Detail About Supreme Court of India

7/31/2019 Detail About Supreme Court of India

1/15

Supreme Court of India

Established 26 January 1950

Jurisdiction India

Location New Delhi

Coordinates 28.622237N 77.239584E

Composition

method

Executive selection (Qualifications

imposed)

Authorized by Constitution of India

Decisions areappealed to

President of India forClemency/Commutation of

sentence

Judge term

length

65 years of age

Number of

positions

31 (30+1)

Website supremecourtofindia.nic.in

(http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/)

Motto

Whence dharma, thence

victory.

Chief Justice of India

Currently S. H. Kapadia

Since 2010-05-12

Lead position 2012-09-28(Month turning 01)

Supreme Court of IndiaFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial forum

and final court of appeal as established by Part V, Chapter

IV of the Constitution of India. According to the Constitution

of India, the role of the Supreme Court is that of a federal

court and guardian of the Constitution.

Articles 124 to 147 of the Constitution of India lay down the

composition and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court is meant to be the last resort and highest

appellate court which takes up appeals against judgments of

the High Courts of the states and territories. Also, disputes

between states or petitions involving a serious infringement of

fundamental and human rights are usually brought directly to

the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of India held its

inaugural sitting on 28 January 1950, and since then has

delivered more than 24,000 reported judgments.

Contents

1 Constitution of the court

2 The Supreme Court Building and its

Architecture

3 Composition

4 Jurisdiction4.1 Original jurisdiction

4.2 Appellate jurisdiction

4.3 Advisory jurisdiction

5 Judicial independence

5.1 Powers to punish contempt

6 Jammu and Kashmir

7 Landmark judgements: Judiciary-Legislature

confrontations

7.1 Land reform (early

confrontation)

7.2 Other laws deemed

unconstitutional

7.2.1 Response from

Parliament

7.2.2 Counter-response

from the Supreme Court

8 Emergency and Government of India

8.1 Post-1980: an assertive

Su reme Court

Coordinates: 28.622237N 77.239584E

12/31/2011 Supreme Court of India - Wikipedia, the

wikipedia.org//Supreme_Court_of_I 1/


2/15

ends

Jurist term

ends

2012-09-28(Month turning 01)

Republic of India

This article is p art of the series:

Politics and Government of

India

Constitution of India

Fundamental Rights

ExecutivePresident

Vice President

Prime Minister

The Cabinet

Parliament

Rajya S abhaThe Chairman

Lok S abhaThe Speaker

Judiciary

Supreme Court of IndiaChief Justice of India

High CourtsDistrict Courts

Election Commission

Chief Election Commissioner

National Parties

State Parties

National CoalitionsLeft Front

National Democratic Alliance(NDA)

United Progressive Alliance

Supreme Court of India - Central Wing

8.2 Recent important cases

9 Corruption and misconduct of judges

9.1 Senior judges

9.2 Senior government officials

10 Sitting judges of the court

10.1 Honourable Chief Justice

10.2 Honourable Judges

11 Past Chief Justices of India12 See also

13 References

14 External links

Constitution of the court

On 28 January 1950, two days after India became a sovereign democratic

republic, the Supreme Court came into being. The inauguration took place in the

Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building. The Chamber of Princes had

earlier been the seat of the Federal Court of India for 12 years, between 1937

and 1950, and was the seat of the Supreme Court until the Supreme Court

acquired its present premises in 1958.

The Supreme Court of India replaced both the Federal Court of India and the

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at the apex of the Indian court system.

After its inauguration on 28 January 1950, the Supreme Court commenced its

sittings in the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament House. The Court moved

into the present building in 1958. The Supreme Court Bar Association is the barof the highest court. The current president of the SCBA is Mr. Pravin Parekh.

Mr. Sanjay Bansal is the present Honorary Secretary of SCBA.

The Supreme Court

Building and its

Architecture

The main block of the Supreme

Court building was built on asquare plot of 22 acres and the

building was designed by chief

architect Ganesh Bhikaji

Deolalikar who was the first

Indian to head CPWD and

designed the Supreme Court

Building in an Indo British

architectural style. He was

succeeded by Shridher Krishna Joglekar. The Court moved into the present

Union Government

Elections

Political Parties




3/15

Governor

State Legislature

Vidhan Sabha

Vidhan Parishad

Panchayat

Gram panchayat

Panchayat samiti

Zilla Parishad

Other countries Politics Portal

Government of India Portal

Supreme Court of India

building in 1958. The building is shaped to project the image of scales of justice

with the Central Wing of the building corresponding to the centre beam of the

Scales. In 1979, two new wingsthe East Wing and the West Wingwere

added to the complex. In all there are 15[1] court rooms in the various wings of

the building. The Chief Justice's Court is the largest of the courtroom located in

the centre of the Central Wing. It has a large dome with a high ceiling.

CompositionAs originally enacted, the Constitution of India provided for a Supreme Court

with a Chief Justice and seven lower-ranking Judgesleaving it to Parliament to

increase this number. In the early years, a full bench of the Supreme Court sat

together to hear the cases presented before them. As the work of the Court

increased and cases began to accumulate, Parliament increased the number of

Judges from the original eight in 1950 to eleven in 1956,

fourteen in 1960, eighteen in 1978, twenty-six in 1986 and

thirty-one in 2008. As the number of the Judges has

increased, they have sat in smaller Benches of two or three

(referred to as aDivision Bench)coming together in

larger Benches of five or more (referred to as a

Constitutional Bench) only when required to settle

fundamental questions of law. Any bench may refer the case

under consideration up to a larger bench if the need to do so

arises.

The Supreme Court of India comprises the Chief Justice of

India and not more than thirty other Judges appointed by the

President of India. However, the President must appoint

judges in consultation with the Supreme Court, andappointments are generally made on the basis of seniority and not political preference. Supreme Court Judges retire

at the age of 65.

In order to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court, a person must be a citizen of India and must have been,

for at least five years, a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession, or an Advocate of a

High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at least ten years, or the person must be, in the opinion

of the President, a distinguished jurist. Provisions exist for the appointment of a Judge of a High Court as an ad-hoc

Judge of the Supreme Court and for retired Judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts to sit and act as Judges of

that Court.

The Supreme Court has always maintained a wide regional representation. It also has had a good share of Judges

belonging to religious and ethnic minorities. The first woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court was Justice

Fatima Beevi in 1987. She was later followed by Justices Sujata Manohar, Ruma Pal and Gyan Sudha Mishra.

Justice Ranjana Desai, who was elevated from the Bombay High Court is the most recent woman judge in the

Supreme Court, so that for the first time there were two women (Mishra and Desai) simultaneously in the Supreme

Court.

In 2000 Justice K. G. Balakrishnan became the first judge from the dalitcommunity. In 2007 he also became the

first dalitChief Justice of India. Justices B. P. Jeevan Reddy and A. R. Lakshmanan were appointed Chairmen of

the Law Commission of India, unusually because neither of them had served as Chief Justice. Justice J. S. Kehar is

Local & State Govt.




4/15

slated to become the first Sikh Chief Justice of India in 2017.

Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court has original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction under Articles 32, 131-144 of the Constitution.

Original jurisdiction

The court has exclusive original jurisdiction over any dispute between the Government of India and one or more

States or between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more States on the

other or between two or more States, if and insofar as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or of fact)

on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. In addition, Article 32 of the Constitution grants 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 ofhabeas corpus, mandamus,

prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari to enforce them.

Appellate jurisdiction

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate granted by the High Court

concerned under Articles 132(1), 133(1) or 134 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, 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 can also grant special leave under article 136(1) to appeal from a judgment

or order of any non-military Indian court. Parliament has the power to enlarge the appellate jurisdiction of the

Supreme Court and has exercised this power in case of criminal appeals by enacting the Supreme Court

(Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.

Appeals also lie to the Supreme Court in civil matters if the High Court concerned certifies : (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. In criminal cases, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court if theHigh Court (a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death or to

imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 10 years, or (b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case

from any Court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused and sentenced him to death

or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 10 years, or (c) certified that the case is a fit one for

appeal to the Supreme Court. Parliament is authorised 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.

Advisory jurisdiction

The Supreme Court has special advisory jurisdiction in matters which may specifically be referred to it by thePresident of India under Article 143 of the Constitution.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




5/15

directly in the Supreme Court. Under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules the Supreme Court may review its

judgment or order but no application for review is to be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the grounds

mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in a criminal proceeding except on the

ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. =

The Supreme Court has the power to transfer the cases from one High Court to another and even from one District

Court of a particular state to another District Court of the other state. In such transfer cases the Hon'ble Supreme

Court transfer only those cases if they really lack appropriate territorial jurisdiction and those cases which were

otherwise supposed to be filed under the

Judicial independence

The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court Judges in various ways. Judges are generally

appointed on the basis of seniority and not on political preference. A Judge of the Supreme Court cannot be

removed from office except by an order of the President passed after an address in each House of Parliament

supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of

members present and voting, and presented to the President in the same Session for such removal on the ground of

proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The salary and allowances of a judge of the Supreme Court cannot be reduced

after appointment. A person who has been a Judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practising in any courtof law or before any other authority in India.

Powers to punish contempt

Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution the Supreme Court has been vested with power to punish anyone

for contempt of any law court in India including itself. The Supreme Court performed an unprecedented action

when it directed a sitting Minister of the state of Maharashtra, Swaroop Singh Naik, [2] to be jailed for 1 month on a

charge of contempt of court on 12 May 2006. This was the first time that a serving Minister was ever jailed.[3][4]

Jammu and Kashmir

With reference to the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) it would be relevant to note that, J&K has for various

historical reasons a special status vis-a-vis the other states of India. Article 370 of the Constitution of India carves

out certain exceptions for J&K. The Constitution of India is not fully applicable to the state of J&K. This is the

effect of Article 370. The Constitution of India is applicable to the state of J&K with various modifications and

exceptions. These are provided for in the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954. Also,

Jammu and Kashmir, unlike the other Indian states, also has its own Constitution. Although the Constitution of India

is applicable to Jammu and Kashmir with numerous modifications, the Constitution (Application to Jammu and

Kashmir) Order, 1954 makes Article 141 applicable to the state of J&K and hence law declared by Supreme

Court is equally applicable to all courts of J&K including the High Court.

Landmark judgements: Judiciary-Legislature confrontations

Land reform (early confrontation)

After some of the courts overturned state laws redistributing land fromzamindar(landlord) estates on the grounds

that the laws violated the zamindars' fundamental rights, the Parliament of India passed the First Amendment to the

Constitution in 1951 followed by the Fourth Amendment in 1955 to protect its authority to implement land




6/15

redistribution. The Supreme Court countered these amendments in 1967 when it ruled in Golaknath v. State of

Punjab[5] that Parliament did not have the power to abrogate fundamental rights, including the provisions on private

property.[6]

Other laws deemed unconstitutional

On 1 February 1970, the Supreme Court invalidated the government-sponsored Bank Nationalization

Bill that had been passed by Parliament in August 1969.

The Supreme Court also rejected as unconstitutional a presidential order of 7 September 1970, that

abolished the titles, privileges, and privy purses of the former rulers of India's old princely states.

Response from Parliament

In reaction to the decisions of the Supreme Court, in 1971 the Parliament of India passed an amendment

empowering itself to amend any provision of the constitution, including the fundamental rights.

The Parliament of India passed the 25th Amendment, making legislative decisions concerning proper

land compensation non-justiciable.

The Parliament of India passed an amendment to the Constitution of India, which added a constitutional

article abolishing princely privileges and privy purses.

Counter-response from the Supreme Court

The Court ruled that the basic structure of the constitution cannot be altered for convenience. On 24 April 1973,

the Supreme Court responded to the parliamentary offensive by ruling inKesavananda Bharati v. The State of

Kerala that although these amendments were constitutional, the court still reserved for itself the discretion to reject

any constitutional amendments passed by Parliament by declaring that the amendments cannot change the

constitution's "basic structure", a decision piloted through by Chief Justice Sikri.

Emergency and Government of India

The independence of judiciary was severely curtailed on account of powerful central government ruled by Indian

ational Congress.[7] This was during the Indian Emergency (1975-1977) of Indira Gandhi. The constitutional

rights of imprisoned persons were restricted under Preventive detention laws passed by the parliament. In the case

of Shiva Kant ShuklaAdditional District Magistrate of Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla

(http://openarchive.in/judis/5622.htm) , popularly known as theHabeas Corpus case, a bench of five seniormostjudges of Supreme court ruled in favour of state's right for unrestricted powers of detention during emergency.

Justices A.N. Ray, P. N. Bhagwati, Y. V. Chandrachud, and M.H. Beg, stated in the majority decision:[8]

(under the declaration of emergency) no person has any locus to move any writ petition under Art. 226 before

a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of

detention.

The only dissenting opinion was from Justice H. R. Khanna, who stated:

detention without trial is an anathema to all those who love personal liberty... A dissent is an appeal to the




7/15

brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the

error into which the dissenting Judge believes the court to have been betrayed.[8]

It is believed that before delivering his dissenting opinion, Justice Khanna had mentioned to his sister:I have

prepared my judgment, which is going to cost me the Chief Justice-ship of India."[9] When the central

Government is to recommend one of Supreme court Judges for the post of Chief Justice in January 1977,Justice

Khanna was superseded despite being the most senior judge at the time and thereby Government broke the

convention of appointing only the senior most judge to the position of Chief Justice of India. In fact, it was felt that

the other judges may have gone along for this very reason. Justice Khanna remains a legendary figure among thelegal fraternity in India for this decision.

The New York Times, wrote of this opinion: "The submission of an independent judiciary to absolutist government

is virtually the last step in the destruction of a democratic society; and the Indian Supreme Court's decision appears

close to utter surrender."

During the emergency period, the government also passed the 39th amendment, which sought to limit judicial review

for the election of the Prime Minister; only a body constituted by Parliament could review this election.[10] The court

tamely agreed with this curtailment (1975), despite the earlier Keshavanand decision. Subsequently, the parliament,

with most opposition members in jail during the emergency, passed the 42nd Amendment which prevented anycourt from reviewing any amendment to the constitution with the exception of procedural issues concerning

ratification. A few years after the emergency, however, the Supreme court rejected the absoluteness of the 42nd

amendment and reaffirmed its power of judicial review in theMinerva Mills (http://openarchive.in/judis/4488.htm)

case (1980).

As a final act during the emergency, in what Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer has called "a stab on the independence of

the High Court",[7] judges were moved helter-skelter across the country, in concurrence with Chief Justice Beg.

Post-1980: an assertive Supreme Court

Fortunately for Indian jurisprudence, the "brooding spirit of the law" referred to by Justice Khanna was to correct

the excesses of the emergency soon enough.

After Indira Gandhi lost elections in 1977, the new government of Morarji Desai, and especially law minister Shanti

Bhushan (who had earlier argued for the detenues in the Habeas Corpus case), introduced a number of

amendments making it more difficult to declare and sustain an emergency, and reinstated much of the power to the

Supreme Court. It is said that the Basic Structure doctrine, created inKesavananda, was strengthened inIndira

Gandhi's case and set in stone inMinerva Mills (http://openarchive.in/judis/4488.htm) .

The Supreme Court's creative and expansive interpretations of Article 21 (Life and Personal Liberty), primarily

after the Emergency period, have given rise to a new jurisprudence of public interest litigation that has vigorouslypromoted many important economic and social rights (constitutionally protected but not enforceable) including, but

not restricted to, the rights to free education, livelihood, a clean environment, food and many others. Civil and

political rights (traditionally protected in the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Indian Constitution) have also been

expanded and more fiercely protected. These new interpretations have opened the avenue for litigation on a number

of important issues. It is interesting to note that the pioneer of the expanded interpretation of Article 21, Chief

Justice P N Bhagwati, was also one of the judges who heard the ADM Jabalpur case, and held that the Right to

Life could not be claimed in Emergency

Recent important cases




8/15

Among the important pronouncements of the Supreme Court post 2000 is the Coelho case (I.R. Coelho v. State of

Tamil Nadu (Judgment of 11the January, 2007). A unanimous Bench of 9 judges reaffirmed the basic structure

doctrine. An authority on the Indian Constitution, former Attorney-General Soli Sorabjee commented on the

judgment, "The judgment in I.R. Coelho vigorously reaffirms the doctrine of basic structure. Indeed it has gone

further and held that a constitutional amendment which entails violation of any fundamental rights which the Court

regards as forming part of the basic structure of the Constitution then the same can be struck down depending upon

its impact and consequences. The judgment clearly imposes further limitations on the constituent power of

Parliament with respect to the principles underlying certain fundamental rights. The judgment in Coelho has in effect

restored the decision in Golak Nath regarding non-amendability of the Constitution on account of infraction of

fundamental rights, contrary to the judgment in Kesavananda Bharatis case.

Another important decision was of the five-judge Bench in Ashoka Kumara Thakur v. Union of India; where the

constitutional validity of Central Educational Institutions (Reservations in Admissions) Act, 2006 was upheld,

subject to the "creamy layer" criteria. Importantly, the Court refused to follow the 'strict scrutiny' standards of

review followed by the United States Supreme Court. At the same time, the Court has applied the strict scrutiny

standards in Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2007) ([2] (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?

abstract_id=1246892) )

In Aravalli Golf Course and other cases, the Supreme Court (particularly Justice Markandey Katju) has expressedreservations about taking on an increasingly activst role.

In extraordinary situations where corruption in allotment of mobile licenses has caused an estimated astronomical

loss of Rs 1,76,000 crores, a Bench comprising Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly told CBI to inform who the

beneficiaries and conspirators in parking funds in foreign bank accounts were.[11] The government refused to

disclose details of about 18 Indians holding accounts in LGT Bank, Liechtenstein, evoking a sharp response from a

Bench comprising Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar to Make up your mind whether you can make the

disclosure. The Solicitor General of India replied that it will be done at the appropriate stage.[11][12][13]

Corruption and misconduct of judges

The year 2008 has seen the Supreme Court in one controversy after another, from serious allegations of corruption

at the highest level of the judiciary,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] expensive private

holidays at the tax payers expense,[32] refusal to divulge details of judges' assets to the public,[33][34][35][36][37][38]

secrecy in the appointments of judges',[39][40][41][42] to even refusal to make information public under the Right to

Information Act.[43][44][45][46][47] The Chief Justice of India K.G.Balakrishnan invited a lot of criticism for his

comments on his post not being that of a public servant, but that of a constitutional authority.[48] He later went back

on this stand.[49] The judiciary has come in for serious criticisms from both the current President of India Pratibha

Patil and the former President APJ Abdul Kalam for failure in handling its duties.[50] The Prime Minister,

Dr.Manmohan Singh, has stated that corruption is one of the major challenges facing the judiciary, and suggested

that there is an urgent need to eradicate this menace.[51]

The Cabinet Secretary of the Indian Government has recently introduced the Judges Inquiry (Amendment) Bill

2008 in Parliament for setting up of a panel called the National Judicial Council, headed by the Chief Justice of

India, that will probe into allegations of corruption and misconduct by High Court and Supreme Court judges.

However, even this bill is allegedly a farce, just meant to silence and suppress the public. As per this Bill, a panel of

judges themselves will be judging the judges,this inquiry can be initiated against the Chief Justice of India or against

retired judges by the order of President,Cabinet Secretary and Parliament then they are suspended.[52][53]




9/15

Senior judges

Supreme Court Bench, Justice B N Agrawal, Justice V S Sirpurkar and Justice G S Singhvi :

"We are not giving the certificate that no judge is corrupt. Black sheep are everywhere. It's only a

question of degree."[17][18]

Supreme Court Judge, Justice Agarwal:

"What about the character of politicians, lawyers and the society? We come from the same corrupt

society and do not descend from heaven. But it seems you have descended from heaven and are,

therefore, accusing us."[54]

Supreme Court Bench, Justice Arijit Pasayat, Justice V S Sirpurkar and Justice G S Singhvi :

"The time has come because people have started categorising some judges as very honest despite it

being the foremost qualification of any judge. It is the system. We have to find the mechanism to stem the

rot"[55]

"Has the existing mechanism become outdated? Should with some minor modification, the mechanism

could still be effective?"

Supreme Court Bench, Justice Justice G S Singhvi :

"The rot has set in." The judges appeared to be in agreement with senior advocate Anil Devan and

Solicitor General G. E. Vahanvati who, citing the falling standards, questioned the desirability of keeping

the immunity judges have from prosecution.[56][57]

Senior government officials

Former President of India, APJ Abdul Kalam:

"If longevity of cases continued, people would resort to extra-judicial measures."[58]

President of India, Pratibha Patil:At a seminar on judicial reforms[50]

"Judiciary cannot escape blame for delayed justice that is fraught with the risk of promoting the lynch

mob phenomenon."

"Time has come when we need to seriously introspect whether our judicial machinery has lived up to its

expectations of walking the enlightened way by securing complete justice to all and standing out as (a)

beacon of truth, faith and hope."

"Admittedly, the realm of judicial administration is not without its own share of inadequacies and

blemishes."

Former Chief Justice of India, Y. K. Sabharwal:"The justice delivery system has reached its nadir"[58]

Speaker of Lok Sabha, Miera Kumar:

"As a citizen of this country and as a lawyer who had practiced for many decades, it is a matter of agony

if there is even a whisper of an allegation against a judicial officer But the fact is that allegations against

judicial officers are becoming a reality. One Chief Justice has said that only 20 per cent of the judges are

corrupt. Another judge has lamented that there are no internal procedures to look into the allegations.

Therefore, the necessity of a mechanism is being emphasized by the judges themselves. Then the

question arises as to how this mechanism would be brought about and as to who would bring it. The fact




10/15

of the matter is that the judiciary is the only unique institution that has no accountability to the people in a

democracy. In this overall context, it is absolutely essential to involve outside elements in the process of

judicial accountability."[59]

Additional Solicitor General, G. E. Vahanvati:At a Delhi High Court hearing

"Declaration of assets by judges to the CJI are personal information which cannot be revealed under the

present RTI and the same should be amended accordingly."[60]

"It is submitted that the information which is sought (pertaining to judges assets) is purely and simply

personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity"[61][62]

Pranab Mukherjee:

"Constructive criticism should be encouraged." He joined the chorus on judicial delays that has resulted in people

taking law into their own hands. He underlined the need for strengthening judicial infrastructure.[63]

Sitting judges of the court

[64]

Honourable Chief Justice

1. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sarosh Homi Kapadia

Honourable Judges

1. Hon'ble Shri Justice Altamas Kabir

2. Hon'ble Shri Justice Dalveer Bhandari

3. Hon'ble Shri Justice D. K. Jain

4. Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sathasivam5. Hon'ble Shri Justice G. S. Singhvi

6. Hon'ble Shri Justice Aftab Alam

7. Hon'ble Shri Justice Cyriac Joseph

8. Hon'ble Shri Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly

9. Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Lodha

10. Hon'ble Shri Justice H. L. Dattu

11. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Verma

12. Hon'ble Dr. Justice Balbir Singh Chauhan

13. Hon'ble Shri Justice A. K. Patnaik

14. Hon'ble Shri Justice T. S. Thakur15. Hon'ble Shri Justice K. S. P. Radhakrishnan

16. Hon'ble Shri Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar

17. Hon'ble Shri Justice Swatanter Kumar

18. Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandramouli Kumar Prasad

19. Hon'ble Shri Justice H. L. Gokhale

20. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra

21. Hon'ble Shri Justice A. R. Dave

22. Hon'ble Shri Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya

23. Hon'ble Smt Justice Ranjana Desai




11/15

24. Hon'ble Shri Justice J. S. Khehar

25. Hon'ble Shri Justice Dipak Misra

26. Hon'ble Shri Justice Jasti Chelameswar

Past Chief Justices of India

Main article: Chief Justice of India

1. H. J. Kania 26-01-1950 to 06-01-1951

2. M. P. Shastri 07-01-1951 to 03-01-1954

3. Mehr Chand Mahajan

4. B. K. Mukherjee

5. Sudhi Ranjan Das

6. Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Sinha

7. P. B. Gajendragadkar

8. A. K. Sarkar

9. K. Subba Rao

10. K. N. Wanchoo11. M. Hidayatullah

12. J. C. Shah

13. S. M. Sikri

14. A. N. Ray

15. Mirza Hameedullah Beg

16. Y. V. Chandrachud

17. P. N. Bhagwati

18. R. S. Pathak

19. E. S. Venkataramiah

20. S. Mukharji21. Ranganath Misra

22. K.N. Singh

23. M. H. Kania

24. L. M. Sharma

25. M. N. Venkatachaliah

26. A. M. Ahmadi

27. J. S. Verma

28. M. M. Punchhi

29. A. S. Anand

30. S. P. Bharucha

31. B. N. Kirpal

32. G. B. Pattanaik

33. V. N. Khare

34. Rajendra Babu

35. R. C. Lahoti

36. Y. K. Sabharwal

37. K.G.Balakrishnan




12/15

See also

Attorney General of India

Solicitor General of India

References

1. ^ http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/constitution.htm2. ^ Maha minister gets jail for contempt (http://www.ibnlive.com/news/maha-minister-gets-jail-for-contempt/10038-

4.html)

3. ^ "Maharashtra Minister gets one-month jail term"

(http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/11/stories/2006051116320100.htm) .News. Thursday, May 11, 2006.

http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/11/stories/2006051116320100.htm. Retrieved November 30, 2011.

4. ^ "Maha minister gets jail for contempt" (http://ibnlive.in.com/news/maha-minister-gets-jail-for-contempt/10038-

4.html) .News. Thursday, May 11, 2006. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/maha-minister-gets-jail-for-contempt/10038-

4.html. Retrieved November 30, 2011.

5. ^ [1] (http://openarchive.in/judis/2449.htm)

6. ^ Free Supreme Court Judgements (http://www.supremecourt.manupatra.com)

7. ^ab

V R Krishna Iyer (2000-06-27). "Emergency -- Darkest hour in India's judicial history"(http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/20000627/ina27053.html) . The Indian Express.

http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/20000627/ina27053.html. Retrieved 2007-09-16.

8. ^ ab Jos. Peter D 'Souza (June 2001). "A.D.M. Jabalpur vs Shukla: When the Supreme Court struck down the

Habeas Corpus" (http://www.pucl.org/reports/National/2001/habeascorpus.htm) . PUCL Bulletin.

http://www.pucl.org/reports/National/2001/habeascorpus.htm. Retrieved 2007-09-16.

9. ^ Anil B. Divan (15 March 2004). "Cry Freedom" (http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?

content_id=42937) . The Indian Express. http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=42937.

Retrieved 2007-09-16.

10. ^ Ramachandra Guha.India af ter Gandhi: The history of the world's largest democracy. Macmillan/Picador, 2007.

p. 500.

11. ^a

b

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/thrillers-in-the-supreme-court/749402/012. ^ http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-02-11/india/28541511_1_names-of-foreign-bank-lgt-bank-black-

money

13. ^ http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-01-26/news/28425995_1_black-money-liechtenstein-s-lgt-

bank-accounts-in-tax-havens

14. ^ Yogesh Kumar Sabharwal

15. ^ Ex-chief justice under corruption panel scanner (http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?

id=3a1e5636-0e74-45da-a271-326c51d2fb23&&Headline=Ex-chief+justice+under+corruption+panel+scanner) ,

Hindustan Times, New Delhi, June 09,2008

16. ^ Judicial probe sought in Ghaziabad PF scam (http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?

sectionName=&id=e88277f8-3e32-473d-b99c-

b17aa2e09e8a&MatchID1=4728&TeamID1=2&TeamID2=3&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1191&PrimaryID=4728, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, July 07,2008

17. ^ ab Black sheep could be in judiciary too, admits Supreme Court (http://www.nerve.in/news:253500154207) ,

Nerve News India

18. ^ ab Black sheep could be in judiciary too, admits Supreme Court (http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php?

sid=391098) , 6 August 2008

19. ^ SC judge withdraws from Uttar Pradesh PF scam hearing

(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Even_God_cannot_save_this_country_Supreme_Court_/rssarticleshow/3330091

, The Economic Times, 8 Aug, 2008

20. ^ PF scam: Apex court judge withdraws after charges (http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?

autono=330823) , Business Standard, 9 August 2008




13/15

21. ^ Apex court judge abandons graft case hearing against judiciary (http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20080807/812/tnl-

apex-court-judge-abandons-graft-case.html) , Yahoo India News, 7 August 2008

22. ^ Apex court judge abandons graft case hearing against judiciary (http://www.nerve.in/news:253500154908) , 7

August 2008

23. ^ Sound and fury in SC: Judge pulls out of PF scam hearing

(http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3339200.cms) , The Times of India, 8 Aug 2008

24. ^ Shameful first: CBI to question two HC Judges (http://ibnlive.in.com/news/shameful-first-cbi-to-question-two-

hc-judges/73211-3.html) , IBN Live, 9 September 2008

25. ^ In India, even God is helpless, says SC

(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Even_God_cannot_save_this_country_Supreme_Court_/rssarticleshow/3330091

, The Times of India, 5 Aug 2008

26. ^ Even God can't save this country: SC (http://www.business-standard.com/general/storypage_general.php?

&autono=330593) , Business Standard, 9 August 2008

27. ^ Even God cannot save this country: Supreme Court! (http://www.inewsindia.com/2008/08/05/even-god-cannot-

save-this-country-supreme-court/) , I News India, 5 August 2008

28. ^ SC says even God will not be able to save this country (http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20080805/808/tnl-sc-

says-even-god-will-not-be-able-to.html) , Yahoo India News, 5 August 2008

29. ^ Judicial Corruption Fuels Impunity, Corrodes Rule of Law (http://209.85.175.104/search?

q=cache:pWATOPh9wrwJ:tiindia.in/data/files/Press%2520Release%2520on%2520GCR%2520-

2007.pdf+transparency+international&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=in&client=firefox-a) , Transparency International,

Press Release, 24 May 200730. ^ Indolence in Indias Judiciary

(http://www.karmayog.org/anticorruption/upload/6733/GCR2007ChateronIndia.doc.http://209.85.175.104/search?

q=cache:SJgIPp91q08J:www.karmayog.org/anticorruption/upload/6733/GCR2007ChateronIndia.doc+indolence+in

a)

31. ^ Corrupt judges of India, e Voice Of Human Rights Watch e-news weekly

(http://groups.google.co.in/group/hrwepaper/web/corruption-police-judges-india) , 21 July 2007

32. ^ Judicial Accountability (http://indian-reflections.blogspot.com/2008_05_18_archive.html) , May 2008

33. ^ SC evasive on asset declaration by judges

(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/SC_evasive_on_asset_declaration_by_judges/articleshow/2949631.cms) , The

Times of India, 14 April 2008

34. ^ CIC to decide if details of judges' assets covered under RTI(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/CIC_to_decide_if_details_of_judges_assets_covered_under_RTI/articlesho

, The Times of India, 15 October 2008

35. ^ No rules for judges to declare assets: CIC (http://in.news.yahoo.com/32/20081016/1053/tnl-no-rules-for-judges-

to-declare-asset_1.html) , Yahoo India News, 16 October 2008

36. ^ Can`t reveal details of judges` assets under RTI: SC to CIC (http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?

aid=481263&sid=NAT) , Zee News. Com, 6 November 2008

37. ^ Judges wealth info cant be shared (http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?

sectionName=&id=78e1bb25-881e-4042-9f3f-

42a7ceb85ae6&MatchID1=4816&TeamID1=6&TeamID2=1&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1212&PrimaryID=4816

, Hindustan Times, 6 November 2008

38. ^ Judges asset declaration before CJI not for public eye: SC to CIC (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/judges-asset-declaration-before-cji-not.../381980/) , Indian Express, 6 November 2008

39. ^ The case of judicial injustice (http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19990331/iex31074.html) , Indian Express,

31 March 1999

40. ^ The secret club of judges (http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/20000423/ied20044.html) , Indian Express,

Sunday, 23 April 2000

41. ^ Not above the Law (http://www.rti.org.in/Documents/NewsLetters/RTI%20TIMES%20SEPTEMBER-2007.pdf)

, Times of India Editorial, 24 September 2007

42. ^ Political affiliations considered in appointment of judges (http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/1759-political-affiliations-

considered-appointment-judges.html) , RTI India.org, 23 October 2007

43. ^ Do India's judges have something to hide?

(http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2008/05/13/do_indias_judges_have_something_to_hide/6108/) UPI Asia.com, 13




14/15

May 2008

44. ^ Should chief justice come under RTI? (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?

id=NEWEN20080047353&ch=4/19/2008%2011:20:00%20PM) , NDTV.com, 19 April 2008

45. ^ RTI Act does not apply to my office: CJI (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2964678.cms) , The

Times of India, 20 April 2008

46. ^ Judiciary comes under RTI ambit (http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Judiciary-comes-under-RTI-ambit-

says-House-panel/303342/) , says House Panel, The Financial Express, 30 April 2008

47. ^ Judges accountability under RTI Act "debatable" says CJI (http://chennaionline.com/colnews/newsitem.asp?

NEWSID={F4ED3FE1-C0D7-4215-AE50-039D75C5B4F4}&CATEGORYNAME=natl) , Chennaionline, New

Delhi, 10 May 2008

48. ^ Is the CJI a public servant? (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2969521.cms) , The Times of India,

22 April 2008

49. ^ I am a public servant: CJI (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3013416.cms) , The Times of India, 6

May 2008

50. ^ ab Delayed justice leading to lynching mobs: Pratibha

(http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2808523.cms) , The Times of India, 24 February 2008

51. ^ Manmohan Singh calls for check on corruption in judiciary (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-

news/manmohan-singh-calls-for-check-on-corruption-in-the-judiciary_10039700.html) , Thaindian News, 19 April

2008

52. ^ Pass Judges (Inquiry) Bill in next session, panel tells Govt. (http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?

aid=473145&sid=NAT) , Zee News, India Edition, 30 September 2008

53. ^ Bill for probe panel against errant judges cleared (http://www.igovernment.in/site/Bill-for-probe-panel-against-

errant-judges-cleared/) , iGovernment, 10 October 2008

54. ^ Lawyer-judge showdown in Supreme Court (http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?

sectionName=WorldSectionPage&id=d8a5f2f0-d33f-49a0-9b45-

0b1bcb9d08e7&MatchID1=4924&TeamID1=4&TeamID2=2&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1244&PrimaryID=4924

judge+showdown+in+Supreme+Court) , Hindustan Times, 7 August 2008

55. ^ UP cops want CBI probe against 34 judges

(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/File_UP_cops_want_CBI_probe_against_34_judges/articleshow/3464634.c

, The Times of India, 10 September 2008

56. ^ UP cops want CBI probe against 34 judges

(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/UP_cops_want_CBI_probe_against_34_judges/articleshow/3464634.cms) , 10September 2008, The Times of India

57. ^ Stemming rot: Judges dont need complete immunity, says CJI

(http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/stemming_rot_toi.pdf) , 10 September 2008, The Times of India

58. ^ ab Judiciary should encourage fair criticism: Pranab

(http://humanrightsindia.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html) , 25 February 2008

59. ^ Speaker expresses surprise over CJI's reported stand on hearing Teesta Setalvad

(http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/25/stories/2008022553781200.htm) , The Hindu, 25 February 2008

60. ^ Supreme Court judges ready to declare assets, but with riders

(http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/Supreme-Court-judges-ready-to-declare-assets-but-with-

riders/rssarticleshow/4278163.cms) - Politics/Nation-News - The Economic Times

61. ^ Supreme Court judges ready to declare assets, but with riders (http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2061219) - National News MSN India - News

62. ^ Supreme Court judges ready to declare assets, but with riders (http://www.newkerala.com/nkfullnews-1-

5007.html) , NewKerala - India 's Top Online Newspaper

63. ^ Judiciary should encourage constructive criticism (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics /judiciary-

should-encourage-constructive-criticism-mukherjee_10020775.html) , Thaindian News, 24 February 2008

64. ^ "Chief Justice of India and sitting Judges (http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/new_s/judge.htm) ." Supreme

Court of India. Accessed 3 November 2008.

External links




15/15

Official website (http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/)

Text of all Indian Supreme Court judgments on CommonLII (http://www.commonlii.org/in/cases/INSC/)

Joginder Kumar Vs State Of Up, 1994, Habeas Corpus

(http://ipc498a.wordpress.com/2007/09/23/magna-carta-and-joginder-kumar-vs-state-of-up/)

Basic Structure of Constitution

(http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/const/the_basic_structure_of_the_indian_constitution.pdf

Latest Supreme Court judgments (http://www.scjudgments.com/)

Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and All the High Courts of India (http://lawmirror.com/)

Judgments of the Supreme Court of India (http://vlex.com/source/1972/)

OpenJudis - Free Database of Supreme Court cases from 1950 (http://judis.openarchive.in/)

India Law Articles (http://vlex.com/source/1878/)

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation / Case Law (http://www.rishabhdara.com/)

Discussion on finality of Supreme Court of India judgements on HindustanTimes

(http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1780397,000600010001.htm)

Justice B.N. Srikrishna, "Skinning a Cat", (2005) 8 SCC (Jour) 3, available at http://www.ebc-

india.com/lawyer/articles/2005_8_3.htm (a critique of judicial activism in India).

Satellite picture by Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?

ll=28.622237,77.239584&q=28.622237,77.239584&spn=0.002208,0.00537&t=h)/ Environmental Cases in Supreme Court (http://www.forestcaseindia.org)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_India&oldid=466562103"

Categories: Supreme Court of India National supreme courts

This page was last modified on 18 December 2011 at 18:54.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply.

See Terms of use for details.

Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
