Union Judiciary
Free study material · concepts, shortcuts & solved questions
Supreme Court of India | High Courts | Subordinate Courts
Overview: The Integrated Judicial System
Unlike some federations (e.g., the USA, which has separate federal and state court systems), India has a single, integrated judicial system: the Supreme Court sits at the apex, with High Courts below it, and subordinate/district courts below the High Courts. The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within Indian territory (Article 141).
7.1 Supreme Court of India
Constitutional Basis: Part V, Chapter IV, Articles 124–147
- Article 124: Establishes the Supreme Court, consisting of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and other judges (originally 7, now expanded by Parliament via law). The sanctioned strength was 34 (including CJI) since the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019. As of mid-2026, this has been further increased to 38 (including CJI) via the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 (promulgated by the President under Article 123 on 16 May 2026), with a corresponding Amendment Bill, 2026 introduced in the Lok Sabha on 20 July 2026 to replace the ordinance with a permanent Act. (Given how frequently this number changes — 1950: 8, 1956: 11, 1960: 14, 1978: 18, 1986: 26, 2009: 31, 2019: 34, 2026: 38 — always verify the current figure close to your exam date rather than memorizing a fixed number.)
- Inaugurated: 28 January 1950 (two days after the Constitution came into force).
Appointment of Judges (Article 124(2))
- Appointed by the President, after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as the President deems necessary.
- Collegium System: Evolved through a series of Supreme Court judgments (the "Judges Cases"):
- First Judges Case (1981): Held that "consultation" does not mean "concurrence"; President has primacy.
- Second Judges Case (1993): Reversed this — introduced the Collegium system, where the CJI's recommendation (formed in consultation with senior-most SC judges) is binding.
- Third Judges Case (1998): Expanded the Collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most judges.
- NJAC/Fourth Judges Case (2015): The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 (which created the National Judicial Appointments Commission) was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, holding it violated judicial independence (part of the basic structure). The Collegium system was thus restored.
Qualifications (Article 124(3))
A person is qualified to be a Supreme Court judge if they are a citizen of India and either: (a) has been a judge of a High Court (or two or more High Courts in succession) for at least 5 years, OR (b) has been an advocate of a High Court (or High Courts) for at least 10 years, OR (c) is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.
Tenure and Removal
- Judges hold office until the age of 65 years.
- Removal: By an order of the President, following a resolution passed by each House of Parliament with a special majority, on grounds of "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" — the same process applies to High Court judges. (This is often loosely called "impeachment," though the Constitution itself only uses this term for the President under Article 61.)
Jurisdiction
| Jurisdiction Type | Key Articles | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Original | Article 131 | Disputes between the Centre and states, or between states |
| Writ | Article 32 | For enforcement of Fundamental Rights (concurrent with High Courts under Article 226) |
| Appellate (Constitutional) | Article 132 | Appeals involving substantial questions of constitutional law |
| Appellate (Civil) | Article 133 | Appeals in civil matters of general importance |
| Appellate (Criminal) | Article 134 | Appeals in specified criminal matters (e.g., where a High Court reverses an acquittal and awards death sentence) |
| Special Leave to Appeal | Article 136 | Discretionary power to grant leave to appeal from any court/tribunal in India (except military tribunals) |
| Advisory | Article 143 | President may seek the Supreme Court's opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance (advisory opinion is not binding, unlike its regular judgments) |
| Review | Article 137 | Power to review its own judgments/orders |
Common Traps
- Article 141: SC's law is binding on all courts within India, but the Supreme Court itself is not bound by its own past decisions (it can review under Article 137, or a larger bench can overrule an earlier smaller-bench decision).
- Advisory jurisdiction (Article 143) opinions are not binding on the government, unlike the Court's regular adjudicatory judgments.
- The Collegium system is a judicial innovation, not something explicitly described in the constitutional text of Article 124 — a frequently tested nuance (the article only mentions "consultation"; the collegium's binding nature came from case law).
Additional Depth: Judicial Review and Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Judicial Review: The power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, and to declare them void if inconsistent with the Constitution — rooted in Article 13 (any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is void) and reinforced by Articles 32, 131–136, and 226. Judicial review is considered part of the basic structure of the Constitution (per Kesavananda Bharati, later affirmed in the NJAC/Fourth Judges Case, 2015).
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): A judicial innovation of the late 1970s–80s (pioneered by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer) that relaxed the traditional rule of "locus standi" (only an aggrieved party can approach the court) — allowing any public-spirited citizen or organization to approach the Supreme Court (Article 32) or High Court (Article 226) on behalf of those unable to approach the court themselves (e.g., due to poverty, illiteracy, or social/economic disadvantage). PIL is not separately mentioned in the Constitution — it is a procedural innovation built on existing writ jurisdiction.
Additional Landmark Cases (Judiciary-Specific)
- S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) ("First Judges Case"): Held that "consultation" under Article 124(2) does not mean "concurrence" — gave primacy to the executive in judicial appointments (a position later reversed).
- Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) ("Second Judges Case"): Reversed the First Judges Case — held that the CJI's recommendation (formed via consultation with senior judges) is binding on the President, establishing the Collegium system.
- In re Special Reference 1 of 1998 ("Third Judges Case"): Expanded the Collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges; also held that views of the Collegium must be in writing.
- Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) ("NJAC case"/"Fourth Judges Case"): Struck down the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act as unconstitutional, restoring the Collegium system — held that judicial independence is part of the basic structure, and executive-dominated appointment mechanisms threaten this independence.
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): Held that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts (Art. 226) and Supreme Court (Art. 32) is part of the basic structure; tribunals cannot wholly exclude High Court/Supreme Court jurisdiction.
In-Depth: Types of Supreme Court Benches
- Division Bench: Typically 2 judges — hears the bulk of routine appeals.
- Full Bench: 3 or more judges — for cases requiring greater authority than a Division Bench.
- Constitution Bench: Minimum 5 judges — mandatory under Article 145(3) for cases involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, or for hearing Presidential references under Article 143.
7.2 High Courts
Constitutional Basis: Part VI, Chapter V, Articles 214–231
- Article 214: There shall be a High Court for each state (Parliament can, by law under Article 231, establish a common High Court for two or more states/UTs — e.g., the Punjab & Haryana High Court serves both states plus Chandigarh).
- Article 216: Composition — a Chief Justice and other judges as the President deems necessary (no fixed number specified in the Constitution itself, unlike the Supreme Court's fixed sanctioned strength).
- Article 215: Every High Court is a Court of Record, with power to punish for contempt of itself.
Appointment and Qualification (Article 217)
- High Court judges also appointed by the President, through the collegium process (CJI + 2 senior-most SC judges, along with the concerned High Court's collegium and state Governor/CM consultation in practice).
- Qualification: Citizen of India, and either (a) held a judicial office in India for at least 10 years, or (b) been an advocate of a High Court (or High Courts in succession) for at least 10 years.
Tenure and Removal
- Judges hold office until the age of 62 years.
- Removal: Same process as Supreme Court judges — Presidential order following a special-majority resolution in each House of Parliament for "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" (Article 218 applies Article 124(4)/(5) to High Courts).
Jurisdiction
- Article 226: Power to issue writs — for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and also for "any other purpose" — making the High Court's writ jurisdiction wider in scope than the Supreme Court's Article 32 jurisdiction (though the Supreme Court's is often considered more powerful in terms of being itself a Fundamental Right).
- Article 227: Power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction (except those dealing with the armed forces).
- Original, appellate, and supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts within the state.
Common Traps
- Article 32 (SC) is itself a Fundamental Right (cannot be suspended except during a National Emergency under specific conditions); Article 226 (HC) is a constitutional power but NOT itself a Fundamental Right — yet Article 226's scope is textually broader ("for any other purpose," not just Fundamental Rights enforcement).
- Retirement age: Supreme Court judges retire at 65; High Court judges retire at 62 — a very frequently tested numeric distinction.
- A High Court judge can be transferred to another High Court by the President (Article 222) — this power does not exist for Supreme Court judges (who serve on a single, unified court).
7.3 Subordinate Courts
Constitutional Basis: Part VI, Chapter VI, Articles 233–237
- Article 233: Appointment of District Judges by the Governor, in consultation with the High Court of the concerned state.
- Article 234: Appointment of persons (other than District Judges) to the judicial service of a state — made by the Governor in accordance with rules framed in consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court.
- Article 235: Control over subordinate courts (posting, promotion, leave of district judges and subordinate judicial officers) vests in the High Court — reinforcing judicial independence from the executive at the state level.
- Article 237: Governor may direct that these provisions apply to any class/classes of magistrates as well.
Typical Hierarchy (varies slightly by state, general pattern)
- District Court (District & Sessions Judge) — apex of the subordinate judiciary within a district, hears both civil (as District Judge) and criminal (as Sessions Judge) matters.
- Subordinate/Civil Judges (various designations — Civil Judge Senior/Junior Division) — civil matters below the District Court.
- Judicial Magistrates (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Magistrates First/Second Class) — criminal matters below the Sessions Court.
- Lok Adalats and Gram Nyayalayas — alternative/village-level dispute resolution mechanisms (statutory, not constitutional, bodies — established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, respectively).
Common Traps
- District Judges are appointed by the Governor, but administrative control (transfers, promotions, discipline) rests with the High Court — this separation is a frequently tested nuance underscoring judicial independence from the state executive.
- Lok Adalats and Gram Nyayalayas are statutory, not constitutionally mandated, institutions — distinct from the Article 233–237 subordinate court hierarchy.
Solved Example (UPSC Prelims-Format MCQ)
Q1. Consider the following statements regarding the appointment and tenure of judges in India:
- Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65 years.
- High Court judges retire at the age of 62 years.
- A High Court judge can be transferred to another High Court by the Chief Justice of India without Presidential involvement.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 1 and 3 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (a) 1 and 2 only — Statement 3 is incorrect; the power to transfer a High Court judge under Article 222 vests in the President (exercised, in practice, on the Collegium's recommendation).
Practice Set (Exam-Format MCQs)
Q1. The NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission), created by the 99th Constitutional Amendment, was struck down by the Supreme Court in which case? (a) Kesavananda Bharati case (b) Second Judges Case (c) Fourth Judges Case (2015) (d) Minerva Mills case Answer: (c)
Q2. Under which Article can the President seek an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court? (a) Article 131 (b) Article 136 (c) Article 141 (d) Article 143 Answer: (d)
Q3. Which Article gives High Courts the power to issue writs "for any other purpose," in addition to enforcement of Fundamental Rights? (a) Article 32 (b) Article 141 (c) Article 226 (d) Article 227 Answer: (c)
Q4. District Judges are appointed by the: (a) President (b) Chief Justice of India (c) Governor, in consultation with the High Court (d) State Public Service Commission Answer: (c)
Q5. Control over the postings, promotions, and leave of subordinate judicial officers is vested in: (a) The State Government (b) The Governor (c) The High Court (d) The Law Ministry Answer: (c)
Q6. Which case first held that "consultation" under Article 124(2) gives primacy to the executive, not the judiciary, in judicial appointments? (a) Second Judges Case (b) First Judges Case (c) Third Judges Case (d) Fourth Judges Case Answer: (b)
Q7. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, mandatory for cases involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation, must consist of a minimum of: (a) 3 judges (b) 5 judges (c) 7 judges (d) 9 judges Answer: (b)
Q8. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is primarily associated with relaxing which traditional legal requirement? (a) Res judicata (b) Locus standi (c) Double jeopardy (d) Burden of proof Answer: (b)
Q9. In which case did the Supreme Court hold that judicial review is part of the basic structure, and tribunals cannot wholly exclude High Court/Supreme Court jurisdiction? (a) L. Chandra Kumar case (b) Kesavananda Bharati case (c) Minerva Mills case (d) S.R. Bommai case Answer: (a)
Q10. Which Article empowers the Supreme Court to review its own judgments or orders? (a) Article 136 (b) Article 137 (c) Article 141 (d) Article 145 Answer: (b)
Q11. Consider the following statements:
- The Supreme Court's advisory opinion under Article 143 is binding on the government.
- Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right.
- Article 226 is itself a Fundamental Right.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 2 only (b) 1 and 2 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (a) — Statement 1 is incorrect (advisory opinions are non-binding); Statement 3 is incorrect (Article 226 is a constitutional power, but not itself listed as a Fundamental Right, unlike Article 32).
Q12. Under Article 217, what is the minimum period a person must have been an advocate of a High Court to qualify for appointment as a High Court judge? (a) 5 years (b) 7 years (c) 10 years (d) 15 years Answer: (c)
Q13. Which Article empowers Parliament to establish a common High Court for two or more states? (a) Article 214 (b) Article 216 (c) Article 231 (d) Article 241 Answer: (c)
Q14. The Supreme Court of India was inaugurated on: (a) 26 January 1950 (b) 28 January 1950 (c) 26 November 1949 (d) 15 August 1950 Answer: (b)
Q15. Which of the following statements about the Collegium system is correct? (a) It is explicitly described in Article 124 of the Constitution. (b) It evolved through a series of Supreme Court judgments, not through constitutional text. (c) It was established by the 99th Constitutional Amendment. (d) It requires ratification by state legislatures. Answer: (b)
Q16. District Judges are appointed by the Governor in consultation with: (a) The Chief Minister (b) The State Public Service Commission (c) The High Court (d) The President Answer: (c)
Q17. The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, which created the National Judicial Appointments Commission, was struck down for violating: (a) The right to equality (b) The independence of the judiciary, as part of the basic structure (c) Federal principles (d) The right to constitutional remedies Answer: (b)
Q18. Consider the following statements about Lok Adalats:
- They are established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
- Their awards are appealable to the High Court.
- Their awards have the status of a civil court decree.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 3 only (b) 1 and 2 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (a) — Statement 2 is incorrect; Lok Adalat awards are final and binding, with no provision for appeal.
Q19. A Nyayadhikari presiding over a Gram Nyayalaya holds powers equivalent to: (a) A District Judge (b) A Judicial Magistrate of First Class (c) A High Court judge (d) An Additional Sessions Judge Answer: (b)
Q20. Who is the Patron-in-Chief of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA)? (a) The President of India (b) The Chief Justice of India (c) The Union Law Minister (d) The Attorney General Answer: (b)
Chapter 7 Quick Revision Sheet
- Supreme Court: Articles 124–147; sanctioned strength 34 (CJI + 33, per 2019 amendment); appointed by President via Collegium (evolved via 1st/2nd/3rd Judges Cases; NJAC struck down in 4th Judges Case, 2015); retirement age 65; Article 32 (writ jurisdiction) is itself a Fundamental Right; Article 141 (binding precedent); Article 143 (advisory, non-binding).
- High Courts: Articles 214–231; one per state (or common HC for 2+ states/UTs under Art. 231); retirement age 62; Article 226 writ jurisdiction is broader in scope than Article 32 ("any other purpose") but is not itself a Fundamental Right; Article 227 (superintendence); judges transferable between HCs (Art. 222) — not applicable to SC judges.
- Subordinate Courts: Articles 233–237; District Judges appointed by Governor (in HC consultation) but controlled administratively by the High Court (Art. 235) — a key judicial-independence safeguard.
- India has a single integrated judiciary — no separate state vs. federal court systems, unlike the USA.