Supreme Court jurisdiction I: original, writ and appellate

Detail

Jurisdiction means the kinds of cases a court has the power to hear. The Supreme Court has three main kinds: original, writ and appellate. Special leave (Art. 136) is a wide, discretionary part of its appellate power.

1. Original jurisdiction (Art. 131): the umpire of federalism

• Original jurisdiction means the case starts in the Supreme Court itself. It does not come up on appeal from a lower court.
• Exclusive: the Supreme Court hears these disputes "to the exclusion of any other court". No High Court can hear them [2].
• Three kinds of parties [2]:
• (a) the Government of India and one or more states;
• (b) the Government of India and any state(s) on one side, and one or more other states on the other side;

• (c) two or more states.

• Legal right test: the dispute must involve a question of law or fact on which "the existence or extent of a legal right" depends [2].

• A purely political quarrel does not qualify. Art. 131 applies only when a legal issue touches a legal right [5].

• Why it matters (umpire of federalism): in a federation, power is divided between the Union and the states.

• The Court settles disputes over that division.
• It also interprets the lists of subjects given to each level.

Exclusions: who and what cannot come under Art. 131

Excluded	Basis
Private persons or companies as parties	Text of Art. 131: only governments are parties
Disputes from a treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or similar instrument signed before the Constitution began and still in force	Proviso to Art. 131 [2]
Inter-state river water disputes	Art. 262 lets Parliament bar all courts. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does this.

• Cauvery case (the NCERT exercise): the Cauvery dispute went to a tribunal under the 1956 Act, not to an Art. 131 suit.
• The tribunal's award came to the Supreme Court by appeal (Art. 136).
• The Court decided it in 2018 (State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu).

Key Art. 131 cases

• State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977): Karnataka challenged a Union commission of inquiry against its Chief Minister. The case is a leading authority on how far Art. 131 reaches.
• State of Kerala v. Union of India (2024): Kerala sued over the Union's limits on how much the state can borrow. In 2024 the questions were referred to a Constitution Bench (a bench of at least five judges, needed for major questions about interpreting the Constitution).
• State of West Bengal v. Union of India (10 July 2024, 2024 INSC 502) [5]:
• West Bengal withdrew its general consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946. The DSPE Act is the law that governs the CBI.
• Even so, the CBI kept registering cases in the state. The state then sued the Union.
• The state argued that once consent is withdrawn, the Union cannot authorise the CBI to register cases in the state [5].
• The Court held the suit maintainable (fit to be heard) under Art. 131, and the case went on to a hearing on merits [5].

Other original or special powers

• Art. 71: disputes over the election of the President and Vice-President are decided only by the Supreme Court.
• Art. 139A (transfer of cases), added by the 42nd Amendment, 1976 [7]:
• The same or nearly the same question of law may be pending in the Supreme Court and one or more High Courts, or in two or more High Courts. If it is a substantial question of general importance, the Supreme Court may withdraw those cases and decide them itself [7].
• The Court may also transfer any case, appeal or proceeding from one High Court to another "for the ends of justice" [7].

2. Writ jurisdiction (Art. 32 and Art. 226)

• Writ: a formal court order telling a government authority to do something or stop doing something. There are five writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto. Each is explained in the Fundamental Rights note.
• Writ jurisdiction: the power to issue these writs to protect rights.
• Art. 32 is itself a fundamental right. Anyone whose fundamental right is violated can go directly to the Supreme Court.
• Ambedkar called it the "heart and soul" of the Constitution.

• Art. 32(4): the right cannot be suspended except as the Constitution allows. The only route is Art. 359, under which the President can suspend enforcement of fundamental rights during a National Emergency.

• High Courts: Art. 226. High Courts can issue writs for fundamental rights "and for any other purpose", which covers ordinary legal rights too.

• So Art. 226 is wider in scope than Art. 32.

• But Art. 32 is a fundamental right. Art. 226 is only a constitutional power, and a High Court may refuse to use it.

• Choice of forum: a person may approach either the Supreme Court or the High Court.

• Basic structure: judicial review under Art. 32 and Art. 226 is part of the basic structure (core features Parliament cannot destroy even by amendment). See the justice-delivery-tribunals note (L. Chandra Kumar, 1997).

Feature	Art. 32 (Supreme Court)	Art. 226 (High Court)
Nature	A fundamental right	A constitutional power that the court may use or refuse
Scope	Fundamental rights only	Fundamental rights and "any other purpose"
Territory	Whole of India	The state or area under that High Court
Suspension	Only under Art. 359	Not suspended by Art. 359 for legal rights other than fundamental rights

3. Appellate jurisdiction: the highest court of appeal

• Appellate jurisdiction: the power to hear appeals, meaning requests to a higher court to re-examine a lower court's decision.
• The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal. While deciding appeals, it re-interprets the law, and its rulings bind all courts (Art. 141).
• High Courts in turn hear appeals from the courts below them. This makes the court system a single, integrated chain.

Article	Type of case	Route
Art. 132	Constitutional cases: a substantial question of law about interpreting the Constitution	The High Court gives a certificate under Art. 134A
Art. 133	Civil cases: a substantial question of law of general importance that the High Court thinks the Supreme Court must decide	HC certificate (Art. 134A). The 30th Amendment, 1972 removed the old money test (a minimum value of ₹20,000 in dispute).
Art. 134	Criminal cases	See the steps below

Art. 134: criminal appeals lie as of right when the High Court [8]:

1. on appeal, reverses an acquittal and sentences the accused to death; or
2. withdraws a case from a lower court, tries it itself, convicts and sentences to death; or
3. certifies under Art. 134A that the case is fit for appeal [8]. - Art. 134(2): Parliament may widen this power by law. It did so through the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, which adds more serious criminal cases to the list. - Art. 134A (added by the 44th Amendment, 1978): the High Court decides whether to grant a certificate, either on its own or when a party asks, right after giving its judgment [8].

4. Special leave petition (Art. 136)

• Special leave petition (SLP): a request asking the Supreme Court for permission ("leave") to appeal. The Court may grant or refuse it entirely at its discretion.
• Scope: any "judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter" passed by any court or tribunal in India [6]. It is the last box in the NCERT jurisdiction diagram.
• Exception, Art. 136(2): no SLP lies against a court or tribunal set up under any law relating to the Armed Forces [6].
• Meant to be rare: in Pritam Singh v. State (1950), the Court said it would use this power only in "exceptional and special circumstances", where grave injustice has been done.
• Reality:
• SLPs now make up most of the Court's docket.
• So the Court spends much of its time on routine appeals rather than constitutional questions.

5. Constitutional court or general appeal court? (the reform debate)

• Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India (1986): the Court suggested a National Court of Appeal to take routine appeals. The Supreme Court could then focus on constitutional and public-law cases.
• Law Commission, 229th Report (2009) [3][4]:
• It recommended a Constitution Bench at Delhi for constitutional and allied cases.

• It also recommended four Cassation Benches (regional benches for appeals) at Delhi (North), Chennai/Hyderabad (South), Kolkata (East) and Mumbai (West). Each would hear appeals from the High Courts of its region [3][4].

• Response: the Supreme Court's Full Court (all its judges sitting together) met on 18 February 2010 and unanimously rejected the proposal [3][4].

• V. Vasanthakumar v. H.C. Bhatia (13 July 2016), WP(C) No. 36/2016: the Court referred the question of setting up a National Court of Appeal to a Constitution Bench. Government replies in Parliament describe the matter as still sub judice (pending before a court) [4].

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 131: exclusive original jurisdiction over Union–state and state–state disputes. Private parties can never be parties.
• Proviso to Art. 131: excludes disputes from pre-Constitution treaties, covenants and sanads.
• Inter-state water disputes: barred by Art. 262 and the 1956 Act. Cauvery reached the Supreme Court by appeal (decided 2018), not under Art. 131.
• Art. 71: election disputes of the President and Vice-President are heard only by the Supreme Court.
• Art. 32 vs Art. 226: Art. 32 is a fundamental right. Art. 226 is wider ("any other purpose"). Art. 32 can be suspended only under Art. 359.
• 30th Amendment, 1972: removed the money test from civil appeals under Art. 133.
• Art. 134A (44th Amendment, 1978): the High Court certificate for appeals under Arts. 132–134.
• Art. 139A (42nd Amendment, 1976): the Supreme Court can withdraw cases to itself or transfer them between High Courts.
• Art. 136(2): no SLP against Armed Forces courts or tribunals. Pritam Singh (1950) set the "exceptional and special circumstances" test.
• Law Commission 229th Report (2009): a Constitution Bench at Delhi plus four regional Cassation Benches. The Full Court rejected it in 2010.

Mains Points

• Umpire of federalism: Art. 131 gives states a neutral forum against the Union. West Bengal v. Union of India (2024) shows its use in disputes over CBI consent and federal policing. Kerala v. Union of India (2024) shows its use in disputes over borrowing limits. But the strict "legal right" test and the bar on water disputes limit its reach. Long delays can also leave a political dispute unsettled.
• Art. 32 as a guarantee: direct access to the top court is the strongest remedy in Indian law. But easy access adds to the docket, so the Court often sends petitioners to the High Court under the wider Art. 226. This is a trade-off between access and efficiency.
• SLP overload: Art. 136 was designed as a rare safety valve (Pritam Singh, 1950). Today it is a routine further appeal. This crowds out constitutional work, and Constitution Bench cases wait for years.
• Reform options: (i) a National Court of Appeal (Bihar Legal Support Society, 1986; reference in V. Vasanthakumar, 2016); (ii) regional Cassation Benches (229th Report, 2009); (iii) stricter SLP screening. These must be weighed against uniform law, the Court's unity (the 2010 Full Court rejection) and access for poor litigants far from Delhi.