13,408
edits
Add more details
(→Members of Collegium: updated) |
(Add more details) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{short description|Highest constitutional body in India}} | ||
{{Use Indian English|date=February 2019}} | {{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 | | court_name = Supreme Court of India | ||
| native_name | | native_name = भारत का सर्वोच्च न्यायालय | ||
| image | | image = Supreme Court of India (emblem).png | ||
| imagesize | | imagesize = 200px | ||
| caption | | caption = Emblem of the Supreme Court of India.<ref>{{cite web |title=SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |url=http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/courtnews/2009_issue_1.pdf |website=main.sci.gov.in}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://registry.sci.gov.in/api/callback/bharat_kosh/eCopyingPublic_manual.pdf|title=Supreme Court of India, administrative document|website=registry.sci.gov.in}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Wagner |first1=Anne |last2=Marusek |first2=Sarah |title=Flags, Color, and the Legal Narrative: Public Memory, Identity, and Critique |date=24 May 2021 |publisher=Springer Nature |isbn=978-3-030-32865-8 |page=406 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qvYvEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA406 |language=en|quote="A slightly different (32-spoke) version of the same wheel adorns the logo of the Supreme Court of India as a visual declaration of righteousness, authority and truth"}}</ref> | ||
|image2 | | image2 = Supreme Court of India 01.jpg | ||
|imagesize2= | | imagesize2 = 300px | ||
| established = {{start date and age|1937|10|1|cdf=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" /> | |df=yes}}<br />{{small|(as Supreme Court of India)}}<ref name="history" /> | ||
| jurisdiction = {{Flag|India}} | |||
| location = Tilak Marg, [[New Delhi]], [[Delhi]]: 110001, India | |||
|jurisdiction= | | coordinates = {{coord|28.622237|N|77.239584|E|format=dms|region:IN_type:landmark|display=inline}}<!-- {{coord|45.000|-122.000|display=inline}} --> | ||
| location | | type = [[Three Judges Cases|Collegium of the Supreme Court of India]] | ||
| authority = Article 124 of the [[Constitution of India]] | |||
| coordinates | | appeals = | ||
| type | | terms = Mandatory retirement at 65 years of [[Ageing|age]] | ||
| authority | | 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> | ||
| appeals | | website = {{Official URL}} | ||
| terms | | motto = [[International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration|IAST]]: ''[[Yato Dharmastato Jayah]]''<br />({{translation|Where there is righteousness and moral duty {{small|(}}''[[dharma]]''{{small|)}}, there is victory {{small|(}}''jayah''{{small|)}}}}) <br /> | ||
| positions | |||
| website | |||
| motto | |||
| chiefjudgetitle = [[Chief Justice of India]] | | chiefjudgetitle = [[Chief Justice of India]] | ||
| chiefjudgename | | chiefjudgename = [[Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud]] | ||
|termstart | | termstart = 9 November 2022 | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Courts of India}} | {{Courts of India}} | ||
The '''Supreme Court of India''' ([[International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration|IAST]]: {{lang|hi-Latn| | The '''Supreme Court of India''' ([[International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration|IAST]]: {{lang|hi-Latn|भारत का सर्वोच्च न्यायालय}}) is the supreme judicial authority and the [[supreme court|highest court]] of the [[Republic of India]] under the [[Constitution of India|constitution]]. It is the final [[Appellate court|court of appeal]] for all civil and criminal cases. It also has the power of [[Judicial review in India|judicial review]]. The [[Chief Justice of India]] is the head 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 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 legal disputes among the central government and various state governments. As an advisory court, it hears matters which may specifically be referred to it by the [[President of India#Judicial powers|President of India]]. Under its judicial review function the court can not only annul normal legislation for violating the constitution, it can also invalidate constitutional amendments which violate the [[Basic structure doctrine|basic structure]] of the Indian Constitution. | |||
The law declared by the Supreme Court becomes binding on all courts within India and also on 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, the court is conferred with the inherent jurisdiction to pass any order deemed necessary in the interest of justice and it is the duty of the [[President of India]] to enforce such decrees of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court replaced the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] as the highest court of appeal since 28 January 1950. | |||
With the Indian Constitution granting it far-reaching authority to initiate actions, to exercise direct appellate authority over all other courts in the country and with the power to review constitutional amendments, India's Supreme Court is regarded as one of the most powerful supreme courts in the world.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Zwart |first=Tom |date=2003 |title=Review of Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Rights |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1410775 |journal=Journal of Law and Society |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=332–337 |jstor=1410775 |issn=0263-323X}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last1=Chandra |first1=Aparna |title=The Supreme Court of India: An Empirical Overview of the Institution |date=2019 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/qualified-hope/supreme-court-of-india/5631C3B57D9C3FDE75E5A91D516D5F40 |work=A Qualified Hope: The Indian Supreme Court and Progressive Social Change |pages=43–76 |editor-last=Rosenberg |editor-first=Gerald N. |access-date=2023-03-10 |series=Comparative Constitutional Law and Policy |place=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-47450-4 |last2=Hubbard |first2=William H. J. |last3=Kalantry |first3=Sital |editor2-last=Bail |editor2-first=Shishir |editor3-last=Krishnaswamy |editor3-first=Sudhir}}</ref> | |||
== History == | == History == | ||
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">{{cite web|title=History of the Supreme Court of India|url=https:// | 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://main.sci.gov.in/history }}</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 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. | 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. | ||
The emblem of the Supreme Court represent the [[Lion capital of Ashoka]] at [[Sarnath]], with a topmost wheel featuring 32 spokes.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Wagner |first1=Anne |last2=Marusek |first2=Sarah |title=Flags, Color, and the Legal Narrative: Public Memory, Identity, and Critique |date=24 May 2021 |publisher=Springer Nature |isbn=978-3-030-32865-8 |page=406 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qvYvEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA406 |language=en|quote="A slightly different (32-spoke) version of the same wheel adorns the logo of the Supreme Court of India as a visual declaration of righteouness, authority and truth"}}</ref> | |||
== Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court == | == Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court == | ||
| Line 49: | Line 53: | ||
Presently, the Members of Collegium are: | Presently, the Members of Collegium are: | ||
*Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud | *[[Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud|Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud]] | ||
*Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul | *[[Sanjay Kishan Kaul|Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul]] | ||
*Justice K. M. Joseph | *[[K. M. Joseph|Justice K. M. Joseph]] | ||
*Justice Mukesh Shah | *[[Mukesh Shah|Justice Mukesh Shah]] | ||
*Justice Ajay Rastogi | *[[Ajay Rastogi|Justice Ajay Rastogi]] | ||
*Justice Sanjiv Khanna | *[[Sanjiv Khanna|Justice Sanjiv Khanna]] | ||
<ref>{{Cite news |date=October 13, 2022 |title=As CJI, DY Chandrachud will head 6-member collegium |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/as-cji-dy-chandrachud-will-head-6-member-collegium/articleshow/94820537.cms |access-date=2022-11-09 |newspaper=The Times of India |language=en}}</ref> | |||
== Court building architecture == | == Court building architecture == | ||
| Line 63: | Line 68: | ||
[[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]] | ||
The foundation stone of the Supreme Court's building was laid on 29 October 1954 by | The foundation stone of the Supreme Court's building was laid on 29 October 1954 by Rajendra Prasad, the first President of India. The main block of the building has been built on a triangular plot of 17 acres and has been designed in an [[Indo-Saracenic Revival architecture|Indo-British style]] by the chief architect [[Ganesh Bhikaji Deolalikar]], the first Indian to head the [[Central Public Works Department]]. It has a {{convert|27.6|m|ftin|abbr=on}} high dome and a spacious colonnaded verandah. The court moved into the building in 1958. In 1979, two new wings{{Snd}}the East Wing and the West Wing{{Snd}}were added to the complex. 1994 saw the last extension.<ref name="history" /> | ||
=== Mother and Child Sculpture === | === Mother and Child Sculpture === | ||
| Line 73: | Line 78: | ||
=== 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]] | 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 Court == | == Constitution of the Court == | ||
| Line 93: | Line 98: | ||
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 | The largest-ever bench at the Supreme Court of India has been constituted in 1973 in '''[[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 === | ||
| Line 111: | Line 116: | ||
|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>}} | |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 | In practice, judges of the Supreme Court have been selected so far, mostly from amongst judges of the high courts. Barely nine justices—[[Sarv Mittra Sikri|S. M. Sikri]], [[Subimal Chandra Roy|S. Chandra Roy]], [[Kuldip Singh (judge)|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> <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> | 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 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 | 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. Justice [[Indu Malhotra]] is the first and only woman judge to be selected directly from the bar. | ||
== Judicial independence == | == Judicial independence == | ||
| Line 133: | Line 138: | ||
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. | 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. | 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. | ||
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> | 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> | ||
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 === | ||
| Line 166: | Line 171: | ||
{{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 | 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 |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> | ||
Under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, that have been framed under its powers under Article 145 of the constitution, the Supreme Court may review its judgment or order but no application for review is to be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the [[Code of Civil Procedure (India)|Code of Civil Procedure]]. | Under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, that have been framed under its powers under Article 145 of the constitution, the Supreme Court may review its judgment or order but no application for review is to be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the [[Code of Civil Procedure (India)|Code of Civil Procedure]]. | ||
| Line 255: | Line 260: | ||
{{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 | 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 news|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]]|date=29 November 2015 |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. | ||
| Line 269: | Line 274: | ||
{{Further|2G spectrum case}} | {{Further|2G spectrum case}} | ||
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. | 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://web.archive.org/web/20131029202018/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-02-02/india/31016262_1_spectrum-licences-2g-spectrum-allotment-case |date=29 October 2013 }}. Articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com (2 February 2012). Retrieved 2013-07-18.</ref> | ||
==== Right to Information ==== | ==== Right to Information ==== | ||
| Line 275: | Line 280: | ||
{{See also|Right to Information Act}} | {{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 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 | 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 news|title=CJI, governors should come under RTI: SC|website=[[The Times of India]]|date=7 July 2017 |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 ==== | ||
| Line 296: | Line 301: | ||
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=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= | * 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=dead}}</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=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> | * 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=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> | * 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> | ||
| Line 334: | Line 339: | ||
{{main|2019 Supreme Court verdict on 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 then [[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|date=16 October 2019 |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> | ||
== Critical assessment== | == Critical assessment== | ||
| Line 345: | Line 350: | ||
=== Pending cases === | === Pending cases === | ||
''Related Article:'' ''[[Pendency of court cases in India]]'' | |||
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> | 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> | ||
| Line 350: | Line 356: | ||
=== Rule of law === | === Rule of law === | ||
The Supreme Court has not taken up the | The Supreme Court has not taken up the trial 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 trial 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 trial 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 === | ||
| Line 356: | Line 362: | ||
{{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 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:// | 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://web.archive.org/web/20180425002616/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/decision-to-reject-impeachment-motion-against-cji-was-not-hasty-venkaiah-naidu/articleshow/63895986.cms |archive-date=25 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://web.archive.org/web/20180423214619/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/10-reasons-why-venkaiah-naidu-rejected-the-impeachment-notice-against-cji-dipak-misra/articleshow/63881915.cms |archive-date=23 April 2018 |url-status=live |df=dmy }}</ref> | ||
===Holidays and working hours=== | ===Holidays and working hours=== | ||
The Supreme Court works from 10 | The Supreme Court works from 10:30{{nbsp}}am to 4{{nbsp}}pm, but is closed during winter and summer for two 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 compared the court to the [[Supreme Court of United States]], which delivers judgement on around 120 cases in a year, while each judge in the Supreme Court of India delivers judgements on 1,000{{endash}}1,500 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 === | ||
| Line 368: | Line 374: | ||
===Controversies=== | ===Controversies=== | ||
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> | 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> [[National Law University, Delhi|National Law University Delhi]] 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> | ||
=== Dissent === | |||
On 2 January 2023, justice [[B. V. Nagarathna|BV Nagarathna]] said in her dissent that the government notification on [[Demonetisation (currency)|demonetisation]] was "unlawful" and the process of banning all currency notes of ₹ 1,000 and ₹ 500 could not have been initiated by the Indian government. Justice Nagarathna expressed her dissenting views after a Supreme Court Constitution bench, with 4:1 majority, upheld the demonetisation decision by the [[Narendra Modi]] government.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Notes Ban Order "Unlawful", "Vitiated": Dissenting Supreme Court Judge |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/demonetisation-action-by-centre-unlawful-says-supreme-court-judge-justice-bv-nagarathna-in-dissenting-order-3656410 |access-date=2023-01-03 |website=NDTV.com}}</ref> | |||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
| Line 378: | Line 387: | ||
* [[List of sitting judges of the Supreme Court of India]] | * [[List of sitting judges of the Supreme Court of India]] | ||
* [[Solicitor General of India]] | * [[Solicitor General of India]] | ||
* [[Constitutional body (India)]] | |||
* [[Pendency of court cases in India]] | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
| Line 383: | Line 394: | ||
== External links == | == External links == | ||
* {{Official website|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:// | * [https://legaldata.in/court/judgements/supreme-court-of-india Text of all Indian Supreme Court judgments] | ||
* [https://www.sci.gov.in/chief-justice-judges Chief Justice & Judges] | * [https://www.main.sci.gov.in/chief-justice-judges Chief Justice & Judges] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220930122739/https://www.main.sci.gov.in/chief-justice-judges |date=September 30, 2022 }} | ||
* [https://iplforever.com/ipl-2023-match-no-1-chennai-super-kings-csk-vs-gujarat-titans-gt-dream11-team-scorecard-head-to-head-winning-prediction-match[IPL 2023 Match No 1, Chennai Super Kings (CSK) vs Gujarat Titans (GT) : Dream11 Team, Scorecard, Head-To-Head, Winning Prediction & Match Report]] | |||
{{Judiciary of India}} | {{Judiciary of India}} | ||
| Line 399: | Line 409: | ||
[[Category:Constitutional courts|India]] | [[Category:Constitutional courts|India]] | ||
[[Category:1950 establishments in India|India]] | [[Category:1950 establishments in India|India]] | ||