Judicial Authority in India: The Supreme Court and High Courts in Governance and Constitutional Oversight
The Legal Lock
The judiciary is one of the most pivotal institutions of democracy in India. It checks whether the government works according to the constitution and sees that the rights of the individuals are protected. The Supreme Court and the High Courts are the supreme courts in India, and their importance lies in ensuring that laws are just and justice is delivered rightly. These courts are empowered to inquire into government action, settle disputes, and interpret laws, assuring themselves of justice and equality principles.
In India, the Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in the nation. It has the jurisdiction to hear some priority cases, adjudicate disputes between the central and the state governments, and consider appeals against the lower courts' decisions. It also has power over the guarantees of fundamental rights and has the prerogative to declare any law or executive action unconstitutional. It takes public interest litigation cases where average citizens can approach the highest court for relief on social issues.
The High Courts, on the contrary, are the paramount courts in each state. They hear cases concerned with state laws and can supervise and control the operations of the lower courts. High courts maintain the crucial role of upholding people's rights and ensuring justice fairly across each state. They issue special orders, called writers, to halt unlawful acts and protect citizens from injustices.1
The Supreme Court and the High Courts maintain law and order, protect people's rights, and ensure that the government acts according to the Constitution. They place checks and balances on the government and its officials' powers so no one can amass power. It is vital in governance as it helps ensure that India remains the land of justice, social justice, and equality.
The Power of the Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court of India is said to be the final body in terms of the astounding judicial environment in the form of the Constitution. Founded through Article 1242of this constitution, the Supreme Court plays a vital role in interpreting these laws, safeguarding fundamental rights, and guaranteeing justice. At the highest point of jurisdiction, it is a reviewing authority over all government acts, adjudicates disputes, and issues directives impacting governance and public policies. The Supreme Court has moulded Indian democracy through landmark judgments and judicial interventions. It has power under judicial revision to invalidate unconstitutional laws to safeguard principles of justice, equality, and democracy from the government.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has extensive jurisdiction for hearing cases at various levels and in different situations. The Supreme Court derives its original jurisdiction from the Constitution, Appellant, and Consulting, whereby it arbitrates original disputes, revises judgments, and provides legal opinions and advice to the government. Each jurisdiction serves a particular function in promoting justice, constitutional interpretation, and governance supervision.
1. Original Jurisdiction (Article 131)
In situations under Article 131,3the Supreme Court possesses original jurisdiction, which means that some instances are only appropriately tried by it and do not require first consideration by lower courts. This jurisdiction is primarily invoked in case of federal and state government disputes to preserve the federal balance. Many cases come under Original Jurisdiction, including conflicts between the Centre and state governments, disputes by one state against parties from another, and cases related to the Fundamental Rights under Article 32.4 A landmark case under this jurisdiction was State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963),5 where the Supreme Court upheld the Parliament's power to acquire private property for public purposes as constituting the idea that legislative authority must contrast the provisions of the Constitution.
2. Appellate Jurisdiction ( Article 132- 136)
Above all, the Supreme Court is an appellate authority at the country's most prominent and probably the apex. It has an appellate jurisdiction conferred under Articles 132-136, meaning the Supreme Court has the authority to hear appeals from the decisions taken by the courts and tribunals. This ensures that the most significant legal matters receive a second and final review from the highest court before being laid to rest. Appeals are made to the Supreme Court under constitutional issues under Article 132,6 Civil and criminal matters under Articles 133 and 134, respectively, and special leave applications filed under Article 136. The effect of this unique leave application allows the Supreme Court to take cognizance of any activity practically at its discretion as long as the matters have significant constitutional or legal importance. One of the most popular cases under this jurisdiction was K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961), wherein the apex court revised the murder trial with a wide-ranging bourgeon show. The case consolidated judicial power regarding the review of criminal convictions by the court itself, reinforcing its role in ensuring that justice is done in judicial proceedings.7
3. Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143)
The Supreme Court may counsel the government through its advisory jurisdiction under Article 143. The President addresses the court for his lawyer in significant legal and constitutional issues, especially when the law is doubtful, or there are opposite opinions on legal provisions. The councils presented by the Supreme Court by Article 1438are not binding to the government but act as a vital legal reference for decision-making. A significant example would be the Berubari Union (1960) case, in which the Supreme Court advised the president about transferring Indian territory to Pakistan. This helped establish the process by which India's territorial borders could be altered and further consolidate the court's role in the issue of governance decisions.
Authority and Powers of the Supreme Court
1. Power of Judicial Review (Articles 32 & 136)
The Supreme Court has been duly empowered to examine, deprecate, and reverse the unconstitutional law or action as submitted in any executive decision. The Supreme Court also expressly mentioned this through a landmark case in the jurisprudence of revision by the judiciary, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). The ruling during this case was that, although Parliament has the power to change the Constitution, it cannot alter its "basic structure." This doctrine ensures the protection of fundamental rights, democracy, and independence of the judiciary over time.
2. Power to Protect Fundamental Rights
The profile of the Supreme Court as a "protector of fundamental rights" comes into view due to its power under Article 32, which permits citizens to move the court directly when their rights are violated. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the court stretched the horizon of Article 219(Right to Life and Personal Freedom), that is, any law touching upon the life and freedom of an individual must be just, fair, and reasonable.
3. Power of Issue Writs
To protect fundamental rights, the Supreme Court can issue five types of writs under Article 32:
• Habeas Corpus – To ensure a person is not unlawfully detained.
• Mandamus – To direct a government official to perform a duty.
• Prohibition – To prevent lower courts from exceeding their authority. • Certiorari – To transfer a case from a lower court to a Higher Court. • Quo Warranto – To challenge the legality of a person's authority in a public office.
In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), the Supreme Court was criticized for not defending habeas corpus during the emergency, later recognizing its error in weakening fundamental rights.
4. Power of Contempt of Court (Articles 129 & 142)
The Supreme Court, thus, also punishes people or agencies in contempt of its judgments to maintain the dignity and authority of the judiciary itself. In the case of contempt, Bhushan Prashant (2020), a lawyer, was held guilty of contempt for criticizing the judiciary on social media. This case has raised a debate over the delicate balance of freedom of expression or otherwise and the judiciary's responsibility.10
5. Power to Oversee Governance and Public Interest Litigation
To fulfill its functions in governance, the Supreme Court deals with matters of public interest (PILs), empowering citizens or NGOs to come before the Court on issues of public concern.
These PILs have brought the Courts into interventionist modes concerning environmental protection, human rights, corruption, and administrative failures.
An outstanding matter is to be found in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan. In this case, from 1997, the Court laid down the guiding principles on sexual harassment in the workplace, thus showcasing the role of the Court in policy-making through the instrument of judicial activism.
Role of the Supreme Court in Governance
The Supreme Court judges the laws and becomes influential in determining how governance will be carried out, ensuring that it does so well within constitutional parameters. It indicts the legislature and the executive for what might appear to be an abuse of power. Its other crucial functions include balancing federalism by adjudicating federal disputes between the center and the states and, through judicial activism, addressing several significant social issues, including electoral reforms, environmental conservation, and reforms within the police force. The Supreme Court has also famously pronounced judgment in the case of S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), where it placed near limits to the misuse of the presidential domain, strengthening federalism and nullifying arbitrary dismissals of state governments.
However, the blinds of the legal rabidness remain open to debate because this is the court's intervention in matters usually left to political departments, legislatures, and executives. While some link judicial activism with constitutional values, others argue it amounts to interference with the separation of powers.
The Power of the High Courts of India
Indian High Courts are the highest judicial organs at the state level and play a crucial role in guaranteeing justice, interpreting laws, and defending constitutional principles. Established under Article 21411 of the Constitution of India, they function as constitutional courts that supervise governance, review administrative actions, and manage the lower courts. Although the Supreme Court is the final authority in legal matters, High Courts have significant power to ensure that state governments operate within constitutional limits. Your jurisdiction to issue writings, listen to appeals, and interpret laws makes them essential to maintaining law and order. Over the years, High Courts have played a crucial role in governance through judicial revision, disputes of public interest (PRLS), and political interventions that shape state laws.
Jurisdiction of the High Court
High Courts in the countries recognize three principal heads of jurisdiction: original, appeal, and writing. This jurisdiction enables High courts to deal with various legal and constitutional issues. Original jurisdiction means High courts could directly entertain certain cases without subjecting them to lower courts. Such cases include fundamental rights (article 226)12, issues concerning state laws, and electoral petitions challenging the results of state legislative assembly elections. A landmark case in this jurisdiction was A.K. GOPALAN v. State of Madras (1950), wherein the Supreme Court laid down the question of preventive detention as flowing from fundamental rights. High courts also exercise appellate jurisdiction, whereby they have the power to revise the judgments of the district courts and courts. The issues they cover are civil and criminal, as well as criminal resources regarding taxes, agrarian reforms, and most administrative actions. A prominent example of this is the state of Bombay v. Atma Ram (1951), where the Supreme Court looked into whether the constitutionality of restrictions imposed upon personal freedom by the government operated under constitutional law.
One of the most significant powers of High courts is their ability to exercise written jurisdiction. Such power under Article 226 enables the courts to issue orders for the protection of the fundamental rights of citizens. They can issue five types of writs: habeas corpus (for illegal detention release), mandamus (to compel government authority to act), prohibition (to prevent lower courts from exceeding court authority), certiorari (to review a decision of a lower court), and quo warranto (for questioning the authority of civil servants). The Supreme Court wrote the spelling in one of its cases, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984), where it defined its role in protecting the rights of workers associated and issued writs under Article 226.
Authority and Powers of the High Courts
High courts have sufficient powers to protect and govern the states' constitutional rights. The most important power is revision, wherein these High courts exercise their authority to examine the constitutionality of state laws and government policies. The Supreme Court can strike down such a law if it contradicts constitutional principles. As a result, state governments are kept in check and accountable for constitutional norms. The landmark Kesavananda Bharati vs. the State of Kerala (1973) case is one of the instances reflecting this power, and it introduced the doctrine of the basic structure that ensures that the essential principles of the Constitution remain unaltered by alterations.
High Courts also help subordinates protect fundamental rights, chiefly for the marginalized sections of society. Unlike the Supreme Court, which takes cognizance of such cases only under Article 32 dealing with fundamental rights, High courts have the authority to deal with them under Article 226, which is broader in applicability. Thus, citizens can access High courts more readily when their rights are violated. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court enlarged the connotation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Freedom) of the Constitution so that any government action affecting personal freedom should be consistent with the principles of natural justice.
The other essential power that High courts exhibit is the controlling supervision of lower courts, as stated in Article 227.13 Indeed, such courts and other judicial institutions having adequate legal proceedings do not exceed their jurisdiction. High courts can revise the cases, transfer them to a High authority, and see that justice is broad. The importance of judicial supervision was reaffirmed by the Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), where it ruled that courts must be under the control of High courts to the extent that any excesses of administration would be checked thereby.
High courts also monitor the conditions under which constitutional provisions concerning laws and government processes are interpreted in specific states. Their sentences have formed precedents for further guiding below courts and the government in formulating policies. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court had to adjudicate reservations. It held a limit of 50% quotas to maintain a balance between affirmative action and merit. Further, the High courts can punish a person or institution for contempt to the court to ensure that the judicial pronouncement is obeyed. Rajendra Sail v. Madhya Pradesh High Court (2005) has a significant emphasis from the Supreme Court regarding maintaining judicial dignity and actions against those who disregard the court.
Role of the High Courts in Governance
These courts are instrumental in the accountability, application of law, and good governance at state levels. They exercise regular review of government policies to ensure transparency and justice. High courts intervene to provide justice against abuse of power and corruption in administrative actions. They also fulfill an essential function in the safeguarding of democracy and federalism through the resolution of conflicts between state governments and ensuring that the statutes legited by state legislatures are consistent with constitutional principles.
High courts have led to much governance improvement through judicial activism and PIL. The PCs enabled the courts to address environmental issues, human rights violations, police misconduct, and corruption. For instance, in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court admitted that slum dwellers were entitled to subsistence means, proving that governance ought to be for the social good. These High courts strengthen law and order by monitoring police agencies and revisiting criminal matters. His interference with police reforms and court delays is helping to improve the justice system's performance.
1 Constitution, India https://www.sci.gov.in/constitution/.
2INDIA CONST. art, 124
3INDIA CONST. art, 131
4INDIA CONST. art, 32
5State of West Bengal v. Union of India, 1963 AIR 1241
6INDIA CONST. art, 132
7 K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 69
8INDIA CONST. art, 143
9INDIA CONST. art, 21
10 Prashant Bhushan, In re, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1146
11 INDIA CONST. art, 214
12 INDIA CONST. art, 226
13 INDIA CONST. art, 227