Law and You > Constitutional Law > Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in India
Provisions in regard to the judiciary in India are contained in Part V (“The Union”) under Chapter IV titled “he Union Judiciary” and Part VI (“The States‟) under Chapter VI titled “Subordinate Courts” respectively. It is, however important to emphasize that unlike other federal systems, for example, that of the United States, we do not have separate hierarchies of federal and State Courts. In India, though the polity is dual, the Constitution of India has provided a single integrated and unified judicial system for the whole country. It means that for the entire country, there is one unified judicial system, one hierarchy of courts with the Supreme Court as the highest or the apex court.
The Supreme Court is the highest court of law. The Constitution says that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all small courts within the territory of India. Below the Supreme Court, are the High Courts located in the states. Under each High Court there are District Sessions Courts, Subordinate Courts and Courts of Minor Jurisdiction called Small Cause Courts.
According to Article 130 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint. In Indian Constitution Article 129 make the Supreme Court the ‘court of record”. Article 129 says that the Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Article 215 empowers the High Courts of the states to be courts of record. Article 141 declares that the law laid down by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
Role of Supreme Court:
- As a Federal Court: Article 131 of the Indian Constitution vests the SC with original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine the justiciable disputes between the Union and the States or between the States.
- As a Guardian of the Constitution: The Supreme Court is the protector and guardian of the constitution. The Supreme Court is the authority to safeguard the fundamental rights of the citizens.
- As a Court of Appeal: An appeal lies to the Supreme Court in respect of civil and criminal cases irrespective of any constitutional question. (Articles 132, 133 and 134)
- As an Advisor: The Supreme Court has an advisory jurisdiction in offering its opinion on any question of law or fact of public importance as may be referred to it for consideration by the President. (Article 143)
- As an Interpreter of the Constitution and Law: The cases involving the interpretation of the constitution either certified by the High Court or being satisfied by the Supreme Court itself, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.
- As the Court of Record: The Supreme Court is a Court of Record. Its decisions bind all courts in India. HC and Subordinate Courts use its decisions/judgments as laws and decide the cases before them.(Article 141)
- As per Writ Jurisdictions: Under Art. 32 of the constitution of Supreme Court can issue Writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, and Quo-warranto Certiorari; for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Power of Judicial Review and SC: The power of the Judiciary to examine the validity of the law in light of the Constitution of India is called Judicial Review. If any law enacted by the Parliament is inconsistent with the spirit or letter of the constitution and it affects the rights of Citizen then it is for the SC to see to it. (Article 137)
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
Jurisdiction is a legal power or authority and the area in which this power can be used. Under Articles 131 to 143 of the Indian Constitution, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is being fixed. This court is primarily of the status of the appellate court. This court is accepting the appeals of cases which are being heard in the High courts situated in different states and union territories with the dissatisfaction of related parties. This court also hears about such serious issues which need to be attended with immediate attention.
The different categories into which the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is divided is as follows:
- Original Jurisdiction,
- Appellate Jurisdiction,
- Advisory Jurisdiction, and
- Review Jurisdiction.
Original Jurisdiction:
Article 131:
Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute-
(a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or
(b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or
(c) between two or more States, if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends:
Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagements, and or other similar instrument which, having been entered into or executed before the commencement of this Constitution, continues in operation after such commencement, or which provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute.
Original Jurisdiction means the power to hear and determine a dispute in the first instance. The Supreme Court has been given exclusive Original Jurisdiction which extends to disputes:
- between the Government of India and one or more States.
- between the Government of India and one or more States on one side and one or more States on the other.
- between two or more States.
The first complaint, filed in 1961 within the original jurisdiction by West Bengal. West Bengal filed a case before the Supreme Court against the Centre. The state government questioned the constitutionality of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act of 1957, which regulates the acquisition and development of coal-bearing areas. Parliament passed it and the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint because the Act was found to be lawful.
In State of Bihar v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1446 case, where the plaintiff was the State of Bihar and the defendants were the Union Government (1st defendant) along with Hindustan Steel Limited, Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. The plaintiff brought an action before the Court under Article 131 and the primary issue that came before the Court was whether the cause of action could be brought under the aforementioned Article. The Court held that Article 131 requires the Court to adjudicate only on the legal right concerned and the Court is not required to adjudicate on the complete dispute. The Court further held that the petition under Article 131 was not maintainable as the dispute would fall within the ambit of Article 131 only if no private party was involved in the dispute. Even if the private party was impleaded jointly with the government, the petition would be beyond the scope of Article 131.
In State of Rajasthan v Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361 case, Chandrachud J held that mere wrangles between governments” had no place under Article 131.
In State of Karnataka v Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 68 case,Bhagwati J interpreted the scope of Article 131 rather broadly, holding that it was sufficient if the suit concerned a question on which the “existence or extent” of a legal right depends, regardless of whether or not this right was violated. The Court, in this case, concluded that Article 131 could be invoked “whenever a State and other States or the Union differ on a question of interpretation of the Constitution so that a decision of it will affect the scope or exercise of governmental powers which are attributes of a State.” The Supreme Court held that the Constitution empowers the central government to take steps to resolve disputes between states over the use of inter-state rivers.
The Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction cannot entertain any suits brought by individuals against the Government of India. The dispute relating to the original jurisdiction of the Court must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence of legal right depends. This means that the Court has no jurisdiction in matters of political nature. However, this jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of a treaty, agreement etc. which is in operation and excludes such jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of Supreme Court also excludes in inter-State water disputes India-II (Article 262), matters referred to the Finance Commission (Article 280) and adjustment of certain expenses and pensions between the Union and States (Article 290).
The Supreme Court of India has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution of India. This means that only the Supreme Court has the power to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by the Indian Parliament or state legislatures. The Supreme Court has the power to declare laws as unconstitutional if they violate the Constitution. It is also responsible for resolving disputes between the Union government and state governments with regards to their respective constitutional powers. We can refer this power of the Supreme Court as the Constitutional Jurisdiction.
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 case, where the constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th amendments to the Constitution of India was challenged. The Court held that while the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure.
In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 case, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament cannot use its amending power to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. The case also affirmed the importance of judicial review in preserving the Constitution’s integrity.
Article 139:
Conferment on the Supreme Court of Powers to Issue Certain Writs:
Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court power to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for any purposes other than those mentioned in clause (2) of Article 32.
The Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court also extends to cases of violation of the Fundamental Rights of individuals. Article 32 of the Constitution gives an extensive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in regard to enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It is empowered to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari to enforce them. This jurisdiction can be referred as writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
In Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, 22 August, 2006 case, the Supreme Court held that freedom of the press is an integral part of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The case also established the principle that the press has the right to access information held by the government.
In Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2 July, 2009 case constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was challenged, which criminalized homosexuality. The Supreme Court held that the section was unconstitutional as it violated the right to equality and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution of India. However, this judgment was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013.
In Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, 9 March, 2018 case, Courtdealt with the issue of passive euthanasia, where a person is allowed to die by withholding medical treatment. The Supreme Court held that an individual has the right to die with dignity, and passive euthanasia is legal under certain conditions.
Article 139A:
Transfer of Certain Cases:
(1) Where cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law are pending before the Supreme Court and one or more High Courts or before two or more High Courts and the Supreme Court is satisfied on its own motion or an application made by the Attorney General of India or by a party to any such case that such questions are substantial questions of general importance, the Supreme Court may withdraw the case or cases pending before the High Court or the High Courts and dispose of all the cases itself:
Provided that the Supreme Court may after determining the said questions of law return any case so withdrawn together with a copy of its judgment on such questions to the High Court from which the case has been withdrawn, and the High Court shall on receipt thereof, proceed to dispose of the case in conformity with such judgment.
(2) The Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to do for the ends of justice, transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High Court to any other High Court.
The Supreme Court has been conferred with power to direct transfer of any civil or criminal case from one State High Court to another State High Court or from a Court subordinate to another State High Court. The Supreme Court, if satisfied that cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law are pending before it and one or more High Courts or before two or more High Courts and that such questions are substantial questions of general importance, may withdraw a case or cases pending before the High Court or High Courts and dispose of all such cases itself.
Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, International Commercial Arbitration can also be initiated in the Supreme Court.
Appellate Jurisdiction:
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate granted by the High Court concerned under Article 132(1), 133(1) or 134 of the Constitution in respect of any judgement, decree or final order of a High Court in both civil and criminal cases, involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction of hearing the appeal raised against the judgment of all High Courts of India provided the respective High Court grants the certificate related to the query about the interpretation of the Constitution of India. In case of any civil dispute, if the High Court thinks that the intervention of Supreme Court is required to resolve substantial query of law regarding the importance, in general, is there and the High Court infers that the specific query is to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Article 132:
Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in Appeals from High Courts in Certain Cases:
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies under Article 134A that the case involves a substantial question of law as the interpretation of this Constitution.
(2) Omitted.
(3) Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided.
Explanation:
For the purposes of this article, the expression “final order” includes an order declaring an issue which, if decided in favor of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case.
The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal from all courts in the territory of India. It has comprehensive appellant jurisdiction in cases involving constitutional issues; civil and criminal cases involving specified threshold values of property or a death sentence; and wide-ranging powers of special appeals.
Article 132 of the Constitution provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court from any judgement or final order of a court in civil, criminal or other proceedings of a High Court, if it involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. The appeal again depends upon whether the High Court certifies, and if does not, the Supreme Court may grant special leave to appeal.
Article 133:
Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in Appeals from High Courts in regard to Civil Matters:
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies under Article 134A-
(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; and
(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in Article 132, any party appealing to the Supreme Court under clause (1) may urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution has been wrongly decided.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall, unless Parliament by law otherwise provides, lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one Judge of a High Court.
Article 133 of the Constitution provides that an appeal in civil cases lies to the Supreme Court from any judgement, order or civil proceedings of a High Court. This appeal may be made if the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance or if in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Thus, in a civil matter, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court if the High Court certifies under Article 134A that a ‘substantial question of law’ of general importance is involved and the matter needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Thus, a certificate cannot be granted by the High Court on mere question of fact, where no substantial question of law is involved.
Article 134:
Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in Regard to Criminal Matters:
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court-has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or certifies under Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court:
Provided that an appeal under sub-clause © shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause (1) of Article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or require.
(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law.
Article 134 provides the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters from any judgement, final order, or sentence of a High Court. This jurisdiction can be invoked only in three different categories of cases:
- The High Court has reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death.
- The High Court has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any subordinate court to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death
- The High Court certifies that the case is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court. (Art. 134A)
In Mohinder Singh v. the State, AIR 1953 SC 415 case, where an appeal was preferred before the Apex Court from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court upheld the death sentence of the appellant. The Court held that the High Court is to give its certificate only in exceptional cases. The Court permitted the appeal on the ground that it was one of the special cases in which criminal appeal can be preferred as the accused had been convicted even though the evidence was insufficient. The Court set aside the conviction of the appellant. The Court held that an appeal can be made before the Apex Court without the endorsement of the High Court if either or both the following conditions are satisfied
- Where a person is sentenced to death by a High Court while reversing the order of acquittal.
- Where the High Court withdraws the matter from a subordinate court and conducts the trial and subsequently sentences the accused to death.
Article 136:
Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
Under Article 136 the Supreme Court, by its own, may grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. These powers of the Supreme Court to grant ‘special leave to appeal’ are far wider than the High Court. The Supreme Court can grant special leave against judgments of any court or tribunal in the territory, except the military courts, and in any type of cases, criminal or revenue. But the Supreme Court has itself said that it will grant special leave to appeal only in cases where there has been gross miscarriage of justice or where the High Court or Tribunal is found to have been wrong in law. So, it is not taken as a usual practice.
Article 137:
Review of Judgments or Orders by the Supreme Court:
Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.
Article 137 provides for the Supreme Court having the power to review its own judgments and orders. The Supreme Court has held that a judgement of the apex Court of the land is final. A review of such a judgement is an exceptional phenomenon, permitted only where a grave error is made out.
A review application can be made before the Supreme Court within 30 days of the concerned judgment. Furthermore, the application must have the certification of an Advocate on Record.
It is pertinent to note that the review jurisdiction is based on the discretion of the court, and the court may refuse to review its earlier judgment. The Court usually exercises this jurisdiction when an error is discovered subsequent to the judgment and such error is believed to have caused a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, if any material evidence is discovered subsequent to the judgment and such evidence could not be found earlier despite the best efforts of the party, then the Court may review its judgment. However, the Court will not exercise its review jurisdiction merely for trivial errors.
In Giridhari Lal Gupta v. D.N. Mehta, AIR 1971 SC 2162 case, the Supreme Court permitted a review petition because Section 23C(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of the proceedings. The Court consequently set aside the imprisonment sentence of the petitioners.
In Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ore Ltd., 23 April, 2013 case, wherethe review application was filed before the Court on the ground that the Court had incorrectly quoted the Expert Committee Report on which it had relied in the judgment. The Court, however, held that even if the wrongly quoted portion was deleted, the judgment would be the same and, hence, the clerical error could not be a ground for review. Further, the Court held that merely because an alternate view is possible to the dispute could not be a sufficient ground for invoking the review jurisdiction. Only when there is a grave error or omission in the judgment, the Court will permit a review.
There are provisions for reference or appeal to this Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution, Section 257 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 7(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, Section 130-A of the Customs Act, 1962, Section 35-H of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Section 82C of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
Appeals also lie to the Supreme Court under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, Advocates Act, 1961, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Customs Act, 1962, Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970, Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Election Petitions under Part III of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 are also filed directly in the Supreme Court.
Advisory jurisdiction:
Article 143:
Power of President to Consult Supreme Court:
(1) If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.
(2) The President may, notwithstanding anything in the proviso to Article 131, refer a dispute of the kind mentioned in the said proviso to the Supreme Court for opinion and the Supreme Court shall, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.
The Supreme Court has special advisory jurisdiction in matters which may specifically be referred to it by the President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is vested with the power to render advisory opinions on any question of fact or law that may be referred to it by the President. The advisory role of the Supreme Court is different from ordinary adjudication in three senses: first, there is no litigation between two parties; second, the advisory opinion of the Court is not binding on the government; finally, it is not executable as a judgement of the court. The practice of seeking advisory opinion of the Supreme Court helps the executive to arrive at a sound decision on important issues. At the same time, it gives a soft option to the Indian government on some politically difficult issues.
In M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 605 A case, wherethe President sought the advisory opinion of the Court on the issue of whether there was a temple at the sight of Babri Masjid. Since there was no legal point at issue, the Court held that the President must provide appropriate reasons for seeking the Court’s opinion. The Court further held that it was not bound to provide the advisory opinion where it considered the reasons to be improper. The Court thus refused to give its advisory opinion on the ground that the reference was superfluous. The Court observed that the referral to the Supreme Court had had the potential for politicising the judiciary instead of resolving what was essentially a political problem.
In Re: Kerala Education Bill (1958) case, the Kerala Education Bill, 1957 was passed by the Kerala State Legislature. The Governor had not given his assent to the Bill and had sought the President’s consideration. The President had sought the opinion of the Apex Court on the constitutionality of some of its provisions. The issue that came before the Court was whether advisory opinion could be sought in relation to the provisions of the Bill, which has not yet been incorporated as a statute. The Court made several observations regarding the scope and objectives of Article 143 as follows:
- Article 143(1) provides that the Court “may” give its opinion to the President on the matter referred to and hence the advisory opinion is a discretionary jurisdiction of the Court and the Court is not bound to give the opinion to the President.
- Merely because a Bill has not become applicable as a law could be no grounds for the Court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction.
- The purpose of Article 143 is to enable the President to clear his doubts regarding a question of law by referring the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that it would consider only the question that was referred to by the President and that it could not go beyond the scope of the question.
The Court further drew a distinction between the reference made under Article 143(1) and Article 143(2). Article 143(2) provides that where such a matter as provided in the proviso to Article 131 is referred to the Court by the President, the Court “shall” provide its opinion to the President. The proviso to Article 131 excludes the original jurisdiction of the Court in relation to disputes arising out of agreements, treaties, or other such instruments which were entered into before the Constitution came into effect. The Court held that while Article 143(1) makes it discretionary for the Court to give its opinion, Article 143(2) makes it mandatory for the Court to give its opinion in matters referred to by the President.
Article 138:
Enlargement of the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
(1) The Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any of the matters in the Union List as Parliament may by law confer.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction, and powers with respect to any matter as the Government of India and the Government of any State may by special agreement confer, if Parliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court.
Parliament is authorized to confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court.
Powers of Supreme Court:
Article 140:
Ancillary Powers of Supreme Court:
Parliament may by law make provision for conferring upon the Supreme Court such supplemental powers not inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Constitution as may appear to be necessary or desirable for the purpose of enabling the Court more effectively to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by or under this Constitution
Article 141:
Law Declared by Supreme Court to be Binding on All Courts:
The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
Article 142:
Enforcement of Decrees and Orders of Supreme Court and Unless as to Discovery, etc:
(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
Article142 provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decrees or orders as necessary for doing complete justice. The decree or order made by the Court shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such a manner as prescribed by the Parliament. Until provision is made by the Parliament, the orders of the Court will be enforced in the manner prescribed by the President.
Article 144:
Civil and Judicial Authorities to Act in Aid of the Supreme Court:
All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.
For purpose of giving effect to the directions and decisions of the Supreme India-II Court, all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India, have been made subordinate to the authority of the Supreme Court (Article 144). The Supreme Court may from time to time, and with the approval of the President, make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court.
Powers Regarding the Contempt of Court:
Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has been vested with the power to punish for contempt of Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. In case of contempt other than the contempt referred to in Rule 2, Part-I of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, the Court may take action (a) Suo moto, or (b) on a petition made by Attorney General, or Solicitor General, or (c) on a petition made by any person, and in the case of a criminal contempt with the consent in writing of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.
In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 2176 case, the Apex Court held that it has the power to punish for not only its own contempt but also for the contempt of the courts subordinate to it. The Court further held that the power of granting appeals from the order of any court or tribunal within the country confers the Court with “supervisory jurisdiction over all courts in India.”
Conclusion:
We can see that the Supreme Court in India is far more powerful than its counterpart in the United States of America. The American Supreme Court deals primarily with cases arising out of the federal relationship or those relating to the constitutional validity of laws and treaties. The Indian Supreme Court apart from interpreting the Constitution, functions as the court of appeal in the country in matters of civil and criminal cases. It can entertain appeals without any limitation upon its discretion from the decisions not only of any court but also of any tribunal within the territory of India. The advisory jurisdiction of the Indian Supreme Court also is something absent from the purview of the American Supreme Court.