Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India: Powers and Functions

When two state governments fight over river water, when a citizen claims they have been jailed illegally, or when the President needs legal clarity on a tricky constitutional question, all roads can lead to one institution: the Supreme Court. As the apex of the judicial system, it does not perform a single function but exercises several distinct types of jurisdiction, each designed for a specific kind of problem. Understanding these powers is the key to understanding how the Court protects rights, settles federal disputes, and acts as the final interpreter of the Constitution. The relevant provisions are laid out in Articles 124 to 147 of the Constitution.

The four pillars of Supreme Court jurisdiction 🔗

The Supreme Court’s authority is broadly classified into four categories: original, appellate, advisory, and review. According to the Court itself, it possesses original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction, with the power of review being an additional, important function. Each type answers a different question. Original jurisdiction asks who can approach the Court directly. Appellate jurisdiction governs appeals coming up from lower courts. Advisory jurisdiction allows the President to seek the Court’s opinion. Review jurisdiction lets the Court re-examine its own decisions. Together, these powers make it one of the most far-reaching apex courts in the world.

Original jurisdiction: where cases begin at the top 🔗

Original jurisdiction refers to a matter that originates in, or is brought directly to, the Court in the first instance, rather than reaching it through appeals. For the Supreme Court, this power has two distinct strands that serve very different purposes.

Federal disputes under Article 131 🔗

Under Article 131, the Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes within the federal structure. This covers disputes between the Government of India and one or more states, between the Centre and some states on one side and other states on the other, and between two or more states. The word “exclusive” is significant: no other court in the country can hear these matters.

However, there is an important limit. The dispute must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. Purely political disagreements between governments do not qualify. This makes the Court an arbiter of federal conflicts, helping maintain the constitutional balance between the Union and the states. Disputes over river water sharing, such as the long-running tensions between southern states, illustrate the kind of high-stakes federal conflicts that can come before the Court.

Protecting fundamental rights under Article 32 🔗

The second strand of original jurisdiction is arguably the most important for ordinary citizens. Article 32 gives the Supreme Court the power to enforce the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. Any person whose fundamental right has been violated can approach the Court directly. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously called Article 32 the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, precisely because it gives the rights in Part III real teeth.

To enforce these rights, the Court can issue five types of writs, which are formal written orders directing a person or authority to act or refrain from acting:

• Habeas Corpus: Latin for “you may have the body.” It directs that a detained person be produced before the court, securing their release if the detention is found to be unlawful. This writ is the primary safeguard for personal liberty.
• Mandamus: Meaning “we command,” it orders a public authority to perform a public or statutory duty that it has failed to carry out.
• Certiorari: Used to quash an illegal order already passed by a lower court or tribunal, correcting a wrong after it has happened.
• Prohibition: Stops a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction, preventing a wrong before it occurs.
• Quo Warranto: Meaning “by what authority,” it challenges a person’s right to hold a particular public office.

One feature of this jurisdiction deserves special mention. As the Court explains, a writ petition can be moved not only by an aggrieved individual but also by a public-spirited person or group acting on behalf of those who cannot approach the Court themselves. This judicial innovation is known as Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The Court has, on several occasions, treated ordinary letters, telegrams, and even newspaper reports as writ petitions, dramatically widening access to justice for the poor and marginalised.

Appellate jurisdiction: the final court of appeal 🔗

Appellate jurisdiction is the power to hear appeals against the judgments of lower courts, mainly the High Courts. This is the function that makes the Supreme Court the highest appellate court in the country. It is divided into several categories.

Constitutional appeals (Article 132) 🔗

An appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any judgment of a High Court, whether civil, criminal, or other, if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. The focus here is squarely on constitutional questions, regardless of the monetary value involved.

Civil and criminal appeals (Articles 133 and 134) 🔗

Article 133 deals with appeals in civil matters where the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance that needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Article 134 governs appeals in criminal matters, such as cases where a High Court reverses an acquittal and sentences a person to death, or certifies the case as fit for appeal.

Special Leave Petition (Article 136) 🔗

Perhaps the widest power of all is found in Article 136, which allows the Court to grant, at its discretion, special leave to appeal from any judgment or order passed by any court or tribunal in the country. The only exceptions are those relating to the armed forces. This is an extraordinary, discretionary power that the Court uses sparingly to prevent grave injustice. It acts as a safety valve, ensuring that no serious miscarriage of justice escapes correction simply because it does not fit neatly into the other appeal provisions.

Advisory jurisdiction: counsel for the President 🔗

Advisory jurisdiction is a unique power that sets the Court apart from a purely adversarial role. Under Article 143, the President can refer to the Supreme Court any question of law or fact that is of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the Court’s opinion. This provision traces its origin to Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935.

Two features make this jurisdiction distinctive. First, it is not adjudication but consultation. There is no judgment, decree, or order, only an opinion forwarded to the President in a report. Second, the opinion is not binding. The President is free to follow it or not. As established in cases such as Keshav Singh’s case, the advice carries great persuasive value, but it does not amount to “law declared by the Supreme Court.”

The Court also retains discretion over whether to answer at all. The use of the word “may” in Article 143(1) means the Court can decline to give an opinion in matters it does not consider proper. In the famous Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal reference of 1992, the Court clarified that this advisory power cannot be used to make it reconsider its own earlier decisions. This jurisdiction has been invoked only a handful of times since independence, but it has helped resolve significant constitutional questions, including the validity of important legislation.

Review jurisdiction: correcting its own course 🔗

No institution is infallible, and the Constitution recognises this. Under Article 137, the Supreme Court has the power to review any judgment it has pronounced or order it has made. As a court of record, its decisions are binding on all other courts, which makes the ability to correct its own errors especially important.

This power is not a backdoor for re-arguing a case, however. A review is permitted only on limited grounds: the discovery of new and important evidence that could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason of similar gravity. The Court has held that a review must correct a genuine mistake and is not meant to substitute a different view simply because one is possible.

The curative petition: a last resort 🔗

Even after a review petition is dismissed, an extraordinary remedy may remain. The concept of the curative petition evolved from the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra. It allows the Court to reconsider its final decision in the rarest of cases, to prevent gross miscarriage of justice or where principles of natural justice were violated. This is the final stage in the long ladder of justice, used only in exceptional circumstances.

Why these jurisdictions matter together 🔗

Each type of jurisdiction reflects a different role the Supreme Court plays in the constitutional scheme. Through original jurisdiction it acts as a federal umpire and a guardian of fundamental rights. Through appellate jurisdiction it ensures uniformity and correctness in the law across the country. Through advisory jurisdiction it assists the executive on weighty legal questions. And through review, it keeps a check on itself. The Court is also designated a court of record, meaning its proceedings and decisions are recorded for perpetual memory and serve as binding precedent for courts below it.

This combination of powers makes the Court far more than a final court of appeal. It is simultaneously a protector of liberty, an interpreter of the Constitution, and a stabilising force in the relationship between the different organs and tiers of government. The breadth of this jurisdiction is one of the reasons the judiciary occupies such a central place in constitutional democracy.

What do you think? Does the Supreme Court’s extraordinarily wide jurisdiction, especially the discretionary power under Article 136 and the PIL mechanism, strengthen democracy by expanding access to justice, or does it risk drawing the Court into matters better left to the legislature and executive? And should advisory opinions under Article 143 carry more binding weight than they currently do?

References

1. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-131-original-jurisdiction-of-the-supreme-court/
2. https://www.sci.gov.in/jurisdiction/
3. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/07/18/the-supreme-court-of-india-and-its-diverse-jurisdictions/
4. https://cleartax.in/s/writs
5. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-132-appellate-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-in-appeals-from-high-courts-in-certain-cases/
6. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2043-advisory-jurisdiction.html
7. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/advisory-jurisdiction-article-143/
8. https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/all-about-advisory-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-of-india-by-mercy-sun/