Introduction:  Indian judiciary is an integrated judiciary consisting of the Supreme Court of India at the apex of the entire judicial system below which there are the High Courts in each State or group of States. Below the High Courts lies a hierarchy of Subordinate Courts. Panchayat Courts also function in some States under various names like Nyaya Panchayat, Panchayat Adalat, Gram Kachheri, etc. to decide civil and criminal disputes of petty and local nature.

Brief History of Supreme Court:

Regulating Act of 1773	Promulgated by the King of England paved the way for establishment of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta.
Letters of Patent issued on 26 March 1774	It established the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta, as a Court of Record, with full power & authority to hear and determine all complaints
Supreme Courts at Madras and Bombay	The Supreme Courts at Madras and Bombay was established by King George – III on 26 December 1800 and on 8 December 1823 respectively.
India High Courts Act 1861	It was enacted to create High Courts for various provinces and abolished Supreme Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and also the Sadar Adalats in Presidency towns.
Government of India Act 1935	Federal Court of India was established under this. The Federal Court had jurisdiction to solve disputes between provinces and federal states and hear appeal against Judgements from High Courts.
Post-Independence	The Constitution of India came into being on 26 January 1950. The Supreme Court of India also came into existence and its first sitting was held on 28 January 1950.

Composition and Appointment

Composition –

• Currently, the Supreme Court is composed of thirty-four judges (one chief justice and thirty-three other judges).
• The power to decide the judges in the Supreme court is vested in the Parliament. The Centre notified an increase in the number of Supreme Court judges from 31 to 34 after enactment of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019.
• Initially, the strength of the Supreme Court judges was fixed at eight (one chief justice and seven other judges). This number of additional judges was gradually expanded by the Parliament, rising from ten in 1956 to thirteen in 1960, seventeen in 1977, twenty-five in 1986, thirty in 2008, and thirty-three in 2019.

Appointment of Judges

• The President appoints the Supreme Court judges (Article 124).
• The President appoints the chief justice after consultation with such judges of the high courts and the Supreme Court as he considers necessary for the purpose.
• The President appoints the other judges after consultation with the chief justice and such other judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts as he considers necessary for the purpose.
• As per the Constitution, in appointment of judges other than CJI, the President would always consult CJI.

Dispute over Consultation

Article 124 states, “Appointment of the Judges of the Judges shall be made after consultation with such Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States, as the President may deem necessary. …” Therefore, the whole controversy started over the interpretation of the word consultation.

First Judges Case – S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1982):

• The Supreme Court held that the ‘consultation’ under Article 124 means ‘mere consultation of views’ and not ‘concurrence of views’. The ultimate power to appoint judges is vested in the Executive.
• Therefore, the power of appointment of judges is ‘solely and exclusively’ vested in the Central Government.

1. Second Judges Case – Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of India (1993)

In this case a 9-judge bench decided the dispute by a majority of 7:2 and held that:

• In matter of appointment of Judges of Supreme Court and High Court, Chief Justice of India should have primacy.
• Greatest significance should be attached to view of CJI formed after taking into account the views of 2 senior most Judges of Supreme Court. Therefore, ‘consultation’ means ‘concurrence of views’. Also, the President is bound by the views of the Collegium.
• Selection should be made as a participatory consultative process in which the executive should have power to act as a mere check on exercise of power by CJI.
• Executive element in appointment process has been reduced to minimum and political influence is eliminated.
• Appointment of CJI should be made on the basis of seniority.

2. Third Judges Case – In  Presidential Reference (1999)

9 judge bench of Supreme Court unanimously held:

• Consultation process by CJI requires consultation of Plurality of Judges.
• Sole individual opinion of CJI does not constitute ‘consultation’.
• CJI should consult a collegium of 4 seniormost judges of Supreme Court. If 2 judges give adverse opinion the Chief Justice should not send recommendation.
• Opinion of collegium must be in writing.
• In regard to appointment of judges to High Court, collegium should consist of CJI and any 2 seniormost judges of Supreme Court.
• The court held that the chief justice of India’s recommendation made without complying with the rules and requirements of the consultation process will not be binding on the government.

99^th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014

• It amended Article 124 and the process of appointment of High Court and Supreme Court judges.
• Amended Article 124(2) states every judge of Supreme Court shall be appointed by President on recommendation of National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC).
• Accordingly, no consultation is required with the judges of Supreme Court and High Court as per the precedence set under Collegium system.
• National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) shall consist of:
  • Chief Justice of India
  • 2 Senior judges of Supreme Court
  • Union Minister in charge of Law and Justice
  • 2 eminent persons nominated by Committee consisting of Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and Leader of Opposition

Functions of National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC):

• Recommendation for appointment of Chief Justice of India, Judge of Supreme Court, High Court and Chief Justice of High Court
• Recommendation for transfer of Chief Justice and other judges of High Court

3. Fourth Judges Case – Supreme Court Advocates in Record Association vs. Union of India (2015)

• • Supreme Court by order declared 99^th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 unconstitutional and void.
  • It was held that National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 gives veto power to any two members of NJAC. It would adversely impact primacy of judiciary in matter of selection and appointment of judges.
  • In addition, National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 breached basic structure of Constitution with respect to ‘independence of judiciary’ and ‘separation of power.’
  • Therefore, Collegium system prior to Constitutional Amendment Act was restored and made operative.

Advantages of Collegium System

Independence of the Judiciary: The system emphasizes judicial independence from political interference. Judiciary has major role in the judicial appointment and transfer of judges.  Expertise-Based Appointments: It prioritizes merit and legal acumen, as senior judges are better equipped to evaluate the professional competence and integrity of potential judges. Limited Executive Interference: It reduces the executive’s role in judicial appointments, helping maintain a separation of powers and prevent undue political influence. Swift Decision-Making: The Collegium can expedite the appointment process when necessary, ensuring a prompt response to vacancies in the judiciary. Preservation of Judicial Autonomy: The system safeguards judicial autonomy, enabling the judiciary to protect its interests and maintain its integrity.

Disadvantages of Collegium System

No accountability – The collegium is not accountable to any administrative body which can result in choosing wrong candidate while excluding the suitable one. Lack of transparency: All discussions take place in secrecy, which is very harmful. Ruma Pal, a former Supreme Court of India judge states, “This mechanism is one of the best-kept secrets in the nation”. Undemocratic system: Judges are not elected by the people and are not answerable to the public. Consequently, the selection of judges by the collegium is undemocratic. Concentration of power: It violates the system of check and balance by concentrating the power of sending the recommendations for judicial appointment only on judiciary with no or limited role of executives in sending the names of candidates. The three organs of government work independently but keep check and restrain over other organ in order to prevent misuse of power. The collegium system entrusts enormous power on judiciary for judicial appointments providing substantial space for abuse of power. No guidelines for selection – There is no set of specific guidelines for selecting candidates for judge position. As a result, there is wide scope for promoting favoritism and nepotism that could lead to selection of non-deserving candidates. No criteria for testing the candidate – The collegium system lacks a criteria for testing the candidate before making appointment. Unlike government, judiciary does not have resources to investigate the background of the candidate. Inefficiency: Collegium has not been thoroughly successful in addressing the increased vacancies of judges. Many times, there is no prompt appointment on the recommendations made by Collegium causing inordinate delay in appointment of judges. Additional Burden to Judiciary: There is huge pendency of cases in Supreme Court. The Collegium system further burdens the judges by adding the task of appointing the right candidate.

Qualifications of Judges

Article 124 mentions following qualifications for appointment of a Supreme Court judge:

1. He must be a citizen of India.

2. He must fulfil one of the following conditions:

• • • • He must have served as a judge of a High Court (or High Courts in succession) for five years; OR

• • • • He must have served as an advocate of a High Court (or High Courts in succession) for ten years; OR

• • • •  In the opinion of the president, he must be a distinguished jurist.

The Constitution does not prescribe a minimum age for appointment of the Supreme Court judge.

Oath or Affirmation

• • • • The Supreme Court judges, before entering upon office, are required to take an oath or affirmation before the President or a representative he has designated for this purpose.

• • • • A judge of the Supreme Court swears under oath to:
        • bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India;
        • uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India;
        • duly and faithfully carry out the duties of the Office to the best of his ability, knowledge, and judgment without fear or favour, affection or ill-will;
        • • uphold the laws and the Constitution.

Salaries and Allowances

• • • • The Parliament, from time to time, determines the salaries, allowances, privileges, leave and pension of the judges of the Supreme Court that cannot be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment except in case of a financial emergency.

• • • • The chief justice’s salary was increased from ₹1 lakh to ₹2.80 lakh per month and that of a judge from ₹90,000 to ₹2.50 lakh per month in 2018.

• • • • They are paid sumptuary allowance, free accommodation and additional facilities like medical, car, telephone, etc.

• • • • The retiring chief justice and judges are entitled to a monthly pension equal to 50% of their last drawn salary as monthly pension.

Tenure of Judges

The tenure of a Supreme Court judge is not fixed by the Constitution. Article 124(2) states following important provisions in this regard:

• • 1. A Supreme Court judge can be removed from office by an order of the President on the recommendation of the Parliament.
    2. A Supreme Court judge holds office until the age of 65 years. Any dispute with regard to the age of Supreme Court judge shall be decided by such authority as provided by Parliament.
    3. A Supreme Court judge can resign from office by writing to the President.

Removal of Judges

The Constitution briefly discusses the removal process for Supreme Court judge under Article 124(4) which states that:

• • • • A judge of Supreme Court can be removed from his office only by an order of the President.

• • • • The President passes a removal order after receiving an address by Parliament in the same session.

• • • • This address must be supported by each House of Parliament through special majority i.e. a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting.

• • • • Removal can be done on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

Additionally, the Judges Enquiry Act (1968) also regulates the procedure relating to the removal of the Supreme Court judge through the process of impeachment:

• • 1. 1. The Speaker or Chairman must receive a resolution for removal of Supreme Court Judge signed by 100 members in the case of the Lok Sabha or 50 members in the case of the Rajya Sabha respectively.

• • 1. 1. The Speaker/Chairman has the option to either admit or to reject the motion for removal of Supreme Court judge. 

• • 1. 1. If the motion is admitted, then the Speaker/ Chairman must constitute a three-member committee to investigate into the charges levied against Supreme Court judge.

• • 1. 1. The members of the committee shall consist of:

• • 1. 1. Either the chief justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court

• • 1. 1. Any chief justice of a high court and

• • 1. 1. A person who in the opinion of Speaker/Chairman is a distinguished jurist

• • 1. 1. The Committee shall frame charges against the Judge based on which the investigation is conducted.

• • 1. 1. The charges shall be communicated to the Judge and he shall be given a reasonable opportunity for presenting a written statement of defence.

• • 1. 1. If the Committee report finds the Judge not guilty of the charges levied then no further step is taken with respect to the motion in either House of Parliament.

• • 1. 1. If the Committee report finds that the Judge is guilty of the charges levied i.e. guilty of misbehaviour or suffers from incapacity, the motion for the removal of Supreme Court Judge can be taken up for consideration by Parliament.

• • 1. 1. If this motion is adopted by each House of Parliament through special majority (i.e. a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting), then the charges levied against the judge shall be considered to be proved and an address praying for the removal of the Judge shall be presented to the President.

• • 1. 1. Subsequent to this, the president passes an order removing the Supreme Court judge.

The First Effort to Impeach a Supreme Court Judge

Firstly, it needs to be cleared that no Supreme Court Judge till date has been impeached by Parliament. In 1993, a motion for removal was admitted against Supreme Court Judge V. Ramaswami in Lok Sabha and consequently, an enquiry committee was established.  During his stay in Chandigarh, Justice V. Ramaswami had spent a huge money allegedly on “renovation” of his official residence and other personal expenses. The enquiry Committee found inconsistencies in the audit done regarding purchases made and thereby, found him guilty of misbehaviour. However, the motion for removal of judge failed to be passed by special majority in Lok Sabha as the Congress Party abstained for voting. Therefore, the motion of removal failed.

Appointment of Acting Chief Justice:

As per Article 126, the President can appoint a Supreme Court judge as an acting Chief Justice of India if:

• • 1. 1. the office of Chief Justice of India is vacant;

• • 1. 1. the Chief Justice of India is absent temporarily;

• • 1. 1. the Chief Justice of India is unable to perform the duties of his office

Appointment of Ad hoc Judge

• • • • Article 127 states that if there is a lack of quorum of the permanent judges to hold or continue any session of the Supreme Court then the Chief Justice of India has the power to appoint a High Court judge as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court for a temporary period.

• • • • However, this can be done only after consultation with the chief justice of the concerned High Court and with the prior consent of the president.

• • • • The ad hoc judge to be appointed must be qualified for appointment as Supreme Court judge. 

• • • • It is the duty of the appointed Judge to attend the sittings of Supreme Court, in priority to other duties of his office. While acting as ad hoc judge, he shall have all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges and shall discharge the duties of a Supreme Court Judge.

Attendance of Retired Judge

As per Article 128, the chief justice of India, at any time can request a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a retired judge of a high court (who is duly qualified for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court) to act as a judge of the Supreme Court for a temporary period. He can do so only with the previous consent of the president and also of the person to be so appointed. Such a judge is entitled to such allowances as the president may determine. He will also enjoy all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a judge of Supreme Court. But, he will not otherwise be deemed to be a judge of the Supreme Court

Seat of Supreme Court

 The Constitution declares Delhi as the seat of the Supreme Court. But, it also authorises the chief justice of India to appoint other place or places as seat of the Supreme Court. He can take decision in this regard only with the approval of the President. This provision is only optional and not compulsory. This means that no court can give any direction either to the President or to the Chief Justice to appoint any other place as a seat of the Supreme Court.

Procedure of the Court

The Supreme Court can, with the approval of the president, make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court. The Constitutional cases or references made by the President under Article 143 are decided by a Bench consisting of at least five judges. All other cases are decided by single judges and division benches. The judgements are delivered by the open court. All judgements are by majority vote but if differing, then judges can give dissenting judgements or opinions

Jurisdiction and Power of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction.

Original Jurisdiction: As per Article 131 of the Indian Constitution, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court extends to any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States or between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more States on the other or between two or more States, if and insofar as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or of fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.

Power of the Supreme Court in these federal disputes is exclusive and original.

Protection of the Fundamental Rights: As per article 139 of the Constitution, the SC have the power to issue writs, order, or direction. Article 32 of the Constitution gives an extensive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in regard to enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It is empowered to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari to enforce them. 

It is the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court but not exclusive.

Difference between writ jurisdictions of SC and HC

Difference between original jurisdictions of SC and HC[1] 

Significance of the writs:

Without writs there will be no remedy for the protection of fundamental rights.  Thus it is important for the protection of fundamental rights. It limits the power of the executive and legislature under Article 12.

Types of writs: There are five types of Writs which are Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto and Prohibition and all these writs are an effective method of enforcing the rights of the people and to compel the authorities to fulfil the duties which are bound to perform under the law.

Habeas Corpus:

Literal meaning of Habeas Corpus is ‘to have the body of’. This type of writ is used against unlawful detention to enforce the fundamental right of individual liberty. When this writ is issued, a person or a authority who has arrested a another person has to bring that another person before the court.

Mandamus:

Literal meaning of Mandamus is ‘we command.’ This is used when a public official or public body or corporation or lower court or tribunal or even the government has not done the needed duty or refused to do. After this writ is issued, the duty needs to be resumed.

Prohibition:

Literal meaning of Prohibition is ‘to forbid.’ This type of writ is used when a court which is in lower position i.e., the lower court exceeds its jurisdiction or un pursue a jurisdiction which is not possessed by it.

Certiorari:

Literal meaning of Certiorari is ‘to be certified’ or ‘to be informed.’ This type of writ is used when a transfer of case which is pending in the lower courts or the order given by lower courts in a case needs to be quashed. This writ is issued on the basis of an excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction or error of law. After this writ is issued, mistakes in the judiciary are cured.

Quo-Warranto:

Literal meaning of Quo-Warranto is ‘by what authority or warrant.’ This type of writ is used when an illegal usurpation of a public office by a person is done. After this writ is issued, the legality of a claim of a person to office is enquired.

Appellate Jurisdiction: As per article 132, 133, 134 of the Constitution, the SC has appellate jurisdiction in matters that are related to civil, criminal, or Constitution. Also, as per article 136, the SC has the power to issue special leave that is being by any tribunal courts in India but this does not apply to Army courts.

Advisory Function: The Supreme Court has special advisory jurisdiction in matters which may specifically be referred to it by the President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution. There are provisions for reference or appeal to this Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution, Section 257 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,Section 130-A of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 82C of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 

A court of record: Article 129 of the Constitution of India declares the Supreme Court to be a court of record. As a Court of record it has two powers:

1) The judgment, proceedings, and act of supreme court are recorded for permanent memory and testimony and these records can be produced before any court because they have evidentiary value and they cannot be questioned.

2)It has the power to punish for its contempt (insult) either with simple imprisonment for 6 months term or with fine.

Power of judicial Review: As per article 137 of the Constitution, the SC has the power to review any laws that are being passed by the legislature.

Constitutional Interpretation: Under the Indian Constitution, the power to interpret the Constitution and entertain judicial review petitions is exercised by the Supreme Court and the high court alone and  therefore, are referred to as the constitutional courts.

Other Power:

Independence and Accountability of the judiciary

Is CJI master of rosters?

Is office of CJI a public authority?

Importance of Independence of judiciary in a democracy:

The independence of judiciary refers to the decision taken  by the judiciary based on  facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. An independent judiciary implies that the executive and legislature should not interfere in the work of the judiciary.

The form of oath prescribed in the 3rd Schedule to the Constitution demands that judges perform their duties ‘without fear or favour, affection or ill-will’. Anything short of these needs would spell the absence of independence.

Independence of the judiciary is ensured through following mechanism:

• • • • Mode of appointment: Judges are appointed by the President after consulting the Supreme Court Judges thus limiting the executive interference.

• • • • Security of tenure: it entails that office bearers cannot be punished for performing their powers, functions, or responsibilities. With respect to Supreme Court judges , security of tenure is not mentioned; however, he will be in office till the age of 65 years. He can be removed by the President on the grounds of “proved misbehavior or incapacity.”

• • • • Fixed service Condition: Judges’ salaries, allowances, etc., shall not be changed to their disadvantage during their term of office. The salaries of the Judges cannot be reduced except during periods of financial emergency.

• • • • Expense charged on consolidated fund of India: Their salaries allowances are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and so are not subject to vote of Parliament.

• • • • Conduct of the Judges can not be discussed in Parliament: No discussion can take place in the parliament regarding the conduct of any judge or about the discharge of his duties except when there is a motion for his removal.

• • • • Ban of practice after retirement: A person who has been a Judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practising in any court of law or before any other authority in India.

• • • • Power to punish for its contempt: The Supreme Court can punish for the contempt of court if a person or authority makes an attempt to lower its authority. This has been done so that the Judges are not obliged, during their tenure as Judges, to any prospective employer. Moreover, if they are allowed to practice, they might influence their former colleagues in the judiciary.

• • • • Freedom to appoint its staff: The Supreme Court is free to decide its own procedures of work and its establishment as well as the conditions of service of its employees. Thus, it is free from influence of any outside agency.

• • • • Separation from executive

• • • • Its jurisdiction cannot be curtailed etc..

Indian Supreme Court vs. American Supreme Court

India has integrated judiciary as Supreme Court has control over State High Courts	There is federal judiciary with separate High Courts for the states
Indian supreme court has Advisory jurisdiction	There is no advisory jurisdiction.
it has wide discretionary power as It can grant special leave to appeal in any matter against the judgment of any court or tribunal (except a military tribunal).	It lacks such discretionary power
It has restricted power of judicial review as it follows process establishes by law	It has wide power regarding it as it follows due process of law.
The appellate jurisdiction includes constitutional, civil and criminal cases.	The appellate jurisdiction is restricted to constitutional cases only.

Challenges/Issues with Indian Judiciary

Issue of appointment:

Lack of transparency in the appointment:There is lack of transparency in the appointment of the higher Indian judiciary. Judiciary appointing the judiciary has led the judiciary to be largely self-appointing in practice.

Delay in appointment: Names proposed by the collegium are left pending for years, only to be eventually returned unceremoniously. The Government would also do well to think about its own culpability in allowing the problem of pendency and vacancies to fester.

Shortage of judges: India has a low judge-to-population ratio. India requires 50 judges for every 10 lakh population, but this figure is currently only 21 per million people.

Pendency of the cases: As of May 2022, over 4.7 crore cases are pending in courts across different levels of the judiciary. Of them, 87.4% are pending in subordinate courts, 12.4% in High Courts, while nearly 1,82,000 cases have been pending for over 30 years.

Procedural delay in the judiciary:  Adjournment in the judiciary causes delay in the

Politicisation of  the judiciary:

Lack of accessibility:

Lack of regional benches:

Parliamentary Overreach: there has been the conflict between the judiciary and executive.

Women representative:

Outdated law: There has been outdated laws that causes judgement to be delayed.

Issues in the criminal cases: Delay in the prosecution due to

Bar council issues:

Issues of infrastructure: Pendency is caused majorly by poor judicial infrastructure, including an abysmally low number of judges. Court funding is at the mercy of the government, which is either particularly frugal or deliberately parsimonious in the matter.

26% court complexes do not have separate ladies’ toilets, 16% do not have gents’ toilets while the existing ones are unclean and broken. Only 5% of the court complexes have medical facilities.

large numbers of documents and files that need to be stored, take away huge spaces of courts and require a lot of time to be arranged and referred to.

Overlapping of laws:

Need to reform the judiciary:

Corruption: It is said that when the judiciary is corrupt then the darkness in the society can not be imagined. Over 1,600 complaints were received in the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) on the functioning of the judiciary, including judicial corruption, during the last five years.

What reform is needed in the Judiciary:

By Supreme Court

Appointment

By Government

By Civil Society

By Bar Council

Reform in appointment: The executive and the judiciary should be involved in proportionate terms in the appointment of judges.

There is a need for well-structured and balanced legislation on a judicial commission that brings in transparency without compromising judicial independence.

SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES

There are three categories of Advocates who are entitled to practise law before the Supreme Court of India:-

(i) SENIOR ADVOCATES

These are Advocates who are designated as Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India or by any High Court. The Court can designate any Advocate, with his consent, as Senior Advocate if in its opinion by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law the said Advocate is deserving of such distinction. A Senior Advocate is not entitled to appear without an Advocate-on-Record in the Supreme Court or without a junior in any other court or tribunal in India. He is also not entitled to accept instructions to draw pleadings or affidavits, advise on evidence or do any drafting work of an analogous kind in any court or tribunal in India or undertake conveyancing work of any kind whatsoever but this prohibition shall not extend to settling any such matter as aforesaid in consultation with a junior.

(ii) ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD

Only these Advocates are entitled to file any matter or document before the Supreme Court. They can also file an appearance or act for a party in the Supreme Court.

(iii) OTHER ADVOCATES

These are Advocates whose names are entered on the roll of any State Bar Council maintained under the Advocates Act, 1961 and they can appear and argue any matter on behalf of a party in the Supreme Court but they are not entitled to file any document or matter before the Court.

Recent cases:

Punjab and Haryana HC – quashed the quota in the private jobs in Haryana

Creation of All India Judicial Service

Common point between Article 14 and 226

Evolution of Green Benches in higher judiciary?

Regional Benches of SC?

Executive interference in Judicial appointment

Contempt of Court Act – misuse of power by Court?

Language of the proceedings of the Supreme Court: The proceedings of the Supreme Court are conducted in English only. Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and Supreme Court Rules 2013 are framed under Article 145 of the Constitution to regulate the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court.

FAQs related to Supreme Court