{"id":3503,"date":"2026-08-11T22:11:28","date_gmt":"2026-08-11T16:41:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/notes\/supreme-court\/"},"modified":"2026-08-12T02:57:53","modified_gmt":"2026-08-11T21:27:53","slug":"supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"psir_note","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/notes\/supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
PSIR Notes<\/a>\u203a<\/span>I-B Indian Government and Politics<\/a>\u203a<\/span>Supreme Court<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
Paper I \u00b7 Indian Government and Politics<\/div>\n

Supreme Court<\/h1>\n
Syllabus \u00b7 Paper I-B \u00b7 4<\/b> \u2014 (a) Principal Organs of the Union Government : Envisaged role and actual working of the Executive, Legislature and Supreme Court<\/span>. (b) Principal Organs of the State Government : Envisaged role and actual working of the Executive, Legislature and High Courts.<\/div>\n<\/header>\n
\n
<\/p>\n

Genesis & the Supreme Court<\/h3>\n

India’s judiciary is a hybrid<\/span>: American-style judicial review and constitutional guardianship, a British parliamentary background, federal adjudication, protection of Fundamental Rights and an integrated structure. The Assembly wanted an independent judiciary to enforce rights, protect the Constitution, maintain federal balance and check legislative\/executive overreach. Granville Austin<\/span> noted the focus on tenure, salary, service conditions and appointment methods; the Sapru Committee<\/span> influenced the design; Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar<\/span> warned that independence should not turn the judiciary into a “super-legislature” or “super-executive”. Judicial independence later became part of the basic structure.<\/p>\n

Structure & appointment<\/h4>\n

The Supreme Court began in 1950<\/span>, replacing the Federal Court; Chief Justice Harilal Jekisundas Kania<\/span> was the first CJI. Judges are appointed by the President after consultation; serve till 65; removable only by impeachment for proved misbehaviour or incapacity (the Justice V. Ramaswami<\/span> attempt showed the difficulty of accountability). Convention:<\/span> the senior-most judge becomes CJI \u2014 breached in 1973<\/span> when Justice A.N. Ray<\/span> was appointed over three senior judges; resignations followed; seniority was later restored.<\/p>\n

Jurisdiction:<\/span> Original<\/em> \u2014 Art 131 (Union\u2013state\/inter-state), Art 32 (enforcement of FRs), President\/VP election disputes. Appellate<\/em> \u2014 constitutional, civil, criminal; special leave (Art 136). Advisory<\/em> \u2014 Art 143. Review<\/em> \u2014 Art 137. Complete justice<\/em> \u2014 Art 142; in SCBA v. Union of India<\/span> the Court held Art 142 powers are complementary and not limited by ordinary statutes.<\/p>\n

Evolution of the SC as a Constitutional Court<\/h3>\n
\n

Article 32<\/span> is “the very soul of the Constitution and the heart of it.”<\/p>\n

B.R. Ambedkar<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Five phases \u2014 restraint to constitutional court.<\/span> P1 \u00b7 Early years \u2014 Textual, positivist; Gopalan \u00b7 Champakam; Shankari Prasad \u00b7 Sajjan Singh \u2192 P2 \u00b7 Assertion \u2014 Golak Nath 1967; Kesavananda 1973; ADM Jabalpur 1976 \u2192 P3 \u00b7 Post-Emergency \u2014 Maneka 1978; S.P. Gupta 1981 \u00b7 PIL \u2192 P4 \u00b7 Appointments \u2014 Collegium 1998; NJAC struck 2015 \u2192 P5 \u00b7 Post-2014 \u2014 executive strength; suo motu on life, food, health. Kesavananda Bharati (1973):<\/span> Parliament can amend but cannot destroy the basic structure \u2014 C.J. Sikri’s elements: supremacy of the Constitution, republican-democratic government, secular character, separation of powers, federal structure. ADM Jabalpur (1976):<\/span> upheld suspension of life and liberty during Emergency \u2014 the “darkest hour”.<\/p>\n

Justice P.N. Bhagwati<\/span> and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer<\/span> shaped activist jurisprudence (PIL areas: bonded labour, prisoners, environment, women, children, dignity, livelihood). P.B. Mehta<\/span> describes the judiciary as politicised, self-perpetuating and uncertain; Upendra Baxi<\/span> defends it for protecting the marginalised \u2014 the “Chemotherapy of carcinogenic politics of India”; Bhikhu Parekh<\/span> calls India a case of judicial co-governance. Fali S. Nariman<\/span> criticises basic structure \u2014 guardians of the Constitution may become guardians over the Constitution.<\/p>\n

UPSC 2021 \u00b7 15m<\/span>Evolution of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as a constitutional court.<\/span>Answer<\/a><\/div>\n

Substantive Due Process \u00b7 Activism vs Overreach<\/h3>\n

Substantive due process<\/h4>\n

Courts examine not only procedure but the substantive fairness of a law (American law uses it for unwritten liberties).<\/p>\n

\n

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”<\/p>\n

Article 21 (original text)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sir B.N. Rau<\/span> warned that due process could let unelected judges block social and economic legislation. Development: A.K. Gopalan<\/span> (narrow) \u2192 Maneka Gandhi<\/span> (fair, just, reasonable \u2014 opened substantive review) \u2192 Selvi<\/span> and Ramlila Maidan<\/span> (language close to substantive due process); Rajbala v. Haryana<\/span> (2015) rejected invalidation merely for arbitrariness\/unwisdom; Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar<\/span> (2016). Abhinav Chandrachud<\/span> \u2014 protection of unenumerated rights reflects substantive-due-process thinking.<\/p>\n

Judicial activism<\/span><\/p>\n