Article 129 in The Constitution Of India

129. Supreme Court to be a court of record The

Supreme Court shall be a court of record and
shall have all the powers of such a court
including the power to punish for contempt of
itself.

In Delhi Judicial Service Association v State of

Gujarat, 121 the Supreme Court has given a
broad and expansive interpretation to Article
129 and has thus made a significant contribution
towards maintaining the integrity and
independence of subordinate courts by taking
them under its protective umbrella. The Court
has ruled that under Article 129, it has power to
punish for contempt not only of itself but also of
High Courts and of the lower courts.

Article 130 in The Constitution Of India

130. Seat of Supreme Court The Supreme
Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or
places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with
the approval of the President, from time to time,
appoint
Article 131 in The Constitution Of India
131. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the
Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any
other court, have original jurisdiction in any
dispute
(a) between the Government of India and one or
more States; or
(b) between the Government of India and any
State or States on one side and one or more
other States on the other; or
(c) between two or more States, if and in so far
as the dispute involves any question (whether of
law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a
legal right depends: Provided that the said
jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising
out of any treaty, agreement, covenant,
engagements, and or other similar instrument
which, having been entered into or executed
before the commencement of this Constitution,
continues in operation after such
commencement, or which provides that the said
jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute
The Supreme Court has the original jurisdiction
in any dispute between the Government of India
and any State or States on one side and one or
more other States on the other or between two
or more States if it involves any question of law
or fact on which existence or extent of legal right
depends. [Article 131]

It is called Original jurisdiction as the Court

deals with the matters brought before it for the
first time if and in so far as the dispute involves
any question (whether law or fact), on which the
existence or extent of a legal right depends.

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to

entertain an application under Article 32 for
issuance of writs is an original jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court though it is called writ
jurisdiction.

Disputes concerning election of the President or

Vice-President are decided exclusively by the
Supreme Court under extraordinary original
jurisdiction. [Article 71]
Reference may also be made in this connection
to Article 363 which excludes the
above-mentioned disputes from the
jurisdiction-original or appellate of the Supreme
Court and all other courts.
Bar on courts' interference thereunder operates
only when dispute arises out of treaties,
agree-ments, covenants, etc. of erstwhile rulers
of Princely States with Domination of India. Civil
suit is barred when subject matter of dispute/suit
is covered by covenant falling under Article 363
of Con-stitution.

The President may, however, refer any dispute

excluded from the Court's jurisdiction under
Article 131 to the Supreme Court for its advisory
opinion under Article 143.

(2) Under Article 262(2), Parliament may by law

exclude Supreme Court's jurisdiction in
adjudication of any dispute or complaint with
respect to use, distribution or control of the
waters in any inter-State river or river valley.
Parliament has enacted the Inter-State Water
Disputes Act, 1956. Section 11 of the Act
provides that neither the Supreme Court nor any
other court shall have jurisdiction in respect of
any water dispute which could be referred to a
Tribunal under the Act.

132. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court

in appeals from High Courts in certain
cases.—(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme
Court from any judgment, decree or final order
of a High Court in the territory of India, whether
in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, (other
proceedings such as contempt of court etc,)
3[if the High Court certifies under article 134A]
that the case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of this Constitution.
4* * * * *

(3) Where such a certificate is given,5*** any

party in the case may appeal to the Supreme
Court on the ground that any such question as
aforesaid has been wrongly decided 5***.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this article,

the expression “final order” includes an order
deciding an issue which, if decided in favour of
the appellant, would be sufficient for the final
disposal of the case.

Comment
The case ought to involve a question of law as
to interpretation of the Constitution. It means
that decision on the question of constitutional
law should be necessary for the proper decision
of the case.

The question of interpretation can arise only if

two or more possible constructions are sought
to be placed on a constitutional provision- one
party suggesting one construction and the other
a different one. But where the parties agree on
the true interpretation of a constitutional
provision, or do not raise any question in
respect thereof,
èris pot possible to hold that a question of
interpretation of the Constitution has aris-

(4) The question involved must be a "substantial

question"

A question is not 'substantial'

when the law on the subject has been finally
and authoritatively settled by the Supreme
Court, and what remains to be done by the High
Court is only to apply that interpretation to the
facts before it.196
A 'substantial question does not mean a
question of general importance but a question
regarding which there is a difference of opinion.

133. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court

in appeals from High Courts in regard to civil
matters.—6[(1) An appeal shall lie to the
Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or
final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court
in the territory of India 7[if the High Court
certifies under article 134A—]
(a) that the case involves a substantial question
of law of general importance; and
1. Subs. by the Constitution (Seventh
Amendment) Act, 1956, s. 5, for the proviso
(w.e.f. 1-11-1956).
2. Ins. by the Constitution (Forty-second
Amendment) Act, 1976, s. 23 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).
3. Subs. by the Constitution (Forty-fourth
Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 17, for “if the High
Court certifies” (w.e.f. 1-8-1979). 4. Cl. (2)
omitted by ibid.
5. Certain words omitted by ibid.
6. Subs. by the Constitution (Thirtieth
Amendment) Act, 1972, s. 2, for cl. (1) (w.e.f.
27-2-1973).
7. Subs. by the Constitution (Forty-fourth
Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 18, for “if the High
Court certifies” (w.e.f. 1-8-1979).
61

(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said

question needs to be decided by the Supreme
Court.]
(2) Notwithstanding anything in article 132, any
party appealing to the Supreme Court under
clause (1) may urge as one of the grounds in
such appeal that a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of this Constitution has
been wrongly decided.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no
appeal shall, unless Parliament by law
otherwise provides, lie to the Supreme Court
from the judgment, decree or final order of one
Judge of a High Court.
Article 133(1) provides that an appeal shall lie to
the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree
or final order in a civil proceedings of a High
Court in the territory of India if the High Court
certifies under Article 134-A that:-
(a) The case involves a substantial question of
law of general importance; and
(b) In the opinion of the High Court such
question needs to be decided by the Supreme
Court.

Article 133 discards the distinction between

appellate and original jurisdiction of the High
Court. It includes all judgments, decrees or final
orders passed in either appellate or ordinary
original jurisdiction of High Court. For the
purpose of Article 133(1), the proper test to
determine whether a question of law is
substantial or not, is whether it is of general
public importance or whether it directly or
substantially affects the rights of the parties.
Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. N
Sundara Money, AIR 1976 SC 1111 held that
certiff-cate should be given by High Court when
the question is of such pervasive import and
deep significance that in High Court's judgment
it needs to be settled by the highest court of the
country.

134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court

in regard to criminal matters.—(1) An appeal
shall lie to the Supreme Court from any
judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal
proceeding of a High Court in the territory of
India if the High Court—
(a) has on appeal 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; or
(c) 1[certifies under article 134A] that the case is
a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court:
Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c)
shall lie subject to such provisions as may be
made in that
behalf under clause (1) of article 145 and to
such conditions as the High Court may establish
or require.
(2) Parliament may by law confer on the
Supreme Court any further powers to entertain
and hear appeals from any judgment, final order
or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High
Court in the territory of India subject to such
conditions and limitations as may be specified in
such law.

Jurisdiction in Criminal matters [Article 134]

Article 134 confers a limited criminal appellate
jurisdiction on the Supreme Court. Article 134
provides that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme
Court from any judgment, final order or
sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High
Court in the territory of India if the High Court-
(a) Has on appeal 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; or
(c)Certifies under Article 134-A that the case is
a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.

2[134A. Certificate for appeal to the Supreme

Court.—Every High Court, passing or making a
judgement, decree, final order, or sentence,
referred to in clause (1) of article 132 or clause
(1) of article 133, or clause (1) of article 134,—
(a) may, if it deems fit so to do, on its own
motion; and
(b) shall, if an oral application is made, by or on
behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after
the passing or making of such judgement,
decree, final order or sentence,
determine, as soon as may be after such
passing or making, the question whether a
certificate of the nature referred to in clause (1)
of article 132, or clause (1) of article 1

Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh v. State, AIR

1953 SC 415 held that certificate under this
Article should not be granted as a matter of
course on the mere ground that the decision is
erroneous. It is to be granted only when certain
exceptional and special circumstances exist. In
Mohanlal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1968 SC 733
Supreme Court held that a certificate should be
granted when a case involves a substantial
question of law and not mere question of fact.

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme

Court.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in this
Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its
discretion, grant special leave to appeal from
any judgment, decree, determination, sentence
or order in any cause or matter passed or made
by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any
judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal
constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.

In addition to the above mentioned provisions

relating to appellate jurisdiction of Supreme
Court, Article 136 provides for appeal by special
leave. Article 136 provides that Supreme Court
may in its discre-tion, grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence, or order in any case or
matter passed or made by any court or tribunal
in the territory of India. Power of Supreme Court
under Article 136 is not affected by Articles 132,
133, 134 and 134A.
In Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development
Authority, (2002)4 SCC 666 Supreme Court
explained the scope and character of power
under Article 136. The court held that the
exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 136
is discretionary. It does not confer right to
appeal on a party to litigation. It is a power to be
exercised sparingly with caution and care and in
extraordinary situations occasioning gross
failure of justice. In Pritam Singh v. The State,
AIR 1950 SC 169 Supreme Court held that
generally the court will not grant special leave
unless it is shown that exceptional and special
circumstances exist and grave and substantial
injustice has been done.
Article 136 uses the phrase 'any court' therefore
it empowers the court to hear appeals not only
from the High Court but also from the
subordinate courts if a situation demands. In this
connection, Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar
v. State, AIR 1980 SC 1510 observed that the
plenary jurisdiction of Supreme Court to grant
leave and hear appeals against any order of a
court or tribunal confers power of judicial
superintendence over all courts and tribunals
including subordinate courts.
The word order used in Article 136 is not
qualified by adjective 'final'. Thus, Supreme
Court has the power to hear appeal even from
an interlocutory or interim order. However, in
practice the Supreme Court ordinarily does not
grant leave to appeal from an interlocutory order
[see Godfrey Phillips India Limited v. Girnar
Food and Beverages (P) Ltd., (1998) 9 SCC
531].

Article 136 does not define the nature of

proceedings from which the Supreme Court may
hear appeals. It can hear appeal from any kind
of proceedings like civil, criminal, tax matters,
revenue matters, labour matters etc. Supreme
Court in Arunachalam v. PSR Setharathnam,
AIR 1979 SC 1406 held that the exercise of the
power of Supreme Court under Article 136 is not
circumscribed by any limitation as to who may
invoke it. Thus, the Special Leave Petition can
be filed by a party to the decision and it can also
be filed by a party who though not a party to the
impugned decision, but is adversely affected by
such decision.

Dismissal of SLP: It has been held in Kapil

Mehra v. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 262 that
where an SLP is dismissed with reasons, there
is a merger of the orders of the court below with
the order of Supreme Court.
Article 136(2) provides that special leave to
appeal shall not be maintainable to any
judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
passed or made by any court or tribunal
constituted by or under any law relating to
armed forces.

Advisory Jurisdiction [Article 143]

According to Article 143 if at any time it appears
to the President that:-
(a) A question of law or fact has arisen or is
likely to arise, and
(b) The question is of such nature and of such
public importance that it is expedient to obtain
the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he
may refer the question for the Advisory opinion
of the Court and the Court may after such
hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its
opinion.

Supreme Court in re Kerala Education Bill, AIR

1958 SC 956, has held that the court is not
bound to answer a reference made to it by the
President. The use of the word 'may in Article
143(1) shows that the Supreme Court is not
bound to give advisory opinion in every case in
which reference is made. In re Special
Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1
Supreme Court reiterated that the court may
refuse to give its advisory opinion for strong and
compelling reasons.

The scope of Article 136 is quite broad. The

President can seek the opinion of Supreme
Court on any question of fact or law. It is not
necessary that the President can refer only such
questions which pertain to his powers, functions
and duties. However, in re Matter of Cauvery
Water Dispute Tribunal, AIR 1992 SC 522
Supreme Court clarified that under Article 143
the court cannot be asked to reconsider its
previous decisions. Court cannot convert its
advisory jurisdiction into appellate jurisdiction. In
re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956
Supreme Court has held that court has to
confine itself to the questions referred to it by
the President and it cannot travel beyond
reference.

Article 143(2) provides that if the President

refers such matters which are excluded from the
proviso of Article 131 for the advisory opinion of
the Supreme Court then the court will be bound
to give opinion on it.

143. Power of President to consult Supreme

Court.—(1) If at any time it appears to the
President that a question of law or fact has
arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a
nature and of such public importance that it is
expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme
Court upon it, he may refer the question to that
Court for consideration and the Court may, after
such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the
President its opinion thereon.
1. Ins. by the Constitution (Forty-second
Amendment) Act, 1976, s. 24 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).
2. Subs. by the Constitution (Forty-fourth
Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 21, for cl. (1) (w.e.f.
1-8-1979). 3. See the Supreme Court (Decrees
and Orders) Enforcement Order, 1954 (C.O.
47).
63

(2) The President may, notwithstanding anything

in 1*** the proviso to article 131, refer a dispute
of the kind mentioned in the 2[said proviso] to
the Supreme Court for opinion and the Supreme
Court shall, after such hearing as it thinks fit,
report to the President its opinion thereon.