The Supreme Court is a multi-jurisdictional Court and may be regarded as the most powerful

Apex Court in the World.

The Constitution confers very broad jurisdiction on the Court. The jurisdiction of the Court may be
put under the following heads:
i. The Court has power to commit a person for its contempt [Art.129].
ii. The Court has original jurisdiction to decide inter-governmental disputes [Art. 131].
iii. The Court has appellate jurisdiction. It is the highest court of appeal in the country in all
matters, civil or criminal [Arts. 132 to 134].
iv. Extra-ordinary appellate Jurisdiction i.e., SLP [Art. 136]
v. The Apex Court has power under Art. 32 to enforce FRs. [Art. 32]
vi. The Court has advisory jurisdiction. [Art. 143]
vii. The Court has power to review its own decisions. Curative Petition [Art.137]
viii. The Court has power to make any order necessary for doing complete justice in any case.
[Art. 142]

Court of Record and Contempt

• Article 129 deals with court of record and confers the power to the SC to punish for its
contempt.
• ‘A court of record is a court whose records are admitted to be of evidentiary value and they
are not to be questioned when they are produced before the court. Once a court is made a
court of record, its power to punish for contempt necessarily follows from that position.’
• Contempt power should be used only in the public interest.
• The Supreme Court exercises this power to punish an act which tends to inter- fere with the
course of administration of justice. The following inter alia have been held to constitute
contempt of court:
1. insinuations derogatory to the dignity of the Court which are calculated to undermine the
confidence of the people in the integrity of the Judges;
2. an attempt by one party to prejudice the Court against the other party to the action;
3. to stir up public feelings on the question pending for decision before the Court and to try to
influence the Judge in favour of himself;
4. an attempt to affect the minds of the Judges and to deflect them from performing their duty by
flattery or veiled threat;
5. an act or publication which scandalises the Court attributing dishonesty to a Judge in the
discharge of his functions;
6. wilful disobedience or non-compliance of the Court’ order.

• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : defines the powers of courts for punishing contempt of
courts and regulates their procedure.
• Contempt of court includes both : Civil and Criminal contempt.
 • ‘Civil contempt’ means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ
or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
• ‘Criminal contempt’ means the publication whether by words spoken or written by signs or
by visible representation or otherwise of any matter or doing of any act whatsoever which –
(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tend to lower the authority or any court, or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial
proceeding, or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner.
• SC has power to punish for the contempt of itself as well as subordinate courts.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARTICLE 131

• It means the power to hear and determine a dispute in the first instance.
• The SC has been given exclusive Original Jurisdiction, which extends to disputes:
a. Between the GOI & one or more States (e.g. State of WB v UOI AIR 1963 SC 1241).
b. Between the GOI and one or more States n one side and one or more States on the other.
c. Between two or more States.
EXCEPTION
• However, this jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of a treaty, agreement,
covenant, sanad, etc. which is in operation (i.e. executed before the commencement of the
Constitution) – (Art. 131 proviso).
• The jurisdiction of the SC may also be excluded in certain other matters:
 Inter-State Water Dispute (Art. 262)
 Matters referred to the Finance Commission (Art. 280)
 Adjustment of certain expenses and pensions between the Union & the States (Art. 290).
• The Court, in its OJ cannot entertain any suits brought by private individuals against the GOI
except in cases of violation of FRs of individuals.
• Recovery of damage against the GOI cannot be claimed by a State before the SC U/A. 131.
• The Art. does not cover such ordinary commercial matter between the Union and the States
(UOI v State of Rajasthan 1984 4 SCC 238)
Appellate Jurisdiction Articles 132-134
• The SC is the final appellate jurisdiction of the land.
• The Appellate Jurisdiction of the SC extends to civil, criminal and constitutional matters (arts
132-134).
 U/A 132, an appeal will lie to the SC if the High Court certifies U/A 134A that the case
involves ‘a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution’.
  In a Civil matter, an appeal lies to the SC from any judgement, decree, or final order of a
High court if the HC certifies that ‘a substantial question of law of general importance’ is
involved and the matter needs to be decided by the Sc (Art. 133)
 In Criminal cases, an appeal lies to the SC if the High Court: (Article 134)
a) Has reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death, or
b) Has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and
has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; and
c) In some other cases.
• In the first two cases (a & b), an appeal will lie to the SC without the certificate of the High
Court.
• U/A 134(1)(c) an appeal against a decision of a HC can be filed before the SC if the HC
certifies U/A 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the SC.
• But, the proviso to sub clause (c) lays down that such appeals shall be subject to rules made
by the SC and to such other conditions as the HC may decide.
• The ‘grant of certificate’ by the HC for appeals in criminal cases to the SC depends on an
evaluation whether the case involves a substantial question of law and its interpretation on
which the SC is urgently required to pronounce its opinion and whether it would result in
grave injustice to the accused.
• Thus, a certificate cannot be granted by the HC on mere question of fact.
• The certificate U/A 134A may be granted by the HC suo moto or on the application of the
aggrieved party
Appeal by Special Leave- Article 136
• U/A 136, the SC, at its discretion, may grant special leave to appeal from “ any judgement,
decree, determination, sentence, order, in any cause or matter passed or made by any court
or tribunal in the territory of India”.
• This is called a Special leave petition (SLP).
• The SC can grant special leave against judgements of any court or tribunal in the territory,
except the military courts.
• SLP will be granted only in cases where there has been “gross miscarriage of justice” (eg.
disregard of the forms of legal process or violation of principles of natural justice) or where
the High court or Tribunal is found to have been wrong in law.
 If the judgement of the court below shakes the conscience and shocks the sense of
justice, the SC shall interfere (Haripada dey v State of W.B. AIR 1965 SC 757; Mahesh
v State of Delhi 1991 CrLJ 1703 SC)
 In an appeal U/A 136, the SC does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact unless it
is established that the finding is based on no evidence or that the finding is perverse or is
based on inadmissible evidence, or that the vital piece of evidence has been overlooked.
 In an appeal U/A 136, the SC does not allow the appellant to raise the new plea for the first
time.
  In Ramkanat Rai v Madan Rai (AIR 2004 SC 77), the SC held that where an accused is
acquitted by the HC and no appeal against the acquittal is filed by the State, a private party
can file appeal U/A 136 against the acquittal order of the High Court.
Review Jurisdiction Article 137
• Article 137 provides for the SC having the power to review its own judgements and orders.
However, this is subject to any law passed by the parliament.
• The review petition is a petition in which it is prayed before the Court of law to review its
order or judgement which it has already pronounced.
• The Court may accept a review petition when a glaring omission or patent mistake or like
grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.
• When a review takes place, the Court will not take fresh stock of the case but just correct
grave errors that have resulted in the miscarriage of justice. Also, judicial review can only
correct a “patent error” and not “minor mistakes of inconsequential import”.
• The provision of review is an exception to the principle of stare decisis. Principle of stare
decisis binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions.
• As per Supreme Court rules, a review petition is to be filed within 30 days of the
pronouncement of judgment or order and that petition should be circulated without oral
arguments to the same bench that delivered the judgment.
• Who can file a review petition?
• It is not necessary that only parties to a case can seek a review of the judgment on it. As per
the Civil Procedure Code and the Supreme Court Rules, any person aggrieved by judgment
can seek a review.
• Grounds for seeking a review of a judgment
• Supreme Court laid down three grounds for seeking a review of a verdict –
• the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
1. mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
2. any sufficient reason that is analogous to the other two grounds.
• Note: In the Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd case (2013), the court laid
down nine principles on when a review is maintainable. The court held that a review is by no
means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies
only for patent error.
Curative Petition- Article 137
Origin:
The concept of the curative petition was first evolved by the Supreme Court of India in Rupa Ashok
Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and Anr. (2002) on the question whether an aggrieved person is entitled to
any relief against the final judgement/order of the Supreme Court, even after the dismissal of a review
petition.
The court used the Latin maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit”, which means that an act of the
court shall prejudice no one. Thus, it applies when the court is bound to undo a wrong done to a party
by the act of court itself.
The Supreme Court held that it may reconsider its judgements in order to prevent abuse of its process
and to cure gross miscarriage of justice.
 Constitutional Background:
The concept of the curative petition is supported by Article 137 of the Indian Constitution. It provides
that in the matter of laws and rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court has the power to
review any judgement pronounced (or order made) by it. Such a petition needs to be filed within 30
days from the date of judgement or order.
 Procedure:
• A curative petition may be filed after a review plea against the final conviction is dismissed.
• It can be entertained if the petitioner establishes that there was a violation of the principles
of natural justice, and that he was not heard by the court before passing an order.
• It must be rare rather than regular.
• A curative petition must be first circulated to a Bench of the three senior-most judges, and the
judges who passed the concerned judgment, if available. Only when a majority of the
judges conclude that the matter needs hearing should it be listed before the same Bench.
• The Bench at any stage of consideration of the curative petition can ask a senior counsel to
assist it as amicus curiae.