JURISDICTION OF SUPREME

COURT
127-145
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

• Article 136
• Two Grounds:
• Grave Injustice and Shocks the Conscience of the Court,
• Constitute 85% of Supreme Court Docket,
• Cost of Filing is fairly high in comparison to regular appeal,
• Can be decided by division bench,
• Certificate Requirement waived under 136
• Most expansive Discretionary Power of Supreme Court,
 REVIEW POWER

• Provided under Article 127,

• Supreme Court has power to review its own decisions either on procedural or
substantive ground,
• On procedural Ground it must be exhausted within 30 Days,
• On Substantive Ground it can be filed only if there is discovery of New Evidences,
Error on the face of it or any other sufficient reason,
• Review Rules are provided under Order 45 of CPC 1908,
• Review is not an inherent power of Supreme Court i.e. it has strict compliance
requirement before it may be admitted,
• Despite this stringent application, the Supreme Court has now judicially created the
remedy of a ‘curative petition’, or a ‘second review petition

• Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra 2002

• Using its power U/A 142 to do complete justice Supreme Court allowed second review
of its own decision.
• Curative Petitions are allowed only on following grounds
• 1) Violation of Principle of Natural Justice,
• 2) Judge has close connection to Subject Matter or Interested Party,
• Allowing Second review, where the Court is unwilling to permit review except in strict
compliance with constitutional requirements, but willing to accept a remedy that
subverts the entire basis of review and finality of its judgments is anomalous situation.
 ARTICLE 142
• Power to do Complete Justice to the Parties,
• Court uses this power largely to enforce Fundamental Rights,
• U/A 142, Supreme Court carve out guidelines to control executive action for eg…
• Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997),
• DK Basu v State of West Bengal (1997),
• It ask legislature to frame laws where there is existing lacunae affecting FR’s…
eg…Gainda Ram v Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2010)
• Ask Government to Constitute SIT or CBI Investigation,
• Cancelled Mining Lease, Telecom Licences,
• Grant Interim Bail- KM Nanavati Case,
CONTEMPT

• statutorily defined as publishing, speaking, or otherwise doing any act

which ‘scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the
authority of any court’, or which tends to prejudice, interfere with or
obstruct any judicial proceedings.
• Contempt of Courts Act 1971
• scandalising the court
• What is the Scope the Term?
• The term ‘scandalising the court’, borrowed from common law in England, has
undergone substantial scrutiny by the UK Law Commission,
• Criminal Contempt is required for administration of Justice- Argument of
Court
• Supreme Court having inherent powers was recognised in AR Antulay v RS
Nayak: that the Court could exercise powers of review regardless of the nature
of the proceeding—‘It can do so in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in any
proceeding pending before it before insisting on the formalities of a review
application.
TWO THINGS

• A larger Bench can overrule a Judgment,

• Mukharji J noted that the Supreme Court was not only empowered, but
also obliged to ensure that no person suffered as a consequence of its
error; this power could be exercised ex debito justitiae
 ADVISORY OPINION U/A 143

• In re Delhi Laws 1951, 7 judges

• Excessive Delegation of Power, Court stated legislation are Constitutional

• In Re Kerala Education Bill 1957,

• It abolished minority institutions,

• In re Keshav Singh Case, 1964

• 7 Judges
• Judges v Executive
• In re Berubari 1960
• Exchange of Territories between Indian and East Pakistan,
• Does exchange involve cession ?
• Litigation on Radcliff Award and Bage Commission Report which delineated
boundary between India and Pakistan
HIGH COURTS V TRIBUNALS

• 42nd Amendment Introduced 323A and 323 B

• Upon Recommendation of Swaran Singh Commission 1976,
• 44th Amendment failed to revoke provision related to Tribunals,
• Administrative Tribunals Act 1985,
• Apart from 136 Jurisdiction, nothing could be used to review Judgments
of Tribunals,
 SP SAMPATH KUMAR V UNION OF INDIA
1986
• Constitutional Bench Case, Five Judges
• Excluding Jurisdiction of 32 and 226 ,violated constitutional rights to judicial review,
• Whether by excluding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, the
law was violating the Constitution by adversely affecting judicial review?
• whether the tribunals created under the Administrative Tribunals Act were capable of
being substitutes for the High Courts?
• At interim stage itself Govt… Amended Article and restored Jurisdiction U/A 32,
• Question was on 226.
• Bhagwati J had held that Parliament is not restricted from providing for
‘effective alternative institutional mechanisms’.
• Rangnath Misra J, Stated that “As High Courts has commanded the respect of
people for decades for this reason it was ‘of paramount importance that the
substitute institution—the tribunal—must be a worthy successor of the High
Court in all respects’
• What is unusual about the Sampath Kumar case is that it ignored previous
Supreme Court rulings that had held the jurisdiction of High Courts under
Article 226 to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• These precedents included Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, Re Powers,
Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures, Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain, and
the majority judgments in Minerva Mills v Union of India.
SAKINALA HARINATH V STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH 1993 AP HC

• Rao CJ held that Article 323A(2)(d) of the Constitution was

unconstitutional to the extent it empowered Parliament to exclude the
jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226.
• judicial review enshrined in Articles 226 and 32 to be a basic feature of
the Indian Constitution as has been expressly held by previous
Constitutional Benches,
L CHANDRA KUMAR V UNION OF INDIA 1997

• Seven Judge Bench,

• Effectively buried the ‘alternative institutional mechanism’ theory propounded
in Sampath Kumar even as it sought to bolster the system of tribunals that had
been ushered into the Indian legal system through that decision,
• Tribunals Cannot be substitute to High Courts as they have no Constitutional
Safeguards as High Courts,
• Tribunals are complementary to High Courts,
• Ahmadi CJ’s judgment for the Court rejected the suggestion of the
Malimath Committee (1990) that tribunals be abolished, holding as follows:
• That the various tribunals have not performed up to expectations is a self-
evident and widely acknowledged truth. However, to draw an inference that
their unsatisfactory performance points to their being founded on a
fundamentally unsound principle would not be correct. The reasons for
which tribunals were constituted still persist; indeed, those reasons have
become even more pronounced in our times.