into being on 28 January 1950.<ref name="history">{{cite web|title=History of the Supreme Court of India|url=https://www.sci.gov.in/history|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190128191141/https://www.sci.gov.in/history|url-status=dead|archive-date=28 January 2019 }}</ref> It replaced both the [[Federal Court of India]] and the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] which were then at the apex of the Indian court system. The first proceedings and inauguration, however, took place on 28 January 1950 at 9:45 am, when the judges took their seats. Which is thus regarded as the official date of establishment.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://delhibarcouncil.com/resources-for-lawyers/delhi-courts/supreme-court/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190128191100/http://delhibarcouncil.com/resources-for-lawyers/delhi-courts/supreme-court/ |url-status=dead |title=Supreme Court | Bar Council of Delhi|archive-date=28 January 2019}}</ref> | ||
The Supreme Court initially had its seat at the [[Chamber of Princes]] in the [[Parliament of India|parliament building]] where the previous Federal Court of India sat from 1937 to 1950. The first Chief Justice of India was H. J. Kania. In 1958, the Supreme Court moved to its present premises.<ref name="history" /> Originally, the Constitution of India envisaged a supreme court with a chief justice and seven judges; leaving it to | The Supreme Court initially had its seat at the [[Chamber of Princes]] in the [[Parliament of India|parliament building]] where the previous Federal Court of India sat from 1937 to 1950. The first Chief Justice of India was H. J. Kania. In 1958, the Supreme Court moved to its present premises.<ref name="history" /> Originally, the Constitution of India envisaged a supreme court with a chief justice and seven judges; leaving it to Parliament to increase this number. 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 month. | ||
== Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court == | |||
The Supreme Court of India was constituted as per Chapter IV of the Part V of Constitution of India. The fourth Chapter of the Indian Constitution is " The Union Judiciary". Under this Chapter, the Supreme Court of India is vested with all Jurisdiction. As per Article 124, The Supreme Court of India had been Constituted and Established. As per Article 129, the Supreme Court is to be the Court of Record. As per Article 131, the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is authorized. As per Articles 132, 133, 134 the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is authorized. Under Article 135, Federal Court's Power is given to the Supreme Court. Article 136 is dealing with the Special leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court. Review Power of the Supreme Court is explained in Article 137. Article 138 deals with the Enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Article 139 deals with the Conferment on the Supreme Court of powers to issue certain writs. Ancillary powers of Supreme Court is given as per Article 140.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Constitution of India|url=https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI.pdf}}</ref> | |||
The Law making power of the Supreme Court is given under Article 141 of the Constitution. The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in the country.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Article 141 of the Constitution|url=https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI.pdf}}</ref> | |||
==Members of Collegium== | ==Members of Collegium== | ||
Presently, the Members of Collegium are: | Presently, the Members of Collegium are: | ||
*[[N. V. Ramana|N. V. Ramana (Chief Justice of India)]] | |||
*[[N. V. Ramana|N. V. Ramana ( | |||
*[[Uday U. Lalit|Uday Umesh Lalit (Judge)]] | *[[Uday U. Lalit|Uday Umesh Lalit (Judge)]] | ||
*[[Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar|Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar (Judge)]] | *[[Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar|Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar (Judge)]] | ||
*[[Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud|Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud (Judge)]] | |||
*[[L. Nageswara Rao|L. Nageswara Rao (Judge)]] | |||
== Court building architecture == | == Court building architecture == | ||
[[File:Supreme Court of India - Central Wing.jpg|thumbnail|Central Wing of the court where the chief justice's courtroom is located]] | [[File:Supreme Court of India - Central Wing.jpg|thumbnail|Central Wing of the court where the chief justice's courtroom is located]] | ||
The building is shaped to symbolize scales of justice with its centre-beam being the Central Wing of the building, consisting of 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, consisting of rooms, the offices of the [[Attorney General of India]] and other law officers and the library of the court. The Left Wing has the offices of the court. In all, there are 15 courtrooms in the various wings of the building.<ref name="History PDF" /><ref name=history / | The building is shaped to symbolize scales of justice with its centre-beam being the Central Wing of the building, consisting of 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, consisting of rooms, the offices of the [[Attorney General of India]] and other law officers and the library of the court. The Left Wing has the offices of the court. In all, there are 15 courtrooms in the various wings of the building.<ref name="History PDF" /><ref name=history /> | ||
[[File:Building of The Supreme Court of India.jpg|thumb|Left side of the Supreme Court building]] | [[File:Building of The Supreme Court of India.jpg|thumb|Left side of the Supreme Court building]] | ||
| Line 56: | Line 65: | ||
=== Mother and Child Sculpture === | === Mother and Child Sculpture === | ||
[[File:Inside the Supreme Court of India. 16.jpg|thumb|Mother and Child Sculpture]] | [[File:Inside the Supreme Court of India. 16.jpg|thumb|Mother and Child Sculpture]] | ||
On 20 February 1980, a black bronze sculpture of {{convert|210|cm|ftin|abbr=on}} height was installed in the lawn of the Supreme Court. It portrays [[Bharat Mata|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 beam is shown, which represents dispensation of equal justice to all. The sculpture was made by the renowned artist [[Chintamoni Kar]]. The sculpture is just behind the statue of Mahatma Gandhi.{{citation needed|date=July 2020}} | On 20 February 1980, a black bronze sculpture of {{convert|210|cm|ftin|abbr=on}} height was installed in the lawn of the Supreme Court. It portrays [[Bharat Mata|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 beam is shown, which represents dispensation of equal justice to all. The sculpture was made by the renowned artist [[Chintamoni Kar]]. The sculpture is just behind the statue of Mahatma Gandhi.{{citation needed|date=July 2020}} | ||
=== Seal === | === Seal === | ||
The design of the Court's seal is reproduced from the wheel that appears on the [[Lion Capital of Ashoka|Sarnath Lion capital of Ashoka]] with 24 spokes. The inscription in [[Sanskrit]], [[Yato Dharma Tato Jaya|यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः]] ([[International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration|IAST]]: {{IAST|Yato Dharmastato Jayaḥ}}, means "whence justice (dharma), thence victory". It is also referred as the wheel of righteousness, encompassing truth, goodness and [[Equity (legal concept)|equity]].<ref name="History PDF" /> | The design of the Court's seal is reproduced from the wheel that appears on the [[Lion Capital of Ashoka|Sarnath Lion capital of Ashoka]] with 24 spokes. The inscription in [[Sanskrit]], [[Yato Dharma Tato Jaya|यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः]] ([[International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration|IAST]]: {{IAST|Yato Dharmastato Jayaḥ}}, means "whence justice (dharma), thence victory". It is also referred as the wheel of righteousness, encompassing truth, goodness and [[Equity (legal concept)|equity]].<ref name="History PDF" /> | ||
== Constitution of the | == Constitution of the Court == | ||
=== Registry === | === Registry === | ||
The registry of the Supreme Court is headed by the Secretary-General who is currently assisted by 10 registrars, several additional and deputy registrars,<ref>{{Cite web | |||
The registry of the Supreme Court is headed by the Secretary-General who is currently assisted by 10 registrars, several additional and deputy registrars,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://main.sci.gov.in/registry-officers/|title=Registry Officers | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA|website=main.sci.gov.in}}</ref> etc. Article 146 of the Constitution deals with the appointments of officers and servants of the Supreme Court registry.<ref name=Consti>{{cite web|title=Constitution of Supreme Court|url=http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/constitution.htm|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=31 March 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130330233810/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/constitution.htm|archive-date=30 March 2013|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref name=OC-registry>{{cite web|title=Organisational Chart of the Registry of the Supreme Court of India|url=http://sci.nic.in/registry/org_chart.pdf|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=26 April 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140531212401/http://sci.nic.in/registry/org_chart.pdf|archive-date=31 May 2014|df=dmy-all}}</ref> | |||
=== Supreme Court advocates === | === Supreme Court advocates === | ||
{{Main|Advocates-on-Record}} | {{Main|Advocates-on-Record}} | ||
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 entitle only those advocates who are registered with the Supreme Court, called [[Advocate-on-Record|advocates-on-record]] to appear, act and plead for a party in the court.<ref name="SCRules">{{cite web|url=http://sci.nic.in/Supreme%20Court%20Rules,%202013.pdf|title=Supreme Court Rules, 2013|date=27 May 2014|website=sci.nic.in|publisher=Supreme Court of India|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140722120505/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/Supreme%20Court%20Rules%2C%202013.pdf|archive-date=22 July 2014|url-status=dead|access-date=22 July 2014|df=dmy-all}}</ref> Those advocates who are designated as [[Senior counsel|'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. | Supreme Court Rules, 2013 entitle only those advocates who are registered with the Supreme Court, called [[Advocate-on-Record|advocates-on-record]] to appear, act and plead for a party in the court.<ref name="SCRules">{{cite web|url=http://sci.nic.in/Supreme%20Court%20Rules,%202013.pdf|title=Supreme Court Rules, 2013|date=27 May 2014|website=sci.nic.in|publisher=Supreme Court of India|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140722120505/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/Supreme%20Court%20Rules%2C%202013.pdf|archive-date=22 July 2014|url-status=dead|access-date=22 July 2014|df=dmy-all}}</ref> Those advocates who are designated as [[Senior counsel|'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. | ||
| Line 75: | Line 89: | ||
=== Size of the court === | === Size of the court === | ||
Initially, the Constitution of India provided for a Supreme Court with a chief justice and 7 judges. In the early years, a [[En banc|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 (including the Chief Justice) from the original 8 in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986, 31 in 2009, to 34 in 2019. As the number of the judges has increased, they sit in smaller benches of two or three (referred to as a [[division bench]])<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Chowdhury|first1=Rishad Ahmed|title=Missing the Wood for the Trees: The Unseen Crisis in the Supreme Court|journal=NUJS Law Review |date=July–September 2012|volume=5|issue=3/4|page=358|url=http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/04_rishad_ahmed.pdf#page=8|access-date=3 November 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208081111/http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/04_rishad_ahmed.pdf#page=8|archive-date=8 December 2015|df=dmy-all}}</ref>—coming together in larger benches of five or more (referred to as a [[Constitution bench (India)|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.<ref name="Supreme Court of India — History">{{cite web|title=Supreme Court of India — History|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/history.htm|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=21 June 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120527162408/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/history.htm|archive-date=27 May 2012|df=dmy-all}}</ref> | Initially, the Constitution of India provided for a Supreme Court with a chief justice and 7 judges. In the early years, a [[En banc|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 (including the Chief Justice) from the original 8 in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986, 31 in 2009, to 34 in 2019. As the number of the judges has increased, they sit in smaller benches of two or three (referred to as a [[division bench]])<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Chowdhury|first1=Rishad Ahmed|title=Missing the Wood for the Trees: The Unseen Crisis in the Supreme Court|journal=NUJS Law Review |date=July–September 2012|volume=5|issue=3/4|page=358|url=http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/04_rishad_ahmed.pdf#page=8|access-date=3 November 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208081111/http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/04_rishad_ahmed.pdf#page=8|archive-date=8 December 2015|df=dmy-all}}</ref>—coming together in larger benches of five or more (referred to as a [[Constitution bench (India)|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.<ref name="Supreme Court of India — History">{{cite web|title=Supreme Court of India — History|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/history.htm|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=21 June 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120527162408/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/history.htm|archive-date=27 May 2012|df=dmy-all}}</ref> | ||
The largest-ever bench at the Supreme Court of India has been constituted in 1973 in [[Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala|'''Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala'''.]] A bench of 13 judges was set up to decide whether Parliament had the unfettered right to amend the Constitution or not that eventually gave rise to the Basic Structure doctrine. | The largest-ever bench at the Supreme Court of India has been constituted in 1973 in [[Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala|'''Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala'''.]] A bench of 13 judges was set up to decide whether Parliament had the unfettered right to amend the Constitution or not that eventually gave rise to the Basic Structure doctrine. | ||
=== Eligibility of a judge of the Supreme Court === | === Eligibility of a judge of the Supreme Court === | ||
A [[Indian nationality law|citizen of India]] not exceeding 65 years age per [[wikisource:Constitution of India/Part V|Article 124]] of the Constitution who has been: | A [[Indian nationality law|citizen of India]] not exceeding 65 years age per [[wikisource:Constitution of India/Part V|Article 124]] of the Constitution who has been: | ||
| Line 88: | Line 102: | ||
* a distinguished [[jurist]], in the opinion of the president, power conferred by clause 2 of article 124 of the Constitution of India | * a distinguished [[jurist]], in the opinion of the president, power conferred by clause 2 of article 124 of the Constitution of India | ||
is eligible to be recommended for appointment, a judge of the Supreme Court.<ref name="Section 124, Constitution of India">{{cite web|title=Section 124, Constitution of India|url=http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/Constitution/S124.htm| | is eligible to be recommended for appointment, a judge of the Supreme Court.<ref name="Section 124, Constitution of India">{{cite web|title=Section 124, Constitution of India|url=http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/Constitution/S124.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070314031734/http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/Constitution/S124.htm|url-status=dead|archive-date=14 March 2007|publisher=VakilNo1|access-date=27 October 2012}}</ref> | ||
=== Court demographics === | === Court demographics === | ||
{{ | |||
{{Blockquote | |||
|quote = ''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.'' | |quote = ''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.'' | ||
|sign=Former [[Chief Justice of India]], [[S. H. Kapadia]]|source = <ref name="Minorities can rise to top jobs only in India: Chief Justice of India">{{cite news|title=Minorities can rise to top jobs only in India: Chief Justice of India|url=http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-16/india/33232149_1_justice-kapadia-chief-justice-minority-communities|access-date=16 August 2012 | |sign=Former [[Chief Justice of India]], [[S. H. Kapadia]]|source = <ref name="Minorities can rise to top jobs only in India: Chief Justice of India">{{cite news|title=Minorities can rise to top jobs only in India: Chief Justice of India|url=http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-16/india/33232149_1_justice-kapadia-chief-justice-minority-communities|access-date=16 August 2012|date=16 August 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120817083144/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-16/india/33232149_1_justice-kapadia-chief-justice-minority-communities|archive-date=17 August 2012|newspaper=[[The Times of India]]|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="Accountability law must not encroach on judicial independence, cautions CJI">{{cite news|title=Accountability law must not encroach on judicial independence, cautions CJI|url=http://www.indianexpress.com/news/accountability-law-must-not-encroach-on-judicial-independence-cautions-cji/988900/|access-date=16 August 2012|newspaper=The Indian Express|date=16 August 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130317084603/http://www.indianexpress.com/news/accountability-law-must-not-encroach-on-judicial-independence-cautions-cji/988900/|archive-date=17 March 2013|url-status=live}}</ref>}} | ||
In practice, judges of the Supreme Court have been selected so far, mostly from amongst judges of the high courts. Barely seven justices—[[Sarv Mittra Sikri|S. M. Sikri]], [[Subimal Chandra Roy|S. Chandra Roy]], [[Kuldip Singh]], [[Santosh Hegde]], [[Rohinton Fali Nariman|R. F. Nariman]], [[Uday U. Lalit|U. U. Lalit]], [[L. Nageswara Rao]] | In practice, judges of the Supreme Court have been selected so far, mostly from amongst judges of the high courts. Barely seven justices—[[Sarv Mittra Sikri|S. M. Sikri]], [[Subimal Chandra Roy|S. Chandra Roy]], [[Kuldip Singh]], [[Santosh Hegde]], [[Rohinton Fali Nariman|R. F. Nariman]], [[Uday U. Lalit|U. U. Lalit]], [[L. Nageswara Rao]], [[Indu Malhotra]] and [[P. S. Narasimha]]—have been appointed to the Supreme Court directly from the [[Bar (law)|bar]] (i.e., who were practising advocates).<ref name=age-factor>{{cite web|last=Chandrachud|first=Abhinav|title=The age factor|url=http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2821/stories/20111021282104900.htm|work=Frontline|access-date=26 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140426193740/http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2821/stories/20111021282104900.htm|archive-date=26 April 2014|year=2011}}</ref><ref name="5th Advo">{{cite news|title=Justices Arun Mishra, Adarsh Goel and lawyer Rohinton Nariman appointed Supreme Court judges|url=http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-06-26/news/50884910_1_rohinton-nariman-supreme-court-apex-court|access-date=30 August 2014|work=The Economic Times|agency=Press Trust of India|date=26 June 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140903181021/http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-06-26/news/50884910_1_rohinton-nariman-supreme-court-apex-court|archive-date=3 September 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
The Supreme Court saw its first woman judge when Justice [[Fathima Beevi|M. Fathima Beevi]] was sworn into office in 1989.<ref>{{cite web|title=Supreme Court of India — Former Judges|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judges/bio/mfbeevi.htm|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=30 November 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081205061057/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judges/bio/mfbeevi.htm|archive-date=5 December 2008|df=dmy-all}}</ref> | The Supreme Court saw its first woman judge when Justice [[Fathima Beevi|M. Fathima Beevi]] was sworn into office in 1989.<ref>{{cite web|title=Supreme Court of India — Former Judges|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judges/bio/mfbeevi.htm|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=30 November 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081205061057/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judges/bio/mfbeevi.htm|archive-date=5 December 2008|df=dmy-all}}</ref> <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/from-trial-court-to-sc-woman-judge-may-go-all-the-way/article1-1239424.aspx|title=From trial court to Supreme Court, woman judge may go all the way|date=11 July 2014|author=Bhadra Sinha|work=Hindustan Times|access-date=30 November 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140817191223/http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/from-trial-court-to-sc-woman-judge-may-go-all-the-way/article1-1239424.aspx|archive-date=17 August 2014|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Justice-Banumathi-becomes-1st-woman-SC-judge-from-TN/articleshow/40221484.cms|title=Justice Banumathi becomes 1st woman SC judge from TN|date=14 August 2014|author=A Subramani|work=The Times of India|access-date=30 November 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141013080116/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Justice-Banumathi-becomes-1st-woman-SC-judge-from-TN/articleshow/40221484.cms|archive-date=13 October 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
In 1968, Justice [[Mohammad Hidayatullah]] became the first [[Muslim]] Chief Justice of India. In | In 1968, Justice [[Mohammad Hidayatullah]] became the first [[Muslim]] Chief Justice of India. In 2007, Justice [[K. G. Balakrishnan]] became the first judge as well as the Chief Justice of India from the ''[[dalit]]'' community. In 2010, Justice [[S. H. Kapadia]] coming from a [[Parsi]] minority community became the Chief Justice of India.<ref name="Minorities can rise to top jobs only in India: Chief Justice of India" /><ref>{{cite news|url=http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-05-12/india/28294862_1_justice-kapadia-strict-judicial-discipline-ninth-schedule|title=Justice S H Kapadia sworn in as new Chief Justice of India|date=12 May 2010|work=[[The Times of India]]|access-date=12 May 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130526140733/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-05-12/india/28294862_1_justice-kapadia-strict-judicial-discipline-ninth-schedule|archive-date=26 May 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref> In 2017, Justice [[Jagdish Singh Khehar]] became the first [[Sikh]] Chief Justice of India. [[Indu Malhotra]] is the first woman justice to be selected directly from the bar. | ||
== Judicial independence == | == Judicial independence == | ||
The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court judges in various ways. Per [[Wikisource: Constitution of India/Part IV|Article 50]] of [[Directive Principles|directive principles of state policy]], the state shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive. Independence of the judiciary, the supremacy of the constitution and rule of law are the features of the [[Basic structure doctrine|basic structure of the Constitution]]. | The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court judges in various ways. Per [[Wikisource: Constitution of India/Part IV|Article 50]] of [[Directive Principles|directive principles of state policy]], the state shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive. Independence of the judiciary, the supremacy of the constitution and rule of law are the features of the [[Basic structure doctrine|basic structure of the Constitution]]. | ||
The Supreme Court and high courts are empowered to frame ''[[Sua sponte|suo moto]]'' cases without receiving the formal petitions/complaints on any suspected injustice including actions/acts indulging in contempt of court and contempt of the Constitution by the executive, legislators, citizens, etc.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/calcutta-high-court-judge-cs-karnan-cji-js-khehar-supreme-court-suo-moto-order-971226-2017-04-13|title=Justice CS Karnan issues suo-moto order against CJI, 6 other Supreme Court judges; orders them to appear before his 'Rosedale Residential Court'|last=Kundu|first=Indrajit|date=13 April 2017|website=[[India Today]]|location= | The Supreme Court and high courts are empowered to frame ''[[Sua sponte|suo moto]]'' cases without receiving the formal petitions/complaints on any suspected injustice including actions/acts indulging in contempt of court and contempt of the Constitution by the executive, legislators, citizens, etc.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/calcutta-high-court-judge-cs-karnan-cji-js-khehar-supreme-court-suo-moto-order-971226-2017-04-13|title=Justice CS Karnan issues suo-moto order against CJI, 6 other Supreme Court judges; orders them to appear before his 'Rosedale Residential Court'|last=Kundu|first=Indrajit|date=13 April 2017|website=[[India Today]]|location=Kolkata|issn=0254-8399|access-date=25 March 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325231956/https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/calcutta-high-court-judge-cs-karnan-cji-js-khehar-supreme-court-suo-moto-order-971226-2017-04-13|archive-date=25 March 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> It is considered one of the most independent courts in the whole South East Asia. | ||
The main purpose of Supreme Court is to decide constitutional issues.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.livelaw.in/dr-ambedkar-wouldnt-imagined-sc-hearing-bail-pleas-intended-decide-constitutional-matters-justice-chelameswar/|title=Dr Ambedkar Wouldn't Have Imagined SC Hearing Bail Pleas, It Was Intended To Decide Only Constitutional Matters: Justice Chelameswar|access-date=11 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180413030531/http://www.livelaw.in/dr-ambedkar-wouldnt-imagined-sc-hearing-bail-pleas-intended-decide-constitutional-matters-justice-chelameswar/|archive-date=13 April 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> It is the duty of the judiciary to frame [[Sua sponte|''suo moto'']] cases or to probe the cases/petitions at the earliest against the executive or legislature when laws are implemented violating the basic foundation and basic structure of the Constitution as the Article 38 (1) of directive principles ensures that the [[State (polity)|state]]/judiciary shall strive to promote the [[Welfare state|welfare of the people]] by securing a social order in which [[Social justice|social]], [[welfare economics|economic]] and political justice is animated/informed in all institutions of life.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/682692/ |title=Constituent Assembly of India |date=19 November 1948 |access-date=31 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190811155819/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/682692/ |archive-date=11 August 2019 |url-status=live }}</ref> | The main purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide constitutional issues.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.livelaw.in/dr-ambedkar-wouldnt-imagined-sc-hearing-bail-pleas-intended-decide-constitutional-matters-justice-chelameswar/|title=Dr Ambedkar Wouldn't Have Imagined SC Hearing Bail Pleas, It Was Intended To Decide Only Constitutional Matters: Justice Chelameswar|date=10 April 2018|access-date=11 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180413030531/http://www.livelaw.in/dr-ambedkar-wouldnt-imagined-sc-hearing-bail-pleas-intended-decide-constitutional-matters-justice-chelameswar/|archive-date=13 April 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> It is the duty of the judiciary to frame [[Sua sponte|''suo moto'']] cases or to probe the cases/petitions at the earliest against the executive or legislature when laws are implemented violating the basic foundation and basic structure of the Constitution as the Article 38 (1) of directive principles ensures that the [[State (polity)|state]]/judiciary shall strive to promote the [[Welfare state|welfare of the people]] by securing a social order in which [[Social justice|social]], [[welfare economics|economic]] and political justice is animated/informed in all institutions of life.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/682692/ |title=Constituent Assembly of India |date=19 November 1948 |access-date=31 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190811155819/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/682692/ |archive-date=11 August 2019 |url-status=live }}</ref> | ||
[[B. R. Ambedkar]] clarified as given below in the [[Constituent Assembly of India|Constituent Assembly]] debates on [[s:Constitution of India/Part IV|Article 38 (1)]] high lighting its inevitable implementation. | [[B. R. Ambedkar]] clarified as given below in the [[Constituent Assembly of India|Constituent Assembly]] debates on [[s:Constitution of India/Part IV|Article 38 (1)]] high lighting its inevitable implementation. | ||
{{ | {{Blockquote|text=''... The word 'strive' which occurs in the Draft Constitution, in judgement, is very important. We have used it because our intention is even when there are circumstances which prevent the Government, or which stand in the way of the Government giving effect to these Directive Principles, they shall, even under hard and unpropitious circumstances, always strive in the fulfilment of these Directives. That is why we have used the word 'strive'. Otherwise, it would be open for any Government to say that the circumstances are so bad, that the finances are so inadequate that we cannot even make an effort in the direction in which the Constitution asks us to go.''}} | ||
=== Appointments and the | === Appointments and the collegium === | ||
As per the constitution, as held by the court in the [[Three Judges Cases]] – (1982, 1993, 1998), a judge is appointed to the Supreme Court by the president on the recommendation of the ''collegium'' — a closed group of the Chief Justice of India, the four most senior judges of the court and the senior-most judge hailing from the high court of a prospective appointee.<ref name="Where Angles Fear to Tread">{{cite book|title=Supreme but not infallible: Essays in honour of the Supreme Court of India|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|year=2013|isbn=978-0-19-567226-8|editor=Kirpal|editor-first=Bhupinder N.|edition=6th impr.|location=[[New Delhi]]|pages=97–106|oclc=882928525}}</ref> This has resulted in a Memorandum of Procedure being followed, for the appointments. | |||
Judges used to be appointed by the president on the advice of the [[Union Council of Ministers|union cabinet]]. After 1993 (the Second Judges' Case), no minister, or even the executive collectively, can suggest any names to the president,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Venu|first1=M.K.|title=Government may drop gag clause, wants judges to show restraint|url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/government-may-drop-gag-clause-wants-judges-to-show-restraint/article4883161.ece|access-date=5 November 2015|work=The Hindu|date=5 July 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160106074107/http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/government-may-drop-gag-clause-wants-judges-to-show-restraint/article4883161.ece|archive-date=6 January 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=SanjayHegde>{{cite news|last=Hegde|first=Sanjay|title=Judging the Judge-Maker|url=http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/njac-judging-the-judgemaker/article7777564.ece|newspaper=The Hindu|date=19 October 2015|access-date=24 October 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160106074107/http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/njac-judging-the-judgemaker/article7777564.ece|archive-date=6 January 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> who ultimately decides on appointing them from a list of names recommended only by the ''collegium'' of the judiciary. Simultaneously, as held in that judgment, the executive was given the power to reject a recommended name. However, according to some,{{Who|date=February 2018}} the executive has not been diligent in using this power to reject the names of bad candidates recommended by the judiciary.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Venkatesan|first1=V.|title=Interview with Justice J.S. Verma, former Chief Justice of India (The Judiciary: 'Honesty Matters')|url=http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2520/stories/20081010252003500.htm|access-date=8 November 2015|work=Frontline|issue=Volume 25 – Issue 20 :: 27 Sep. – 10 Oct. 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160106074107/http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2520/stories/20081010252003500.htm|archive-date=6 January 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/07/stories/05072524.htm|title=Higher judicial appointments - II|last=Iyer|first=V. R. Krishna|author-link=V. R. Krishna Iyer|date=7 August 2001|website=[[The Hindu]]|publisher=[[The Hindu Group]]|issn=0971-751X|oclc=13119119|access-date=8 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181226123547/https://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/07/stories/05072524.htm|archive-date=26 December 2018|url-status= | Judges used to be appointed by the president on the advice of the [[Union Council of Ministers|union cabinet]]. After 1993 (the Second Judges' Case), no minister, or even the executive collectively, can suggest any names to the president,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Venu|first1=M.K.|title=Government may drop gag clause, wants judges to show restraint|url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/government-may-drop-gag-clause-wants-judges-to-show-restraint/article4883161.ece|access-date=5 November 2015|work=The Hindu|date=5 July 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160106074107/http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/government-may-drop-gag-clause-wants-judges-to-show-restraint/article4883161.ece|archive-date=6 January 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=SanjayHegde>{{cite news|last=Hegde|first=Sanjay|title=Judging the Judge-Maker|url=http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/njac-judging-the-judgemaker/article7777564.ece|newspaper=The Hindu|date=19 October 2015|access-date=24 October 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160106074107/http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/njac-judging-the-judgemaker/article7777564.ece|archive-date=6 January 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> who ultimately decides on appointing them from a list of names recommended only by the ''collegium'' of the judiciary. Simultaneously, as held in that judgment, the executive was given the power to reject a recommended name. However, according to some,{{Who|date=February 2018}} the executive has not been diligent in using this power to reject the names of bad candidates recommended by the judiciary.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Venkatesan|first1=V.|title=Interview with Justice J.S. Verma, former Chief Justice of India (The Judiciary: 'Honesty Matters')|url=http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2520/stories/20081010252003500.htm|access-date=8 November 2015|work=Frontline|issue=Volume 25 – Issue 20 :: 27 Sep. – 10 Oct. 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160106074107/http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2520/stories/20081010252003500.htm|archive-date=6 January 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/07/stories/05072524.htm|title=Higher judicial appointments - II|last=Iyer|first=V. R. Krishna|author-link=V. R. Krishna Iyer|date=7 August 2001|website=[[The Hindu]]|publisher=[[The Hindu Group]]|issn=0971-751X|oclc=13119119|access-date=8 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181226123547/https://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/07/stories/05072524.htm|archive-date=26 December 2018|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/in-defence-of-the-collegium/|title=In defence of the collegium|last=Thomas|first=K.T.|date=13 August 2014|work=[[The Indian Express]]|access-date=8 April 2018|publisher=[[Indian Express Group]]|oclc=70274541|author-link=K. T. Thomas (Justice)|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180307173805/http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/in-defence-of-the-collegium/|archive-date=7 March 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
The collegium system has come under a fair amount of criticism.<ref name="SanjayHegde" /> In 2015, | The collegium system has come under a fair amount of criticism.<ref name="SanjayHegde" /> In 2015, Parliament passed a law to replace the collegium with a [[National Judicial Appointments Commission]] (NJAC). This was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, in the [[National Judicial Appointments Commission|Fourth Judges' Case]], as the new system would undermine the independence of the judiciary.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/sc-exposes-tyranny-of-the-elected/295674|title=SC Exposes 'Tyranny Of The Elected'|last=Sengupta|first=Uttam|date=21 October 2015|website=Outlook|access-date=2016-09-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160917213615/http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/sc-exposes-tyranny-of-the-elected/295674|archive-date=17 September 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> Putting the old system of the collegium back, the court invited suggestions, even from the general public, on how to improve the collegium system, broadly along the lines of{{Snd}}setting up an eligibility criteria for appointments, a permanent secretariat to help the collegium sift through material on potential candidates, infusing more transparency into the selection process, grievance redressal and any other suggestion not in these four categories, like transfer of judges.<ref>{{cite web|last1=WP(C) No. 13/2015|title=Report filed by Ms. Pinky Anand ASG and Arvind P. Datar on Representation/Suggestions for Improving the Collegium|url=http://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/userfiles/SUGGESTIONS.pdf|archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6cpVbj1LA?url=http://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/userfiles/SUGGESTIONS.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=6 November 2015|publisher=Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt. of India|access-date=6 November 2015|df=dmy-all}}</ref> This resulted in the court asking the government and the collegium to finalize the memorandum of procedure incorporating the above.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-12-16_1450258558.pdf|title=Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association & Anr. v/s Union of India|last=Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2015|date=16 December 2015|website=Supreme Court of India|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170305015323/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-12-16_1450258558.pdf|archive-date=5 March 2017|df=dmy-all}}</ref> | ||
Once, in 2009, the recommendation for the appointment of a judge of a high court made by the collegium of that court, had come to be challenged in the Supreme Court. The court held that who could become a judge was a matter of fact, and any person had a right to question it. But who should become a judge was a matter of opinion and could not be questioned. As long as an effective consultation took place within a collegium in arriving at that opinion, the content or material placed before it to form the opinion could not be called for scrutiny in court.<ref>{{cite journal|date=6 July 2009|title=Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.|url=http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=34990#page=18|journal=Supreme Court of India|volume=2009 (8) SCC 273|page=18/59|last1=Transferred Case(C) No. 6 of 2009|access-date=7 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208151733/http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=34990#page=18|archive-date=8 December 2015|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}</ref> | Once, in 2009, the recommendation for the appointment of a judge of a high court made by the collegium of that court, had come to be challenged in the Supreme Court. The court held that who could become a judge was a matter of fact, and any person had a right to question it. But who should become a judge was a matter of opinion and could not be questioned. As long as an effective consultation took place within a collegium in arriving at that opinion, the content or material placed before it to form the opinion could not be called for scrutiny in court.<ref>{{cite journal|date=6 July 2009|title=Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.|url=http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=34990#page=18|journal=Supreme Court of India|volume=2009 (8) SCC 273|page=18/59|last1=Transferred Case(C) No. 6 of 2009|access-date=7 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208151733/http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=34990#page=18|archive-date=8 December 2015|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}</ref> | ||
=== Tenure === | === Tenure === | ||
Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65. However, there have been suggestions from the judges of the Supreme Court of India to provide for a fixed term for the judges including the Chief Justice of India.<ref>{{cite news|last=Chhibber|first=Maneesh|title=CJIs must have fixed tenures: Sathasivam|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/cjis-must-have-fixed-tenures-sathasivam/|access-date=26 April 2014|newspaper=Indian Express|date=25 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140426054956/http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/cjis-must-have-fixed-tenures-sathasivam/|archive-date=26 April 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65. However, there have been suggestions from the judges of the Supreme Court of India to provide for a fixed term for the judges including the Chief Justice of India.<ref>{{cite news|last=Chhibber|first=Maneesh|title=CJIs must have fixed tenures: Sathasivam|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/cjis-must-have-fixed-tenures-sathasivam/|access-date=26 April 2014|newspaper=The Indian Express|date=25 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140426054956/http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/cjis-must-have-fixed-tenures-sathasivam/|archive-date=26 April 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
=== Salary === | === Salary === | ||
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 rights to the judge's disadvantage after his/her appointment.<ref>[[s:Constitution of India/Part V#Article 125 {Salaries, etc., of Judges}]]</ref> A judge of the Supreme Court draws a salary of {{INRConvert|250|k}} per month—equivalent to the most-senior [[civil servant]] of the [[Government of India|Indian government]], [[Cabinet Secretary of India]]—while the chief justice earns {{INRConvert|280|k}} per month.<ref>{{cite news|title=Salaries of SC, HC judges to increase three-fold|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Salaries-of-SC-HC-judges-to-increase-three-fold-/articleshow/4183674.cms|access-date=9 June 2014| | |||
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 rights to the judge's disadvantage after his/her appointment.<ref>[[s:Constitution of India/Part V#Article 125 {Salaries, etc., of Judges}]]</ref> A judge of the Supreme Court draws a salary of {{INRConvert|250|k}} per month—equivalent to the most-senior [[civil servant]] of the [[Government of India|Indian government]], [[Cabinet Secretary of India]]—while the chief justice earns {{INRConvert|280|k}} per month.<ref>{{cite news|title=Salaries of SC, HC judges to increase three-fold|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Salaries-of-SC-HC-judges-to-increase-three-fold-/articleshow/4183674.cms|access-date=9 June 2014|work=[[The Times of India]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160507170643/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Salaries-of-SC-HC-judges-to-increase-three-fold-/articleshow/4183674.cms|archive-date=7 May 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
===Oath or affirmation=== | ===Oath or affirmation=== | ||
Per Article 124 and third Schedule of the constitution, the chief justice (or a judge) of the Supreme Court of India is required to make and subscribe in the presence of the president an oath or affirmation that | |||
{{ | Per Article 124 and third Schedule of the constitution, the chief justice (or a judge) of the Supreme Court of India is required to make and subscribe in the presence of the president an oath or affirmation that they | ||
{{Blockquote| ''will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgement perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws.''}} | |||
===Removal=== | ===Removal=== | ||
[[Wikisource: Constitution of India/Part V|Article 124(4)]] of the constitution, President can remove a judge on proved misbehaviour or incapacity when [[Parliament of India|parliament]] approves with a majority of the total membership of each house in favour of impeachment and not less than two thirds of the members of each house present. For initiating [[impeachment]] proceedings against a judge, at least 50 members of [[Rajya Sabha]] or 100 members of [[Lok Sabha]] shall issue the notice per ''Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thenewsinformer.com/national-news/supreme-courtsc-stcentral-gormentsc-st-actcentral-government/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190127000528/http://thenewsinformer.com/national-news/supreme-courtsc-stcentral-gormentsc-st-actcentral-government/|url-status=dead|archive-date=2019-01-27|title=THE SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO BAN CHANGE IN SC-ST ACT}}</ref> Then a judicial committee would be formed to frame charges against the judge, to conduct the fair trial and to submit its report to parliament. When the judicial committee report finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, further removal proceedings would be taken up by | |||
[[Wikisource: Constitution of India/Part V|Article 124(4)]] of the constitution, President can remove a judge on proved misbehaviour or incapacity when [[Parliament of India|parliament]] approves with a majority of the total membership of each house in favour of impeachment and not less than two thirds of the members of each house present. For initiating [[impeachment]] proceedings against a judge, at least 50 members of [[Rajya Sabha]] or 100 members of [[Lok Sabha]] shall issue the notice per ''Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thenewsinformer.com/national-news/supreme-courtsc-stcentral-gormentsc-st-actcentral-government/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190127000528/http://thenewsinformer.com/national-news/supreme-courtsc-stcentral-gormentsc-st-actcentral-government/|url-status=dead|archive-date=2019-01-27|title=THE SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO BAN CHANGE IN SC-ST ACT}}</ref> Then a judicial committee would be formed to frame charges against the judge, to conduct the fair trial and to submit its report to parliament. When the judicial committee report finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, further removal proceedings would be taken up by Parliament if the judge is not resigning himself.<ref>{{cite web|title=Motion for removal of Mr. Justice Soumitra Sen, Judge, Calcutta High Court|url=http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/Soumitra_Sen_Judge.pdf#page=409|publisher=Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, October 2011|pages=414–419|access-date=4 December 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140826131307/http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/Soumitra_Sen_Judge.pdf#page=409|archive-date=26 August 2014|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Bhushan|first1=Prashant|title=A historic non-impeachment|url=http://bharatiyas.in/cjarold/files/cover_story_ramaswami.pdf|publisher=Frontline (4 June 1993)|access-date=5 December 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141209164542/http://bharatiyas.in/cjarold/files/cover_story_ramaswami.pdf|archive-date=9 December 2014|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Talks revived to consider impeachment of CJI|newspaper=The Hindu|date=28 March 2018|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/talks-revived-to-consider-impeachment-of-cji/article23367815.ece|access-date=31 March 2018|last1=Phukan|first1=Sandeep|last2=Nair|first2=Sobhana K.}}</ref> | |||
The judge upon proven guilty is also liable for punishment per applicable laws or for contempt of the constitution by breaching the oath under [[Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971|disrespecting constitution]]<ref>{{cite web|title=The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act of 1971|url=http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/pdf/Prevention_Insults_National_Honour_Act1971.pdf|access-date=2 July 2017|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170123231821/http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/pdf/Prevention_Insults_National_Honour_Act1971.pdf|archive-date=23 January 2017|df=dmy-all}}</ref> | The judge upon proven guilty is also liable for punishment per applicable laws or for contempt of the constitution by breaching the oath under [[Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971|disrespecting constitution]]<ref>{{cite web|title=The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act of 1971|url=http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/pdf/Prevention_Insults_National_Honour_Act1971.pdf|access-date=2 July 2017|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170123231821/http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/pdf/Prevention_Insults_National_Honour_Act1971.pdf|archive-date=23 January 2017|df=dmy-all}}</ref> | ||
=== Post-retirement === | === Post-retirement === | ||
A person who has retired as a judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practicing in any court of law or before any other authority in India. However, Supreme Court and high court judges are appointed to various posts in tribunals and commissions, after their retirement. Lawyer Ashish Goel in a recent article criticized this stating that post-retirement benefits for judges hampers judicial independence.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/post-retirement-prospects-for-constitutional-court-judges-tear-the-fabric-of-judicial-independence-7281471.html |title= | |||
A person who has retired as a judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practicing in any court of law or before any other authority in India. However, Supreme Court and high court judges are appointed to various posts in tribunals and commissions, after their retirement. Lawyer Ashish Goel in a recent article criticized this stating that post-retirement benefits for judges hampers judicial independence.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/post-retirement-prospects-for-constitutional-court-judges-tear-the-fabric-of-judicial-independence-7281471.html |title=Post-retirement prospects for constitutional court judges tear the fabric of judicial independence-India News , Firstpost |date=4 September 2019 |access-date=9 September 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190905130533/https://www.firstpost.com/india/post-retirement-prospects-for-constitutional-court-judges-tear-the-fabric-of-judicial-independence-7281471.html |archive-date=5 September 2019 |url-status=live }}</ref> Former Law Minister and Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, Arun Jaitley, also criticized the appointment of judges in government posts after their retirement. Jaitley famously said:"There are two kinds of judges - those who know the law and those who know the Law Minister. We are the only country in the world where judges appoint judges. Even though there is a retirement age, judges are not willing to retire. Pre-retirement judgements are influenced by post-retirement jobs."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/judges-verdicts-are-influenced-by-post-retirement-jobs-arun-jaitley-500640 |title=Judges' verdicts are influenced by post-retirement jobs: Arun Jaitley |access-date=9 September 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190923051233/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/judges-verdicts-are-influenced-by-post-retirement-jobs-arun-jaitley-500640 |archive-date=23 September 2019 |url-status=live }}</ref> | |||
=== Review petition === | === Review petition === | ||
{{Further|Review petition}} | {{Further|Review petition}} | ||
Article 137 of the Constitution of India lays down provision for the power of the Supreme Court to review its own judgements. 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. The Supreme Court can nullify any decision of parliament and government on the basis of violation of basic features. It can overrule the impeachment process of the President and Judges which is passed by the parliament on the basis of constitutional validity or basic features.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Chowdhury|first1=Rishad Ahmed|title=Missing the Wood for the Trees: The Unseen Crisis in the Supreme Court|journal=NUJS Law Review (July–September)|volume=2012|issue=3/4|page=367|url=http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/04_rishad_ahmed.pdf#page=17|access-date=3 November 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208081111/http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/04_rishad_ahmed.pdf#page=17|archive-date=8 December 2015|df=dmy-all}}</ref> | Article 137 of the Constitution of India lays down provision for the power of the Supreme Court to review its own judgements. 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. The Supreme Court can nullify any decision of parliament and government on the basis of violation of basic features. It can overrule the impeachment process of the President and Judges which is passed by the parliament on the basis of constitutional validity or basic features.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Chowdhury|first1=Rishad Ahmed|title=Missing the Wood for the Trees: The Unseen Crisis in the Supreme Court|journal=NUJS Law Review (July–September)|volume=2012|issue=3/4|page=367|url=http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/04_rishad_ahmed.pdf#page=17|access-date=3 November 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208081111/http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/04_rishad_ahmed.pdf#page=17|archive-date=8 December 2015|df=dmy-all}}</ref> | ||
| Line 147: | Line 170: | ||
=== Powers to punish for contempt === | === Powers to punish for contempt === | ||
Under Articles 129 and 142 of the | |||
Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has been vested with power to punish anyone for [[Contempt of court|contempt]] of any court in India including itself. The Supreme Court performed an unprecedented action when it directed a sitting [[Minister of State]] in [[Government of Maharashtra|Maharashtra government]], Swaroop Singh Naik,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ibnlive.com/news/maha-minister-gets-jail-for-contempt/10038-4.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061115231830/http://www.ibnlive.com/news/maha-minister-gets-jail-for-contempt/10038-4.html |url-status=dead |title=News, Breaking News, Latest News, News Headlines, Live News, Today News CNN-News18|archive-date=15 November 2006|website=News18}}</ref> to be jailed for 1-month on a charge of contempt of court on 12 May 2006.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/11/stories/2006051116320100.htm | title=Maharashtra Minister gets one-month jail term | date=11 May 2006 | access-date=30 November 2011 | location=Chennai, India | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110912021501/http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/11/stories/2006051116320100.htm | archive-date=12 September 2011 | work=[[The Hindu]] | url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://ibnlive.in.com/news/maha-minister-gets-jail-for-contempt/10038-4.html |title=Maha minister gets jail for contempt |work=News |date=11 May 2006 |access-date=30 November 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110812003309/http://ibnlive.in.com/news/maha-minister-gets-jail-for-contempt/10038-4.html |archive-date=12 August 2011 }}</ref> | |||
== Rules == | == Rules == | ||
Article 145 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to frame its own rules (with Presidential approval) for regulating court practice and procedures. Three versions of the rules have been published: the first in 1950, then in 1966 and 2013.<ref>{{cite web|title=Supreme Court rules,1966|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scrules1966.pdf|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=22 July 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140816090224/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scrules1966.pdf |archive-date=16 August 2014 }}</ref> | Article 145 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to frame its own rules (with Presidential approval) for regulating court practice and procedures. Three versions of the rules have been published: the first in 1950, then in 1966 and 2013.<ref>{{cite web|title=Supreme Court rules,1966|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scrules1966.pdf|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=22 July 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140816090224/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scrules1966.pdf |archive-date=16 August 2014 }}</ref> | ||
== Roster system == | == Roster system == | ||
The Supreme Court decided to follow a new roster system from 5 February 2018 for allocation of matters to judges. Under the new roster system, the CJI will hear all special leave petitions (SLPs), and matters related to public interest, social justice, elections, arbitration, and criminal matters, among others. The other collegium/senior judges to hear matters related to labour disputes, taxation matters, compensation matters, consumer protection matters, maritime law matters, mortgage matters, personal law matters, family law matters, land acquisition matters, service matters, company matters etc.<ref>{{cite web|title=After Rift, Chief Justice Dipak Misra Makes Public Supreme Court Judges' Roster|url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/chief-justice-dipak-misra-makes-public-supreme-court-judges-roster-1807352|access-date=1 February 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180201120633/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/chief-justice-dipak-misra-makes-public-supreme-court-judges-roster-1807352|archive-date=1 February 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> | The Supreme Court decided to follow a new roster system from 5 February 2018 for allocation of matters to judges. Under the new roster system, the CJI will hear all special leave petitions (SLPs), and matters related to public interest, social justice, elections, arbitration, and criminal matters, among others. The other collegium/senior judges to hear matters related to labour disputes, taxation matters, compensation matters, consumer protection matters, maritime law matters, mortgage matters, personal law matters, family law matters, land acquisition matters, service matters, company matters etc.<ref>{{cite web|title=After Rift, Chief Justice Dipak Misra Makes Public Supreme Court Judges' Roster|url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/chief-justice-dipak-misra-makes-public-supreme-court-judges-roster-1807352|access-date=1 February 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180201120633/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/chief-justice-dipak-misra-makes-public-supreme-court-judges-roster-1807352|archive-date=1 February 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
== Reporting and citation == | == Reporting and citation == | ||
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.<ref>{{cite web|title=Supreme Court Reports|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scr.htm|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=30 March 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130423215839/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scr.htm|archive-date=23 April 2013|df=dmy-all}}</ref> 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. | |||
[[Supreme Court Reports (India)|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.<ref>{{cite web|title=Supreme Court Reports|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scr.htm|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=30 March 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130423215839/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scr.htm|archive-date=23 April 2013|df=dmy-all}}</ref> 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. | |||
== Facilities in the campus == | == Facilities in the campus == | ||
[[Legal aid|Legal-aid]],<ref>{{cite web|title=Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society|url=http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/mig.htm|access-date=1 December 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141205125716/http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/mig.htm|archive-date=5 December 2014|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Types Of Legal Services Provided|url=http://nalsa.gov.in/legalservices.html|work=National Legal Services Authority|access-date=1 December 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150214041428/http://nalsa.gov.in/legalservices.html|archive-date=14 February 2015|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Supreme Court Legal Services Committee|url=http://www.sclsc.nic.in/faq.htm|access-date=1 December 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141111071123/http://sclsc.nic.in/faq.htm|archive-date=11 November 2014|df=dmy-all}}</ref> court-fee vendors, first-aid post, dental clinic, physiotherapy unit and pathology lab; rail-reservation counter, canteen, post office and a branch and 3 ATMs of UCO Bank, Supreme Court Museum<ref name="facilities">{{cite web|title=Facilities at Supreme Court of India|url=http://sci.nic.in/registry_facilities.pdf|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=14 May 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140514184826/http://sci.nic.in/registry_facilities.pdf|archive-date=14 May 2014|df=dmy-all}}</ref> can be availed by litigants and visitors. | [[Legal aid|Legal-aid]],<ref>{{cite web|title=Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society|url=http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/mig.htm|access-date=1 December 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141205125716/http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/mig.htm|archive-date=5 December 2014|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Types Of Legal Services Provided|url=http://nalsa.gov.in/legalservices.html|work=National Legal Services Authority|access-date=1 December 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150214041428/http://nalsa.gov.in/legalservices.html|archive-date=14 February 2015|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Supreme Court Legal Services Committee|url=http://www.sclsc.nic.in/faq.htm|access-date=1 December 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141111071123/http://sclsc.nic.in/faq.htm|archive-date=11 November 2014|df=dmy-all}}</ref> court-fee vendors, first-aid post, dental clinic, physiotherapy unit and pathology lab; rail-reservation counter, canteen, post office and a branch and 3 ATMs of UCO Bank, Supreme Court Museum<ref name="facilities">{{cite web|title=Facilities at Supreme Court of India|url=http://sci.nic.in/registry_facilities.pdf|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=14 May 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140514184826/http://sci.nic.in/registry_facilities.pdf|archive-date=14 May 2014|df=dmy-all}}</ref> can be availed by litigants and visitors. | ||
== Landmark judgments == | == Landmark judgments == | ||
{{Main|List of landmark court decisions in India}} | |||
=== Land reform === | === Land reform === | ||
=== Emergency (1975–1977) === | 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, 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]]''<ref>{{cite web|title=Golaknath vs. State of Punjab |url=http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=2449 |publisher=Official Supreme Court Judis site |access-date=9 June 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141025085421/http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=2449 |archive-date=25 October 2014 }}</ref> that 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 furor amongst the ''zamindars''. | ||
=== During the Emergency (1975–1977) === | |||
The independence of the judiciary was severely curtailed<ref name=iyer>{{cite news | The independence of the judiciary was severely curtailed<ref name=iyer>{{cite news | ||
| title = Emergency — Darkest hour in India's judicial history | | title = Emergency — Darkest hour in India's judicial history | ||
| Line 178: | Line 209: | ||
| archive-date = 23 August 2007 | | archive-date = 23 August 2007 | ||
| df = dmy-all | | df = dmy-all | ||
}}</ref> during the [[Indian Emergency (1975–1977)]] of Indira Gandhi. The constitutional rights of imprisoned persons were restricted under preventive detention laws passed by 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 senior-most judges of the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the state's right to unrestricted powers of detention during the emergency. Justices [[A.N. Ray]], [[P. N. Bhagwati]], [[Y. V. Chandrachud]], and [[Mirza Hameedullah Beg|M.H. Beg]], stated in the majority decision:<ref name=pucl>{{cite news | }}</ref> during the [[Indian Emergency (1975–1977)]] of Indira Gandhi. The constitutional rights of imprisoned persons were restricted under preventive detention laws passed by Parliament. In the case of Shiva Kant Shukla (''[[ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla|Additional District Magistrate of Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla]]''), popularly known as the ''Habeas Corpus case'', a bench of five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the state's right to unrestricted powers of detention during the emergency. Justices [[A.N. Ray]], [[P. N. Bhagwati]], [[Y. V. Chandrachud]], and [[Mirza Hameedullah Beg|M.H. Beg]], stated in the majority decision:<ref name=pucl>{{cite news | ||
|title = A.D.M. Jabalpur vs Shukla: When the Supreme Court struck down the Habeas Corpus | |title = A.D.M. Jabalpur vs Shukla: When the Supreme Court struck down the Habeas Corpus | ||
|author = Jos. Peter D 'Souza | |author = Jos. Peter D 'Souza | ||
| Line 216: | Line 247: | ||
| publisher = Macmillan/Picador, 2007 | | publisher = Macmillan/Picador, 2007 | ||
| page = [https://archive.org/details/indiaaftergandhi00guha_300/page/n275 500] | | page = [https://archive.org/details/indiaaftergandhi00guha_300/page/n275 500] | ||
| isbn = 9780330505543 | |||
}}</ref> Subsequently, Parliament, with most opposition members in jail during the emergency, passed the [[Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India|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 ''[[Minerva Mills v. Union of India]]'' (1980). | }}</ref> Subsequently, Parliament, with most opposition members in jail during the emergency, passed the [[Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India|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 ''[[Minerva Mills v. Union of India]]'' (1980). | ||
=== Post-1980: an assertive court === | === Post-1980: an assertive court === | ||
{{See also|Judicial Activism In India}} | {{See also|Judicial Activism In India}} | ||
After Indira Gandhi lost elections in 1977, the new government of [[Morarji Desai]], and especially [[Minister of Law and Justice|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]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Personal-law-should-be-subject-to-fundamental-rights-Jaitley/articleshow/49965830.cms|title=Personal law should be subject to fundamental rights: Jaitley|access-date=25 December 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160106074107/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Personal-law-should-be-subject-to-fundamental-rights-Jaitley/articleshow/49965830.cms|archive-date=6 January 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
After Indira Gandhi lost elections in 1977, the new government of [[Morarji Desai]], and especially [[Minister of Law and Justice|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]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Personal-law-should-be-subject-to-fundamental-rights-Jaitley/articleshow/49965830.cms|title=Personal law should be subject to fundamental rights: Jaitley|website=[[The Times of India]]|access-date=25 December 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160106074107/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Personal-law-should-be-subject-to-fundamental-rights-Jaitley/articleshow/49965830.cms|archive-date=6 January 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
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,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Shelton|first1=Dinah|last2=Kiss|first2=Alexandre|title=Judicial handbook on Environmental Law|date=2005|publisher=United Nations Environment Programme|isbn=92-807-2555-6|page=8|url=http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/119/publications/Judicial-Handbook-Environmenal-Law.pdf#page=32|access-date=1 December 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150511022001/http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/119/publications/Judicial-Handbook-Environmenal-Law.pdf#page=32|archive-date=11 May 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> 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. | 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,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Shelton|first1=Dinah|last2=Kiss|first2=Alexandre|title=Judicial handbook on Environmental Law|date=2005|publisher=United Nations Environment Programme|isbn=92-807-2555-6|page=8|url=http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/119/publications/Judicial-Handbook-Environmenal-Law.pdf#page=32|access-date=1 December 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150511022001/http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/119/publications/Judicial-Handbook-Environmenal-Law.pdf#page=32|archive-date=11 May 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> 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. | ||
=== | === Since 2000 === | ||
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 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 Golaknath case regarding non-amendability of the constitution on account of infraction of fundamental rights, contrary to the judgment in the [[Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala|''Kesavananda Bharati'' case]]. | 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 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 Golaknath case regarding non-amendability of the constitution on account of infraction of fundamental rights, contrary to the judgment in the [[Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala|''Kesavananda Bharati'' case]]. | ||
Another important decision was of the five-judge bench in ''[[Ashoka Kumar 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<ref>{{Cite journal| | Another important decision was of the five-judge bench in ''[[Ashoka Kumar 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<ref>{{Cite journal|year=2008|title=2008 ALL SCR 412 - Supreme Court Landmark Judgment [ Constitution of India, Article 245, Article 13, Article 372 ]|url=https://nearlaw.com/PDF/SC/2008/2008_all_scr_412.html|journal=Indian Journal of Supreme Court Reports|volume=1|pages=412|via=RNI Approved Legal Reporter|access-date=15 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115195104/https://nearlaw.com/PDF/SC/2008/2008_all_scr_412.html|archive-date=15 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> (2007) ([https://ssrn.com/abstract=1246892 Beyond Reasonableness - A Rigorous Standard of Review for Article 15 Infringement])a | ||
==== 2G spectrum case ==== | ==== 2G spectrum case ==== | ||
{{Further|2G spectrum case}} | {{Further|2G spectrum case}} | ||
=== Right to Information === | 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 [[Ministry of Communications (India)|Minister for communications & IT]]), the main official accused in the [[2G case]].<ref>[http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-02-02/india/31016262_1_spectrum-licences-2g-spectrum-allotment-case 2G scam: SC scraps 122 licences granted under Raja's tenure, trial court to decide on Chidambaram's role – Times Of India] {{Webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20120715072719/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-02-02/india/31016262_1_spectrum-licences-2g-spectrum-allotment-case |date=15 July 2012 }}. Articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com (2 February 2012). Retrieved 2013-07-18.</ref> | ||
{{ | |||
==== Right to Information ==== | |||
{{See also|Right to Information Act}} | |||
In the year 2010, the Supreme Court filed an appeal before itself challenging the judgement of the Delhi high court holding that the office of the chief justice of India came under the ambit of the RTI Act and was liable to reveal information under it.<ref>{{cite | In the year 2010, the Supreme Court filed an appeal before itself challenging the judgement of the Delhi high court holding that the office of the chief justice of India came under the ambit of the RTI Act and was liable to reveal information under it.<ref>{{cite news|title=Supreme Court challenges verdict bringing CJI under RTI|newspaper=The Hindu|date=8 March 2010|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Supreme-Court-challenges-verdict-bringing-CJI-under-RTI/article16548421.ece|access-date=2 April 2018}}</ref> Though the Supreme Court is in favour of bringing CJI office under RTI act, in 13-11-2019 the chief Justice of India office was brought under RTI Act by a majority judgement.<ref>{{cite web|title=CJI, governors should come under RTI: SC|website=[[The Times of India]]|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-for-bringing-office-of-cji-within-rti-ambit/articleshow/59481996.cms|access-date=2 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180801022155/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-for-bringing-office-of-cji-within-rti-ambit/articleshow/59481996.cms|archive-date=1 August 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title='Democratize the position of CJI and High Court Chief Justices', says Justice AP Shah|newspaper=The Hindu|date=11 March 2018|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/democratize-the-position-of-cji-and-high-court-chief-justices-justice-ap-shah/article23039259.ece|access-date=2 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180313050001/http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/democratize-the-position-of-cji-and-high-court-chief-justices-justice-ap-shah/article23039259.ece|archive-date=13 March 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
==== Black money ==== | ==== Black money ==== | ||
{{Further|Indian black money}} | {{Further|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 the Special investigation team (SIT) to probe the matter.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-02-11/india/28541511_1_names-of-foreign-bank-lgt-bank-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 the Special investigation team (SIT) to probe the matter.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-02-11/india/28541511_1_names-of-foreign-bank-lgt-bank-black-money | title=Don't let Hasan Ali leave country: SC | date=11 February 2011 | access-date=9 May 2011 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120531074303/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-02-11/india/28541511_1_names-of-foreign-bank-lgt-bank-black-money | archive-date=31 May 2012 | work=[[The Times of India]] | url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-01-26/news/28425995_1_black-money-liechtenstein-s-lgt-bank-accounts-in-tax-havens | work=The Times of India | title=Pranab Mukherjee refuses to spill names of LGT Bank account-holders | date=26 January 2011 | access-date=9 May 2011 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120313192016/http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-01-26/news/28425995_1_black-money-liechtenstein-s-lgt-bank-accounts-in-tax-havens | archive-date=13 March 2012 | url-status=live }}</ref> Lack of enthusiasm made the court create a special investigative team (SIT).<ref name="Supreme Court: the balancing act">{{cite news | url=http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/09011809/Supreme-Court-the-balancing-a.html| title=Supreme Court: the balancing act | date=8 December 2011 | access-date=25 April 2012}}</ref> | |||
==== Minority reservations ==== | ==== Minority reservations ==== | ||
The Supreme Court upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgement quashing 4.5% sub-quota for minorities under OBC reservation quota of 27%.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3523008.ece?homepage=true | title=Supreme Court upholds AP court order quashing minority sub-quota | date=13 June 2012 | work=The Hindu | access-date=13 June 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120616013104/http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3523008.ece?homepage=true | archive-date=16 June 2012 | url-status=live }}</ref> | The Supreme Court upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgement quashing 4.5% sub-quota for minorities under OBC reservation quota of 27%.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3523008.ece?homepage=true | title=Supreme Court upholds AP court order quashing minority sub-quota | date=13 June 2012 | work=The Hindu | access-date=13 June 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120616013104/http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3523008.ece?homepage=true | archive-date=16 June 2012 | url-status=live }}</ref> | ||
==== Online/postal ballot for Indian citizen living abroad (NRIs) ==== | ==== Online/postal ballot for Indian citizen living abroad (NRIs) ==== | ||
Three judge bench presided by the then Chief Justice of India [[Altamas Kabir]] issued notice to the Union government 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 abroad.<ref>{{cite web |author=NEW DELHI, 22 Feb 2013 DHNS |url=http://www.deccanherald.com/content/314238/sc-notice-centre-ec-online.html |title=SC notice to Centre, EC on online voting for NRIs | | |||
Three judge bench presided by the then Chief Justice of India [[Altamas Kabir]] issued notice to the Union government 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 abroad.<ref>{{cite web |author=NEW DELHI, 22 Feb 2013 DHNS |url=http://www.deccanherald.com/content/314238/sc-notice-centre-ec-online.html |title=SC notice to Centre, EC on online voting for NRIs |work=Deccan Herald |date=22 February 2013 |access-date=16 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140416181717/http://www.deccanherald.com/content/314238/sc-notice-centre-ec-online.html |archive-date=16 April 2014 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wc%208013p.txt |title=WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 80 OF 2013, NAGENDER CHINDAM & ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. |publisher=Supreme Court of India |date=21 February 2013 |access-date=2014-06-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140416184021/http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wc%208013p.txt |archive-date=16 April 2014 |url-status=live }}</ref> | |||
==== ''T. S. R. Subramanian vs. Union of India'' ==== | ==== ''T. S. R. Subramanian vs. Union of India'' ==== | ||
{{Main|T.S.R. Subramanian vs Union of India}} | {{Main|T.S.R. Subramanian vs Union of India}} | ||
While hearing ''[[T.S.R. Subramanian vs Union of India]]'', a division bench of the Supreme Court ruled that | While hearing ''[[T.S.R. Subramanian vs Union of India]]'', a division bench of the Supreme Court ruled that | ||
* Officers of the [[Indian Administrative Service]] (IAS), officers other [[All India Services]], and other civil servants were not required to follow oral instructions, as they 'undermine credibility'.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/oral-instructions-undermine-accountability-supreme-court/article5302069.ece|title=Oral instructions undermine accountability: Supreme Court|last=Venkatesan|first=J.|date=1 November 2013|work=[[The Hindu]]|access-date=21 February 2018|location= | * Officers of the [[Indian Administrative Service]] (IAS), officers other [[All India Services]], and other civil servants were not required to follow oral instructions, as they 'undermine credibility'.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/oral-instructions-undermine-accountability-supreme-court/article5302069.ece|title=Oral instructions undermine accountability: Supreme Court|last=Venkatesan|first=J.|date=1 November 2013|work=[[The Hindu]]|access-date=21 February 2018|location=New Delhi|issn=0971-751X|oclc=13119119|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140428095022/http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/oral-instructions-undermine-accountability-supreme-court/article5302069.ece|archive-date=28 April 2014|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite news|url=https://www.telegraphindia.com/1131101/jsp/frontpage/story_17519176.jsp|title=Chance to say 'No, minister'|last=Balaji|first=R.|date=31 October 2013|work=[[The Telegraph (Kolkata)|The Telegraph]]|access-date=21 February 2018|location=New Delhi|oclc=271717941|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221101158/https://www.telegraphindia.com/1131101/jsp/frontpage/story_17519176.jsp|archive-date=21 February 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/ias-officers-will-no-more-act-on-oral-orders-supreme-court_887175.html|title=IAS officers will no more act on oral orders: Supreme Court|last=Nagpal|first=Deepak|date=31 October 2013|work=[[Zee News]]|access-date=21 February 2018|location=New Delhi|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221101141/http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/ias-officers-will-no-more-act-on-oral-orders-supreme-court_887175.html|archive-date=21 February 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite web|url=http://www.firstpost.com/india/fix-bureaucrats-tenure-free-them-from-political-influence-sc-1205017.html|title=Fix bureaucrats' tenure, free them from political influence: SC|date=1 November 2013|website=[[Firstpost]]|location=New Delhi|access-date=21 February 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221100632/http://www.firstpost.com/india/fix-bureaucrats-tenure-free-them-from-political-influence-sc-1205017.html|archive-date=21 February 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
* A Civil Services Board (CSB), headed by the [[Cabinet Secretary of India|Cabinet Secretary]] at national level, and [[Chief Secretary (India)|Chief Secretary]] at state level, be set up to recommend transfer/postings of the officers of the [[All India Services]] (IAS, IFoS and IPS).<ref name=":02">{{Cite news|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/in-major-reform-sc-orders-fixed-tenure-for-bureaucrats/article5299939.ece|title=In major reform, SC orders fixed tenure for bureaucrats|last=Venkatesan|first=J.|date=31 October 2018|work=[[The Hindu]]|access-date=21 February 2018|location= | * A Civil Services Board (CSB), headed by the [[Cabinet Secretary of India|Cabinet Secretary]] at national level, and [[Chief Secretary (India)|Chief Secretary]] at state level, be set up to recommend transfer/postings of the officers of the [[All India Services]] (IAS, IFoS and IPS).<ref name=":02">{{Cite news|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/in-major-reform-sc-orders-fixed-tenure-for-bureaucrats/article5299939.ece|title=In major reform, SC orders fixed tenure for bureaucrats|last=Venkatesan|first=J.|date=31 October 2018|work=[[The Hindu]]|access-date=21 February 2018|location=New Delhi|issn=0971-751X|oclc=13119119|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171020205043/http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/in-major-reform-sc-orders-fixed-tenure-for-bureaucrats/article5299939.ece|archive-date=20 October 2017|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/2-year-fixed-postings-for-IAS-IPS-and-forest-service/articleshow/29623556.cms|title=2-year fixed postings for IAS, IPS and forest service|last=Jain|first=Bharti|date=31 January 2014|website=[[The Times of India]]|location=New Delhi|oclc=23379369|access-date=3 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170312033320/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/2-year-fixed-postings-for-IAS-IPS-and-forest-service/articleshow/29623556.cms|archive-date=12 March 2017|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Indian Express">{{Cite web|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/centre-notifies-2-yr-tenure-for-ias-ips-forest-service-officers/|title=Centre notifies 2-yr tenure for IAS, IPS, Forest Service officers|last=Chhibber|first=Maneesh|date=31 January 2014|website=[[The Indian Express]]|location=New Delhi|oclc=70274541|access-date=3 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170903033447/http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/centre-notifies-2-yr-tenure-for-ias-ips-forest-service-officers/|archive-date=3 September 2017|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/civil-services-board-to-oversee-officers-postings/article5964867.ece|title=Civil services board to oversee officers' postings|date=1 May 2014|website=[[The Hindu]]|location=Thiruvananthapuram|issn=0971-751X|oclc=13119119|access-date=21 February 2018|agency=Special Correspondent}}</ref> | ||
* Transfers of Group 'B' officers were to be done by the Heads of Departments (HoDs).<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jonew/judis/40943.pdf|title=IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.82 OF 2011 T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. … Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.234 OF 2011 J U D G M E N T|last=Panicker Radhakrishnan|first=K. S.|author-link=K. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan|date=31 October 2018|website=Supreme Court of India|location= | * Transfers of Group 'B' officers were to be done by the Heads of Departments (HoDs).<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jonew/judis/40943.pdf|title=IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.82 OF 2011 T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. … Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.234 OF 2011 J U D G M E N T|last=Panicker Radhakrishnan|first=K. S.|author-link=K. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan|date=31 October 2018|website=Supreme Court of India|location=New Delhi|access-date=21 February 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221110743/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jonew/judis/40943.pdf|archive-date=21 February 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite news|url=https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/the-civil-servants-cannot-function-on-the-basis-of-verbal-or-oral-instructions/288426|title='The Civil Servants Cannot Function On The Basis Of Verbal Or Oral Instructions.|date=1 November 2018|work=[[Outlook (Indian magazine)|Outlook]]|access-date=21 February 2018|location=New Delhi|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221100246/https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/the-civil-servants-cannot-function-on-the-basis-of-verbal-or-oral-instructions/288426|archive-date=21 February 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
* There was to be no interference of Ministers in state, other than the [[Chief Minister (India)|Chief Minister]], in transfers/postings of civil servants.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /> | * There was to be no interference of Ministers in state, other than the [[Chief Minister (India)|Chief Minister]], in transfers/postings of civil servants.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /> | ||
These rulings were received mostly positively, and were termed as 'major reform(s)'.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref name=":02"/><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/sc-seeks-to-protect-civil-servants-from-their-political-bosses-113110100038_1.html|title=SC seeks to protect civil servants from their political bosses|date=1 November 2013|work=[[Business Standard]]|access-date=21 February 2018|agency=B. S. Reporter|location= | These rulings were received mostly positively, and were termed as 'major reform(s)'.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref name=":02"/><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/sc-seeks-to-protect-civil-servants-from-their-political-bosses-113110100038_1.html|title=SC seeks to protect civil servants from their political bosses|date=1 November 2013|work=[[Business Standard]]|access-date=21 February 2018|agency=B. S. Reporter|location=New Delhi|oclc=496280002|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221100449/http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/sc-seeks-to-protect-civil-servants-from-their-political-bosses-113110100038_1.html|archive-date=21 February 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-year-end-special-10-landmark-judgments-of-2013/20131220.htm#11|title=Year-end Special: 10 landmark judgments of 2013|date=20 December 2013|work=[[Rediff.com]]|access-date=21 February 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221100748/http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-year-end-special-10-landmark-judgments-of-2013/20131220.htm#11|archive-date=21 February 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
==== Recognition of transgender as 'third gender' in law ==== | ==== Recognition of transgender as 'third gender' in law ==== | ||
{{Main|National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India}} | {{Main|National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India}} | ||
In April 2014, Justice [[K. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan|K. S. Radhakrishnan]] declared transgender to be the '[[third gender]]' in Indian law, in the case, ''[[National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India]]''.<ref>{{cite news|title=India recognises transgender people as third gender|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/15/india-recognises-transgender-people-third-gender|access-date=15 April 2014|newspaper=The Guardian|date=15 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140415221112/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/15/india-recognises-transgender-people-third-gender|archive-date=15 April 2014|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=McCoy|first=Terrence|title=India now recognizes transgender citizens as 'third gender'|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/15/india-now-recognizes-transgender-citizens-as-third-gender/?tid=hp_mm|access-date=15 April 2014|newspaper=[[Washington Post]]|date=15 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140415141006/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/15/india-now-recognizes-transgender-citizens-as-third-gender/?tid=hp_mm|archive-date=15 April 2014|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Supreme Court recognizes transgenders as 'third gender'|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Supreme-Court-recognizes-transgenders-as-third-gender/articleshow/33767900.cms|access-date=15 April 2014|newspaper=Times of India|date=15 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140415112611/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Supreme-Court-recognizes-transgenders-as-third-gender/articleshow/33767900.cms|archive-date=15 April 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> The ruling said:<ref name="TGruling">{{cite court | |||
In April 2014, Justice [[K. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan|K. S. Radhakrishnan]] declared transgender to be the '[[third gender]]' in Indian law, in the case, ''[[National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India]]''.<ref>{{cite news|title=India recognises transgender people as third gender|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/15/india-recognises-transgender-people-third-gender|access-date=15 April 2014|newspaper=The Guardian|date=15 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140415221112/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/15/india-recognises-transgender-people-third-gender|archive-date=15 April 2014|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=McCoy|first=Terrence|title=India now recognizes transgender citizens as 'third gender'|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/15/india-now-recognizes-transgender-citizens-as-third-gender/?tid=hp_mm|access-date=15 April 2014|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=15 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140415141006/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/15/india-now-recognizes-transgender-citizens-as-third-gender/?tid=hp_mm|archive-date=15 April 2014|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Supreme Court recognizes transgenders as 'third gender'|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Supreme-Court-recognizes-transgenders-as-third-gender/articleshow/33767900.cms|access-date=15 April 2014|newspaper=The Times of India|date=15 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140415112611/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Supreme-Court-recognizes-transgenders-as-third-gender/articleshow/33767900.cms|archive-date=15 April 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> The ruling said:<ref name="TGruling">{{cite court | |||
|litigants= National Legal Services Authority ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents | |litigants= National Legal Services Authority ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents | ||
|court=Supreme Court of India | |court=Supreme Court of India | ||
| Line 276: | Line 322: | ||
==== Relief to over 35,000 public servants ==== | ==== Relief to over 35,000 public servants ==== | ||
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. Realizing 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. | 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. Realizing 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. | ||
==== Decriminalisation of homosexuality ==== | ==== Decriminalisation of homosexuality ==== | ||
{{Main|Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India}} | |||
On 6 September 2018, a five-member constitutional bench decriminalised homosexuality by partially striking down [[Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code]] in the case [[Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India]]. The bench led by [[Dipak Misra]] unanimously declared that criminalisation of private consensual sex between adult persons of the same sex under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was clearly unconstitutional. The court, however, held that the section would apply to bestiality, sex with minors and non consensual sexual acts.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/sc-decriminalises-homosexuality/article24887363.ece|title=Supreme Court decriminalises homosexuality|date=7 September 2018|newspaper=The Hindu|access-date=2 June 2019|first=Krishnadas|last=Rajagopal}}</ref> | On 6 September 2018, a five-member constitutional bench decriminalised homosexuality by partially striking down [[Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code]] in the case [[Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India]]. The bench led by [[Dipak Misra]] unanimously declared that criminalisation of private consensual sex between adult persons of the same sex under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was clearly unconstitutional. The court, however, held that the section would apply to bestiality, sex with minors and non consensual sexual acts.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/sc-decriminalises-homosexuality/article24887363.ece|title=Supreme Court decriminalises homosexuality|date=7 September 2018|newspaper=The Hindu|access-date=2 June 2019|first=Krishnadas|last=Rajagopal}}</ref> | ||
==== Ayodhya dispute ==== | ==== Ayodhya dispute ==== | ||
{{main|Ayodhya dispute}} | |||
{{main|2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute}} | |||
A political, historical, and socio-religious debate, the [[Ayodhya dispute]] has been going on since 1961 when the first case was filed in court. The Supreme Court, after a marathon 40 day hearing which concluded on 16 October, reserved the decision and revealed it on 9 November 2019 stating that the disputed land will be given to Hindus and also ruled that the Muslim community will be given an alternative piece of 5 acre land for the construction of a mosque.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/ayodhya-case-verdict-live-updates-ram-janmabhoomi-babri-masjid-ayodhya-mandir-news-samachar-supreme-court-uttar-pradesh-2379563.html|title=Ayodhya Verdict LIVE Updates: Entire Disputed Land Goes to Hindus for Ram Mandir, Muslims to Get 5 Acres of Alternate Land|date=2019-11-09|website=News18|access-date=2019-11-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191109055244/https://www.news18.com/news/india/ayodhya-case-verdict-live-updates-ram-janmabhoomi-babri-masjid-ayodhya-mandir-news-samachar-supreme-court-uttar-pradesh-2379563.html|archive-date=9 November 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> This was one of the biggest decisions before the retirement of [[Chief Justice of India]], [[Ranjan Gogoi]] on 17 November 2019.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/supreme-court-hearing-ends-in-ayodhya-dispute-orders-reserved/article29710840.ece|title=Supreme Court hearing ends in Ayodhya dispute; orders reserved|agency=Press Trust of India|website=@businessline|language=en|access-date=2019-10-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191023101322/https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/supreme-court-hearing-ends-in-ayodhya-dispute-orders-reserved/article29710840.ece|archive-date=23 October 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ayodhya-verdict-live-updates-ram-mandir-babri-masjid-land-dispute-case-supreme-court-verdict-at-10-3-2129704|title=Ayodhya Verdict Live Updates: Disputed Land To Be Given For Temple Construction, Muslims To Get 5-Acre Plot In Ayodhya, Says Top Court|website=NDTV.com|access-date=2019-11-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191109060357/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ayodhya-verdict-live-updates-ram-mandir-babri-masjid-land-dispute-case-supreme-court-verdict-at-10-3-2129704|archive-date=9 November 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> | A political, historical, and socio-religious debate, the [[Ayodhya dispute]] has been going on since 1961 when the first case was filed in court. The Supreme Court, after a marathon 40 day hearing which concluded on 16 October, reserved the decision and revealed it on 9 November 2019 stating that the disputed land will be given to Hindus and also ruled that the Muslim community will be given an alternative piece of 5 acre land for the construction of a mosque.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/ayodhya-case-verdict-live-updates-ram-janmabhoomi-babri-masjid-ayodhya-mandir-news-samachar-supreme-court-uttar-pradesh-2379563.html|title=Ayodhya Verdict LIVE Updates: Entire Disputed Land Goes to Hindus for Ram Mandir, Muslims to Get 5 Acres of Alternate Land|date=2019-11-09|website=News18|access-date=2019-11-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191109055244/https://www.news18.com/news/india/ayodhya-case-verdict-live-updates-ram-janmabhoomi-babri-masjid-ayodhya-mandir-news-samachar-supreme-court-uttar-pradesh-2379563.html|archive-date=9 November 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> This was one of the biggest decisions before the retirement of [[Chief Justice of India]], [[Ranjan Gogoi]] on 17 November 2019.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/supreme-court-hearing-ends-in-ayodhya-dispute-orders-reserved/article29710840.ece|title=Supreme Court hearing ends in Ayodhya dispute; orders reserved|agency=Press Trust of India|website=@businessline|language=en|access-date=2019-10-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191023101322/https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/supreme-court-hearing-ends-in-ayodhya-dispute-orders-reserved/article29710840.ece|archive-date=23 October 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ayodhya-verdict-live-updates-ram-mandir-babri-masjid-land-dispute-case-supreme-court-verdict-at-10-3-2129704|title=Ayodhya Verdict Live Updates: Disputed Land To Be Given For Temple Construction, Muslims To Get 5-Acre Plot In Ayodhya, Says Top Court|website=NDTV.com|access-date=2019-11-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191109060357/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ayodhya-verdict-live-updates-ram-mandir-babri-masjid-land-dispute-case-supreme-court-verdict-at-10-3-2129704|archive-date=9 November 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
| Line 289: | Line 338: | ||
=== Corruption === | === Corruption === | ||
The year 2008 saw the Supreme Court embroiled in several controversies, from serious allegations of corruption at the highest level of the judiciary,<ref>[http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=3a1e5636-0e74-45da-a271-326c51d2fb23&&Headline=Ex-chief+justice+under+corruption+panel+scanner Ex-chief justice under corruption panel scanner], ''Hindustan Times'', New Delhi, 9 June 2008 | |||
The year 2008 saw the Supreme Court embroiled in several controversies, from serious allegations of corruption at the highest level of the judiciary,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20090802122841/http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=3a1e5636-0e74-45da-a271-326c51d2fb23&&Headline=Ex-chief+justice+under+corruption+panel+scanner Ex-chief justice under corruption panel scanner], ''Hindustan Times'', New Delhi, 9 June 2008</ref> expensive private holidays at the tax payers expense,<ref>[http://ibnlive.in.com/news/judges-junk-rules-for-junkets-with-wives/65630-3.html?xml Are judges holidaying at public expense?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019182030/http://ibnlive.in.com/news/judges-junk-rules-for-junkets-with-wives/65630-3.html |date=19 October 2013 }}, May 2008</ref> refusal to divulge details of judges' assets to the public,<ref>[http://www.indianexpress.com/news/judges-asset-declaration-before-cji-not.../381980/ Judges' asset declaration before CJI not for public eye: SC to CIC], ''The Indian Express'', 6 November 2008</ref> secrecy in the appointments of judges',<ref>[http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19990331/iex31074.html The case of judicial injustice], ''The Indian Express'', 31 March 1999 {{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> to refusal to make information public under the [[Right to Information Act]].<ref>[http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-04-20/india/27754645_1_cji-chief-justice-corruption-cases RTI Act does not apply to my office: CJI] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131113034608/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-04-20/india/27754645_1_cji-chief-justice-corruption-cases |date=13 November 2013 }}, ''The Times of India'', 20 April 2008</ref> 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.<ref>[http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-04-22/india/27760531_1_chief-justice-justice-balakrishnan-high-court Is the CJI a public servant?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131113034741/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-04-22/india/27760531_1_chief-justice-justice-balakrishnan-high-court |date=13 November 2013 }}, ''The Times of India'', 22 April 2008</ref> He later went back on this stand.<ref>[http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-05-06/india/27783655_1_servant-judges-cji I am a public servant: CJI] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131113034815/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-05-06/india/27783655_1_servant-judges-cji |date=13 November 2013 }}, ''The Times of India'', 6 May 2008</ref> The judiciary has come in for serious criticisms from former presidents [[Pratibha Patil]] and [[A. P. J. Abdul Kalam]] for failure in handling its duties.<ref name="c1">[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Delayed-justice-leading-to-lynch-mobs-Pratibha/articleshow/2808523.cms Delayed justice leading to lynching mobs: Pratibha], ''The Times of India'', 24 February 2008{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> 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.<ref>[http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/manmohan-singh-calls-for-check-on-corruption-in-the-judiciary_10039700.html Manmohan Singh calls for check on corruption in judiciary] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180820162458/http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/manmohan-singh-calls-for-check-on-corruption-in-the-judiciary_10039700.html |date=20 August 2018 }}, Thaindian News, 19 April 2008</ref> | |||
The [[Cabinet Secretary of India]] 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.<ref>[http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=473145&sid=NAT Pass Judges (Inquiry) Bill in next session, panel tells Govt.], Zee News, India Edition, 30 September 2008</ref><ref>[http://www.igovernment.in/site/Bill-for-probe-panel-against-errant-judges-cleared/ Bill for probe panel against errant judges cleared], iGovernment, 10 October 2008 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721163011/http://www.igovernment.in/site/Bill-for-probe-panel-against-errant-judges-cleared/ |date=21 July 2011 }}</ref> | The [[Cabinet Secretary of India]] 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.<ref>[http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=473145&sid=NAT Pass Judges (Inquiry) Bill in next session, panel tells Govt.], Zee News, India Edition, 30 September 2008</ref><ref>[http://www.igovernment.in/site/Bill-for-probe-panel-against-errant-judges-cleared/ Bill for probe panel against errant judges cleared], iGovernment, 10 October 2008 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721163011/http://www.igovernment.in/site/Bill-for-probe-panel-against-errant-judges-cleared/ |date=21 July 2011 }}</ref> | ||
=== Pending cases === | === Pending cases === | ||
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.<ref name="Supreme Court Quarterly Newsletter — Oct — Dec 2011">{{cite web|title=Supreme Court Quarterly Newsletter — Oct — Dec 2011|url=http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/courtnews/2011_issue_4.pdf|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=18 September 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130219212236/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/courtnews/2011_issue_4.pdf|archive-date=19 February 2013|df=dmy-all}}</ref> Per the latest pendency data made available by the Supreme Court, the total number of pending cases in the Supreme Court as on 1 November 2017 is 55,259 which includes 32,160 admission matters (miscellaneous) and 23,099 regular hearing matters.<ref>{{cite web|title=Number of pending matters in Supreme Court as on 1st April 2014|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/statistics|access-date=18 January 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180125080921/http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/statistics|archive-date=25 January 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> 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, 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 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.<ref>{{cite web|title=Proposal to make judiciary work throughout the year|url=http://www.tilakmarg.com/2014/06/proposal-to-make-judiciary-work.html|access-date=9 June 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714203911/http://www.tilakmarg.com/2014/06/proposal-to-make-judiciary-work.html|archive-date=14 July 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> More over, various time frames specified in [[Code of Civil Procedure (India)|'code of civil procedure']] are also diluted by Supreme Court judgements to give the courts right to endlessly adjourn the cases.<ref>{{cite web|title=What causes judicial delay? Judgments diluting time frames in Code of Civil Procedure worsen the problem of adjournments|url=https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/what-causes-judicial-delay-judgments-diluting-timeframes-in-code-of-civil-procedure-worsen-the-problem-of-adjournments/|access-date=5 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170904045743/http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/what-causes-judicial-delay-judgments-diluting-timeframes-in-code-of-civil-procedure-worsen-the-problem-of-adjournments/|archive-date=4 September 2017|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Don't need 70,000 judges. Just fill vacancies to cut backlog|url=http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tracking-indian-communities/dont-need-70000-judges-just-fill-vacancies-to-cut-backlog/|author=Shailesh Gandhi, Ex Central Information Commissioner|website= | |||
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.<ref name="Supreme Court Quarterly Newsletter — Oct — Dec 2011">{{cite web|title=Supreme Court Quarterly Newsletter — Oct — Dec 2011|url=http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/courtnews/2011_issue_4.pdf|publisher=Supreme Court of India|access-date=18 September 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130219212236/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/courtnews/2011_issue_4.pdf|archive-date=19 February 2013|df=dmy-all}}</ref> Per the latest pendency data made available by the Supreme Court, the total number of pending cases in the Supreme Court as on 1 November 2017 is 55,259 which includes 32,160 admission matters (miscellaneous) and 23,099 regular hearing matters.<ref>{{cite web|title=Number of pending matters in Supreme Court as on 1st April 2014|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/statistics|access-date=18 January 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180125080921/http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/statistics|archive-date=25 January 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> 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, 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 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.<ref>{{cite web|title=Proposal to make judiciary work throughout the year|url=http://www.tilakmarg.com/2014/06/proposal-to-make-judiciary-work.html|access-date=9 June 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714203911/http://www.tilakmarg.com/2014/06/proposal-to-make-judiciary-work.html|archive-date=14 July 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> More over, various time frames specified in [[Code of Civil Procedure (India)|'code of civil procedure']] are also diluted by Supreme Court judgements to give the courts right to endlessly adjourn the cases.<ref>{{cite web|title=What causes judicial delay? Judgments diluting time frames in Code of Civil Procedure worsen the problem of adjournments|date=25 August 2016|url=https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/what-causes-judicial-delay-judgments-diluting-timeframes-in-code-of-civil-procedure-worsen-the-problem-of-adjournments/|access-date=5 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170904045743/http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/what-causes-judicial-delay-judgments-diluting-timeframes-in-code-of-civil-procedure-worsen-the-problem-of-adjournments/|archive-date=4 September 2017|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Don't need 70,000 judges. Just fill vacancies to cut backlog|url=http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tracking-indian-communities/dont-need-70000-judges-just-fill-vacancies-to-cut-backlog/|author=Shailesh Gandhi, Ex Central Information Commissioner|website=The Times of India|date=29 May 2016|access-date=3 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180711034158/https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tracking-indian-communities/dont-need-70000-judges-just-fill-vacancies-to-cut-backlog/|archive-date=11 July 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
=== Rule of law === | === Rule of law === | ||
The Supreme Court has not taken up the trail of many pending cases, since April 2014 (more than | |||
The Supreme Court has not taken up the trail of many pending cases, since April 2014 (more than 6 years), challenging the validity of the [[Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014]] which was enacted by the [[Parliament]] without following the [[Amendment of the Constitution of India|stipulated procedure in the Constitution]] and is claimed detrimental to the basic foundation of the constitution on which the [[Basic structure doctrine|basic structure of the constitution]] is resting.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-admits-petition-against-formation-of-telangana/article5940913.ece|title=Supreme Court admits petition against formation Telangana|newspaper=The Hindu|date=23 April 2014|access-date=3 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180703232407/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-admits-petition-against-formation-of-telangana/article5940913.ece|archive-date=3 July 2018|url-status=live|last1=Venkatesan|first1=J.}}</ref> The basic foundation of the constitution is the dignity and the freedom of its citizens which is of supreme importance and can not be destroyed by any legislation of the parliament. Whereas the fair trial to examine the validity of the ninety-ninth constitutional amendment dated 31 December 2014, to form [[National Judicial Appointments Commission]] for the purpose of appointing the judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, was conducted on utmost priority and the Supreme Court delivered its judgement on 16 October 2015 (within a year) quashing the constitutional amendment as unconstitutional and [[ultra vires]] stating the said amendment is interfering with the independence of the [[judiciary]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-verdict-on-njac-and-collegium-system/article7769266.ece?homepage=true |title=SC declares NJAC unconstitutional, upholds Collegium|work=[[The Hindu]]| date=16 October 2015}}</ref> Disposal of the various petitions filed against [[Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014]] is also equally important as it has alienated the basic rights of a vast section of Indian citizens and also against federal character of the constitution which is part of the basic structure of the constitution. The Supreme Court is also wasting its valuable time by not taking up the case in toto but conducted a piecemeal trail by delivering its judgement to dispose the petitions related with apportionment of assets between the newly formed states Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wbja.nic.in/wbja_adm/files/A%20ststute%20is%20best%20interpreted%20when%20we%20know%20why%20it%20was%20enacted.%20With%20this%20knowledge,%20the%20ststute%20must%20be%20read,%20first%20as%20a%20whole%20and%20then%20section%20by%20section,%20clause%20by%20clause,%20phrase%20by%20phrase%20and%20word%20by%20word..pdf|date=March 2016|title=Assets division between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh of Erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Education Council of Higher Education|access-date=3 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180124010819/http://www.wbja.nic.in/wbja_adm/files/A%20ststute%20is%20best%20interpreted%20when%20we%20know%20why%20it%20was%20enacted.%20With%20this%20knowledge,%20the%20ststute%20must%20be%20read,%20first%20as%20a%20whole%20and%20then%20section%20by%20section,%20clause%20by%20clause,%20phrase%20by%20phrase%20and%20word%20by%20word..pdf|archive-date=24 January 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> The Supreme Court is also conducting piecemeal trail of the petitions filed by the states regarding water sharing of rivers and bifurcation of the common high court without considering the earlier pending petitions challenging the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 which is the basic cause of all these disputes.<ref>{{cite news |title=Issue of Telangana's share in Krishna water may be referred to Tribunal: Centre to Supreme Court |newspaper=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/issue-of-telanganas-share-in-krishna-water-may-be-referred-to-tribunal-centre-to-supreme-court/articleshow/50094386.cms |access-date=13 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180127085314/https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/issue-of-telanganas-share-in-krishna-water-may-be-referred-to-tribunal-centre-to-supreme-court/articleshow/50094386.cms |archive-date=27 January 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Hyderabad High Court bifurcation: Centre approves judges' proposal |url=http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/2017/oct/26/hyderabad-high-court-bifurcation-centre-approves-judges-proposal-1683366.html |access-date=13 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171230065528/http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/2017/oct/26/hyderabad-high-court-bifurcation-centre-approves-judges-proposal-1683366.html |archive-date=30 December 2017 |url-status=live }}</ref> Under [[checks and balances]] as provided in the Constitution, it is the duty of the judiciary/Supreme Court to establish the [[rule of law]] at the earliest by rectifying any misuse of the Constitution by Parliament and the executive without colluding with them and to remove perceptions of people that rule of law is side lined and a section of its citizens are subjected to discrimination.<ref>{{cite web |title=Rule of law: Justice in the dock |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/rule-of-law-justice-in-the-dock-1186254-2018-03-10 |access-date=11 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180310182230/https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/rule-of-law-justice-in-the-dock-1186254-2018-03-10 |archive-date=10 March 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Govt meddling in Supreme Court: Justice Chelameswar says CJI Dipak Misra has to take it forward |date=31 March 2018 |url=http://indianexpress.com/article/india/govt-meddling-in-sc-justice-chelameswar-says-cji-dipak-misra-has-to-take-it-forward-5117863/ |access-date=31 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180331023441/http://indianexpress.com/article/india/govt-meddling-in-sc-justice-chelameswar-says-cji-dipak-misra-has-to-take-it-forward-5117863/ |archive-date=31 March 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref> | |||
=== Four judges vs chief justice === | === Four judges vs chief justice === | ||
{{Main|2018 Supreme Court of India crisis}} | {{Main|2018 Supreme Court of India crisis}} | ||
On 12 January 2018, four senior judges of the Supreme Court; [[Jasti Chelameswar]], [[Ranjan Gogoi]], [[Madan Lokur]] and [[Kurian Joseph]] addressed a press conference criticizing Chief Justice [[Dipak Misra]]'s style of administration and the manner in which he allocated cases among judges of the | |||
On 12 January 2018, four senior judges of the Supreme Court; [[Jasti Chelameswar]], [[Ranjan Gogoi]], [[Madan Lokur]] and [[Kurian Joseph]] addressed a press conference criticizing Chief Justice [[Dipak Misra]]'s style of administration and the manner in which he allocated cases among judges of the Supreme Court. However, people close to Misra denied the allegations that allocation of cases was unfair.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Bagriya|first1=Ashok|last2=Sinha|first2=Bhadra|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/4-senior-supreme-court-judges-speak-out-against-cji-dipak-misra-say-need-to-preserve-institution-for-survival-of-democracy/story-UqaLGhs4iCbyk4zckVmMbM.html|title=Turmoil in Supreme Court as four judges speak out against Chief Justice Dipak Misra|date=12 January 2018|work=[[Hindustan Times]]|access-date=13 January 2018|language=en|df=dmy-all|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180112173338/http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/4-senior-supreme-court-judges-speak-out-against-cji-dipak-misra-say-need-to-preserve-institution-for-survival-of-democracy/story-UqaLGhs4iCbyk4zckVmMbM.html|archive-date=12 January 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> On 20 April 2018, seven opposition parties submitted a petition seeking impeachment of Dipak Misra to the Vice President [[Venkaiah Naidu]], with signatures from seventy-one parliamentarians.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/opposition-parties-submit-petition-to-rajya-sabha-chairman-for-chief-justices-impeachment-1840245 |title=Chief Justice Dipak Misra Faces Impeachment Motion, 71 Have Signed: 10 Facts|publisher=[[NDTV]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180420152255/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/opposition-parties-submit-petition-to-rajya-sabha-chairman-for-chief-justices-impeachment-1840245 |archive-date=20 April 2018 |url-status=live |df=dmy}}</ref> On 23 April 2018, the petition was rejected by Vice President [[Venkaiah Naidu]], primarily on the basis that the complaints were about administration and not misbehaviour, and that thus impeachment would seriously interfere with the constitutionally protected [[independence of the judiciary]].<ref>{{Cite news|last=Phukan |first=Sandeep |date=23 April 2018 |title=Venkaiah Naidu rejects impeachment motion against CJI |language=en-IN |newspaper=[[The Hindu]] |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/venkaiah-naidu-rejects-impeachment-motion-against-cji/article23643125.ece }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |agency=Press Trust of India |title=Decision to reject impeachment motion against CJI was not hasty: Venkaiah Naidu |date=23 April 2018 |newspaper=[[The Times of India]] |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/decision-to-reject-impeachment-motion-against-cji-was-not-hasty-venkaiah-naidu/articleshow/63895986.cms |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6yv5jJn0k?url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/decision-to-reject-impeachment-motion-against-cji-was-not-hasty-venkaiah-naidu/articleshow/63895986.cms |archive-date=24 April 2018 |url-status=live |df=dmy }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=10 reasons why Venkaiah Naidu rejected the impeachment notice against CJI Dipak Misra |date=23 April 2018 |newspaper=[[The Times of India]] |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/10-reasons-why-venkaiah-naidu-rejected-the-impeachment-notice-against-cji-dipak-misra/articleshow/63881915.cms |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6yv6LCCB6?url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/10-reasons-why-venkaiah-naidu-rejected-the-impeachment-notice-against-cji-dipak-misra/articleshow/63881915.cms |archive-date=24 April 2018 |url-status=live |df=dmy }}</ref> | |||
===Holidays and working hours=== | ===Holidays and working hours=== | ||
The Supreme Court works from 10.30 am to 4 pm, but is closed during winter and summer for 2 weeks each. Some critics feel that this delays pending cases. However, in an interview in June 2018 with [[NDTV]], Justice Chelameswar revealed that most Supreme Court judges including him work around 14 hours per day, and continue to work for an average of 7 hours per day even during vacations. He further reminded that the Supreme Court of United States delivers judgement on just 120 cases in a year, while every judge in the Supreme Court of India delivers judgements on 1000-1500 cases.<ref>{{cite news |title=Dont regret going to public, that is why: Interview with Justice Chelameswar |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/on-his-last-day-at-supreme-court-justice-jasti-chelameswar-speaks-to-ndtv-full-transcript-1871856 |access-date=8 November 2018 |publisher=NDTV |date=23 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181108184414/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/on-his-last-day-at-supreme-court-justice-jasti-chelameswar-speaks-to-ndtv-full-transcript-1871856 |archive-date=8 November 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref> | The Supreme Court works from 10.30 am to 4 pm, but is closed during winter and summer for 2 weeks each. Some critics feel that this delays pending cases. However, in an interview in June 2018 with [[NDTV]], Justice Chelameswar revealed that most Supreme Court judges including him work around 14 hours per day, and continue to work for an average of 7 hours per day even during vacations. He further reminded that the Supreme Court of United States delivers judgement on just 120 cases in a year, while every judge in the Supreme Court of India delivers judgements on 1000-1500 cases.<ref>{{cite news |title=Dont regret going to public, that is why: Interview with Justice Chelameswar |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/on-his-last-day-at-supreme-court-justice-jasti-chelameswar-speaks-to-ndtv-full-transcript-1871856 |access-date=8 November 2018 |publisher=NDTV |date=23 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181108184414/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/on-his-last-day-at-supreme-court-justice-jasti-chelameswar-speaks-to-ndtv-full-transcript-1871856 |archive-date=8 November 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref> | ||
=== Appointment === | === Appointment === | ||
It has been pointed out that consensus within the Collegium is occasionally resolved through trade-offs, resulting in unreliable appointments with consequences for litigants There has also been growing sycophancy and "lobbying" within the system. Justice Chelameswar gave evidence from existing records to argue this point. In one case, "a judge was blocked from elevation to the Madras High Court in 2009, in what ''appeared to have been a joint venture in the subversion of the law'' governing the collegium system ''by both the executive and the judiciary.''"<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://caravanmagazine.in/law/what-judiciary-done-itself|title=What the Indian judiciary has done to itself|last=Dev|first=Atul|website=The Caravan|language=en|access-date=2019-07-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190716201734/https://caravanmagazine.in/law/what-judiciary-done-itself|archive-date=16 July 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> | It has been pointed out that consensus within the Collegium is occasionally resolved through trade-offs, resulting in unreliable appointments with consequences for litigants There has also been growing sycophancy and "lobbying" within the system. Justice Chelameswar gave evidence from existing records to argue this point. In one case, "a judge was blocked from elevation to the Madras High Court in 2009, in what ''appeared to have been a joint venture in the subversion of the law'' governing the collegium system ''by both the executive and the judiciary.''"<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://caravanmagazine.in/law/what-judiciary-done-itself|title=What the Indian judiciary has done to itself|last=Dev|first=Atul|website=The Caravan|language=en|access-date=2019-07-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190716201734/https://caravanmagazine.in/law/what-judiciary-done-itself|archive-date=16 July 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
===Controversies=== | ===Controversies=== | ||
On 18 April 2019 an unnamed | |||
On 18 April 2019 an unnamed woman employee of the Supreme Court filed an affidavit stating that the Chief Justice [[Ranjan Gogoi]] had sexually harassed her on 10–11 October 2018 by pressing his body against hers against her will. An in-house committee of the Court quickly cleared Gogoi of the sexual harassment charges, although the report of the committee was not provided to the complainant.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48177737|title=Indian Chief Justice Cleared of Sexual Harassment|work=BBC News|date=6 May 2019|language=en|access-date=2019-08-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190820162954/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48177737|archive-date=20 August 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> However, there were widespread protests against the manner in which the woman's complaint was dealt with by Supreme Court.<ref>{{Cite web|url= https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/women-lawyers-activists-protest-against-clean-chit-to-cji-ranjan-gogoi/videoshow/69214922.cms|title= Lawyers, Activists Protest against Clean Chit to CJI Ranjan Gogoi|website=The Economic Times|language=en|access-date=2019-08-20}}</ref> A petition was filed before [[National Human Rights Commission]] to obtain the report of the in-house committee.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/complaint-in-nhrc-seeks-sexual-harassment-report-which-gave-clean-chit-to-cji-ranjan-gogoi-1536015-2019-05-27|title=Complaint in NHRC Seeking Sexual Harassment Report on CJI Ranjan Gogoi|website=India Today|language=en|access-date=2019-08-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190530101346/https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/complaint-in-nhrc-seeks-sexual-harassment-report-which-gave-clean-chit-to-cji-ranjan-gogoi-1536015-2019-05-27|archive-date=30 May 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> The [[National Law University]] topper Survi Karwa skipped her convocation to avoid receiving her degree from [[Ranjan Gogoi]] in protest.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/nlu-topper-skips-convocation-to-avoid-receiving-award-from-cji-ranjan-gogoi-over-sexual-harassment-claims-4349651.html|title=NLU Topper Skips Convocation in Protest against Ranjan Gogoi|website=Money Control|language=en|access-date=2019-08-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190820161454/https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/nlu-topper-skips-convocation-to-avoid-receiving-award-from-cji-ranjan-gogoi-over-sexual-harassment-claims-4349651.html|archive-date=20 August 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> The in house committee which cleared Gogoi of sexual harassment was chaired by Justice S A Bobde, who himself succeeded Gogoi as chief justice. The woman complainant stated that she was terrified by the systematic victimisation of her family members who were all dismissed from service following her protest against Gogoi's sexual advances.<ref>{{Cite web|url= https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/cji-ranjan-gogoi-clean-chit-sexual-harassment-case-my-worst-fears-came-true-1518609-2019-05-06|title= Dejected and Terrified - Woman Complainant against CJI Ranjan Gogoi|website=India Today|language=en|access-date=2019-12-29}}</ref> | |||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
{{Portal|Law}} | {{Portal|Law}} | ||
* [[Attorney General of India]] | * [[Attorney General of India]] | ||
* [[List of Chief Justices of India]] | * [[List of Chief Justices of India]] | ||
| Line 323: | Line 380: | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
{{Reflist}} | {{Reflist}} | ||
== External links == | == External links == | ||
{{Commons category}} | {{Commons category}} | ||
* {{Official|http://www.sci.gov.in}} | * {{Official website|http://www.sci.gov.in}} | ||
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20140625110033/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scr.htm Supreme Court reports] | * [https://web.archive.org/web/20140625110033/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scr.htm Supreme Court reports] | ||
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20140211035354/http://www.indiacourts.in/ Text of all Indian Supreme Court judgments] | * [https://web.archive.org/web/20140211035354/http://www.indiacourts.in/ Text of all Indian Supreme Court judgments] | ||
| Line 338: | Line 392: | ||
{{Asia topic|Supreme Court of|title=Supreme Courts of Asia|countries_only=yes}} | {{Asia topic|Supreme Court of|title=Supreme Courts of Asia|countries_only=yes}} | ||
{{India topics}} | {{India topics}} | ||
{{Authority control}} | |||
[[Category:Supreme Court of India| ]] | [[Category:Supreme Court of India| ]] | ||
[[Category:National supreme courts|India]] | [[Category:National supreme courts|India]] | ||
[[Category:Constitutional courts|India]] | [[Category:Constitutional courts|India]] | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:1950 establishments in India|India]] | ||
[[Category:Courts and tribunals established in 1950]] | [[Category:Courts and tribunals established in 1950]] | ||