In addition to original and appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of India possesses advisory jurisdiction also. This means that the President of India can refer any matter that is of public importance or that which involves interpretation of Constitution to Supreme Court for advice. However, the Supreme Court is not bound to give advice on such matters and the President is not bound to accept such an advice.

The scope of judicial review in India is narrower than what exists in the USA, though the American Constitution does not explicitly mention the concept of judicial review in any of its provisions. This is because, the American Constitution provides for ‘due process of law’ against that of ‘procedure established by law’ which is contained in the Indian Constitution. The difference between the two is: “Thedue process of law gives wide scope to the Supreme Court to grant protectionto the rights of its citizens. It can declare laws violative of these rights void not only on substantive grounds of being unlawful, but also on procedural grounds of being unreasonable. Our Supreme Court, while determining theconstitutionality of a law, however examines only the substantive questioni.e., whether the law is within the powers of the authority concerned or not. Itis not expected to go into the question of its reasonableness, suitability or policy implications”. The exercise of wide power of judicial review by the American Supreme Court in the name of `due process of law’ clause has made the critics to describe it as a ‘third chamber’ of the Legislature, a super-legislature, the arbiter of social policy and so on. This American principle of judicial supremacy is also recognised in our constitutional system, but to a limited extent. Nor do we fully follow the British Principle of parliamentary supremacy. There are many limitations on the sovereignty of Parliament in our country, like the written character of the Constitution, the federalism with division of powers, the Fundamental Rights and the judicial review. In effect, what exists in India is a synthesis of both, that is, the American principle of judicial supremacy and the British principle of parliamentary supremacy.

 

The Supreme Court in the early 1980s devised a mechanism of Public Interest Litigation or PIL to increase access to justice. It allowed any individual or organisation to file a PIL in the High Court or the Supreme Court on behalf of those whose rights were being violated. The legal process was greatly simplified and even a letter or telegram addressed to the Supreme Court or the High Court could be treated as a PIL. In the early years, PIL was used to secure justice on a large number of issues such as rescuing bonded labourers from inhuman work conditions; and securing the release of prisoners in Bihar who had been kept in jail even after their punishment term was complete.

Appellate Jurisdiction:

The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal. A person can appeal to the Supreme Court against the decisions of the High Court. However, High Court must certify that the case is fit for appeal, that is to say that it involves a serious matter of interpretation of law or Constitution. In addition, in criminal cases, if the lower court has sentenced a person to death then an appeal can be made to the High Court or Supreme Court. Of course, the Supreme Court holds the powers to decide whether to admit appeals even when appeal is not allowed by the High Court. Appellate jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court will reconsider the case and the legal issues involved in it. If the Court thinks that the law or the Constitution has a different meaning from what the lower courts understood, then the Supreme Court will change the ruling and along with that also give new interpretation of the provision involved.

The High Courts too, have appellate jurisdiction over the decisions given by courts below them.

The Constitution of India provides for a single integrated judicial system. This means that unlike some other federal countries of the world, India does not have separate State courts. The structure of the judiciary in India is pyramidal with the Supreme Court at the top, High Courts below them and district and subordinate courts at the lowest level. The lower courts function under the direct superintendence of the higher courts.

Supreme Court of India can transfer cases from one High Court to another. High Court can issue writs for restoring Fundamental Rights. Hence statement d is incorrect.

The Indian judiciary consists of a Supreme Court for the entire nation, High Courts in the states, District Courts and the courts at local level. India has an integrated judiciary. It means the Supreme Court controls the judicial administration in the country. Its decisions are binding on all other courts of the country. It can take up any dispute:

Between citizens of the country;

Between citizens and government;

Between two or more state governments; and

Between governments at the union and state level.

It is the highest court of appeal in civil and criminal cases.

It can hear appeals against the decisions of the High Courts.

Apart from federal matters, the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court does not extend to the following:

A dispute arising out of any pre-Constitution treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument. A dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, etc., which specifically provides that the said jurisdiction does not extent to such a dispute. Inter-state water disputes.Matters referred to the Finance Commission. Adjustment of certain expenses and pensions between the Centre and the states. Ordinary dispute of Commercial nature between the Centre and the states. Recovery of damages by a state against the Centre.

 

The chief instrument through which judicial activism has flourished in India is Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or Social ActionLitigation (SAL). What is PIL or SAL? How and when did it emerge? In normal course of law, an individual can approach the courts only if he/she has been personally aggrieved. That is to say, a person whose rights have been violated, or who is involved in a dispute, could move the court of law. This concept underwent a change around 1979. In 1979, the Court set the trend when it decided to hear a case where the case was filed not by the aggrieved persons but by others on their behalf. As this case involved a consideration of an issue of public interest, it and such other cases came to be known as public interest litigations. Around the same time, the Supreme Court also took up the case about rights of prisoners. This opened the gates for large number of cases where public spirited citizens and voluntary organisations sought judicial intervention for protection of existing rights, betterment of life conditions of the poor, protection of the environment, and many other issues in the interest of the public. PIL has become the most important vehicle of judicial activism.

Judiciary, which is an institution that traditionally confined to responding to cases brought before it, began considering many cases merely on the basis of newspaper reports and postal complaints received by the court. Therefore, the term judicial activism became the more popular description of the role of the judiciary.

The removal of judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts is also extremely difficult. A judge of the Supreme Court or High Court can be removed only on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. A motion containing the charges against the judge must be approved by special majority in both Houses of the Parliament.

Removal of Judges:

The removal of judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts is also extremely difficult. A judge of the Supreme Court or High Court can be removed only on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. A motion containing the charges against the judge must be approved by special majority in both Houses of the Parliament.