Supreme Court of India with reference to the doctrine of Separation of Powers
The Supreme Court of India is the highest court in the country and is a constituent of the Indian State. It has original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions with respect to both federal and state laws. The present composition of Supreme Court as on October 3, 2017 is:
- Chief Justice Dipak Misra
- Justice A K Sikri
- Justice Ashok Bhushan
- Justice R Banumathi
- Justice Rohinton Nariman
- Justice D Y Chandrachud Jr.
- Justice R F Nariman
- Justice S Abdul Nazeer
- Justice R Banumathi - Justice Ashok Bhushan - Justice R. F. Nariman - Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul - Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Chief Justice of India (since October 13, 2015)
Earlier the Chief Justice was addressed as "Chief" and "Honourable". The new practice adopted was that while addressing a judge as "Honourable", he would be called "Chief" when addressing a group of judges, since the Chief is always the head of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is further divided into two houses, the "Sessions" and "Liaison". The sessions house consists of 44 judges (including the Chief Justice), while the "Liaison" consists of 26 judges. Judges are appointed by the President of India on the advice of a distinguished supreme court judges committee. There are a total of 765 seats in the Supreme Court (the equivalent to one for every 1,890 persons in India).
The Indian constitution provides for reservation in promotions and appointments in all the three branches of Government. The court is headed by the Chief Justice, who is appointed by the President of India, the executive branch and all State executive branches. The Chief Justice, in consultation with other judges of the court, appoints members to the court's Benches which are addressed as "Divisions".
The Constitution divides work into original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. Most petitions and appeals are filed in courts with original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving public interest, public order and issues affecting a state. The Court also hears appeals from High Courts in certain cases, particularly constitutional cases where the High Court's ruling goes against a more senior court.
The Supreme Court is the apex court for all matters referred by the President, except those reserved to state courts. It can also take suo motu cognisance of matters which are referred to it by a President or Governor of a state. Even if a private party has petitioned the Supreme Court seeking relief, it is required to refer the case to another appropriate court for resolution of their disputes. The Supreme Court may oversee issues of concurrent jurisdiction after consultation with other relevant courts and must determine when there is no other appropriate tribunal for these issues. It can also interpret laws passed by the Parliament or the state legislatures, and can declare certain laws unconstitutional.
Most Supreme Court judgments are made in open court and are handed down by the Chief Justice of India. The Supreme Court maintains its own registry containing the names of every judge, which is accessible to members of the public. This public access to judicial records is a significant innovation introduced during the tenure of Justice J S Verma as Chief Justice in 1998.
Members of the court are sworn in before the President of India (the ceremonial head of state) as a part of their oath taking ceremony which occurs once every year on January 30.
The Supreme Court admitted 2,343 petitions in 2017, which was the lowest number in a decade. Its verdicts and orders in 2017 ran into over 1,000 pages. The court had a pendency of 3,508 cases at the end of 2017.
The Supreme Court has been vocal against corruption and has taken actions such as the Jessica Lal murder case and other cases involving government servants who face allegations of corruption or abuse of power. It has also passed several significant orders on the question of environmental damages caused by industrialization. The Supreme Court ruled in the 2017 case of "United Commercial Bank v. Reserve Bank of India", in which it laid down a new framework to determine the validity of retrospective tax legislation, and in the "Cairn India v. Wockhardt" decision, it struck down a retrospective amendment to the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (the "Wockhardt" judgment), and held that some statutory provisions regarding service tax were unconstitutional.
In 2017, the Supreme Court of India played a pivotal role in the impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. This was the first time that an Indian Chief Justice was impeached.
In May 2017, a five judge bench headed by Dipak Misra took suo motu cognisance of the death of special CBI judge B.H. Loya and decided to monitor the investigations into it because "sensitive cases cannot be allowed to be dealt with in this manner". The bench included three sitting judges from senior courts - Justices A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer and Ashok Bhushan - in addition to Chief Justice Misra and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. The bench said that the case "has a serious implication for the judiciary as well as the social fabric of the nation" and that it "involves questions which are of substantial significance". This was seen as unusual, since most judges who have died have been high-profile personalities who had been speaking out against miscarriages of justice. The judge's death was ruled to be due to natural causes by a Maharashtra government-appointed medical board, however Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who was part of the bench hearing the case, rejected this finding in September 2017 and ordered an independent autopsy on 22 November 2017.
Conclusion of issue of death of judge B.H. Loya:
In 2018, in a 6 judge bench decision Karnataka’s claims to quash the case against former Chief Justice of India K. G. Balakrishnan was rejected and orders given to trial court to proceed in the case In 2018, a 5 judge bench decision given by Justice Chelameswar has caused a big break in the judiciary system of India by its banning of "Secret Bans". It is believed that this protection is only fair during the hearing and if it cannot be afforded then it should not be secret but open to different criticism if found inappropriate by any concerned party.