The Supreme Court’s authority stems from the Constitution of India, 1950

When a case is filed at the Supreme Court, the registry of the Court first examines it for filing defects. These defects may include missing annexures or failure to grant power of attorney. If there are no defects, it is registered as a Special Leave Petition, Writ Petition, or any other category it may belong to. In an event where the registry identifies filing defects, it is identified as an ‘unregistered case’. The party is given the opportunity to ‘cure’ the defect, and once cured, the case is registered as a regular admission matter.

 Certain cases, such as statutory criminal appeals (for example, those involving the death penalty), automatically proceed to regular hearings. However, most cases require a preliminary hearing to determine whether they can be ‘admitted’ to the Court.

At the admissions stage, the case is heard by a Bench of two judges who decide whether to ‘admit’ the case for ‘regular hearings’. These admission hearings are conducted every Monday and Friday, and are known as miscellaneous days. A Bench may hear 50-67 cases on each miscellaneous day. In deciding whether to admit a case and issue ‘notice’, the Bench usually hears each matter for only a few minutes.

A miniscule proportion of the cases that are instituted at the admissions stage are admitted for regular hearings. Regular hearings are held on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. During regular hearings, the Court is able to hear arguments from both parties and deliver a judgment based on the merits of the case.

Who is an Amicus Curiae?

The Latin phrase ‘amicus curiae’ (plural: amici) means “a friend of the court.” An amicus curiae is a person, usually an advocate who is not representing a party in the matter before the court, appointed to assist the court. Amicus curiae are often appointed where a criminal defendant is unrepresented or in complex public interest litigation cases.

Representing the Unrepresented

An amicus curiae may be appointed if the court is of the opinion that a petitioner who has chosen to represent themselves is not fit to do so, or could do so with the help of an advocate (Order IV, Rule 1(c) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013). The Supreme Court website also mentions that an amicus curiae must be appointed for any unrepresented accused person in a criminal matter. In civil matters, this appointment is at the discretion of the court.

Guidelines for Appointment

In a 2019 judgment, Anokhilal v State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court laid down some guidelines for the appointment of amicus curiae.

• If a matter could result in a sentence of imprisonment for life, or death, the amicus curiae would have to be an advocate with a minimum of 10 years’ experience at the Bar.
• If a High Court was confirming a death sentence, the amicus curiae would have to be a Senior Advocate.
• A minimum of seven days’ time should be provided to the amicus curiae to prepare arguments on the matter.
• The amicus curiae must be allowed to interact with the accused, whom they are representing.

Public Interest Litigation

The second type of role played by the amicus curiae arises in public interest litigation. An amicus curiae is appointed by the court to provide a ‘neutral’ opinion on the questions being considered. They could be asked to help with the case by the Court (as was done in the COVID-19 case) or after volunteering their service to the Court.

There are two kinds of public interest litigation that could warrant the appointment of an amicus curiae.

One of the types of public interest cases where amici are appointed is when the specific advocate’s technical expertise is required. Here, the court could ask the amicus curiae for their interpretation of the law under consideration. For example, in the matter regarding the suo moto powers of the National Green Tribunal, the amicus interpreted the powers of the NGT and submitted that the Tribunal does not have suo moto powers. Another example is when the Court appointed an amicus curiae in the matter of 1528 extrajudicial killings in Manipur. She was asked to collate data on 62 cases for the consideration of the court. Here, the Court did not ask the advocate to interpret the law, rather the Court asked for her assistance because of her expertise in human rights law.

The second type of public interest case in which amici are appointed are cases of great public importance, where the court needs an additional opinion in deciding the matter. Last year, the Attorney General was appointed as amicus curiae when Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan was being tried for contempt of court. This was done at Bhushan’s counsel’s suggestion. He submitted that the AG should be heard regarding whether the matter was one that involved an important legal question: should the conduct of judges be discussed on a public platform?

Amici in public interest cases are usually senior advocates of high standing. In 2019, Senior Advocate PS Narasimha had been appointed amicus curiae in all matters concerning the Board for Cricket Control. He was asked to mediate all BCCI matters before they were heard by the Court. He has now been appointed as a Supreme Court judge.

How is the Amicus Curiae paid?

In the interest of justice and the spirit of legal aid, the fees to be paid to an amicus curiae are minimal. They are to be paid Rs. 6000/- up to the admission of the matter, and Rs. 10,000/- once the matter has been finally disposed of, or heard on the regular side.

What is a causelist?

The list of cases to be heard by the Court on a particular date is known as the causelist. The causelist is the only means through which parties and lawyers are informed about when their case is going to be heard by the Court.

At the Supreme Court, the causelist is typically displayed in the precincts of the Court. Additionally, it is published on the Supreme Court’s official website the evening before a case is heard.

What does the causelist consist of?

The causelist denotes the Bench hearing the case, the courtroom where the case shall be heard, the case name, the case number, the name(s) of the advocates appearing for the parties, and the serial number. The serial number, also known as the ‘item number’ of a case, denotes the order in which it will be heard by the Bench on a given day. The causelist also mentions the cases in which the Court is expected to deliver a Judgment.

What are the types of causelists?

Daily Causelist of Miscellaneous Matters: A matter that has not yet been admitted by the Court is known as a miscellaneous matter. Mondays and Fridays are ‘miscellaneous days’, reserved exclusively for the hearing of miscellaneous matters by the Court. During these proceedings, the Court decides whether to ‘admit’ the matter, allowing it to proceed to the regular hearing stage, or to dismiss it without regular hearing. The Court may hear miscellaneous matters on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays as well.

The Daily Causelist of Miscellaneous Matters shows the miscellaneous matters that the Court will hear on a particular day. For miscellaneous days, this causelist is published on Thursday of the previous week and Monday of the current week. The miscellaneous matters causelist for non-miscellaneous days (Wednesday, Thursdays, and Fridays) is issued on the Saturday of the previous week.

Daily Causelist of Regular Hearing Matters: Regular hearing matters are those that have been admitted by the Court for regular hearings. This causelist for Tuesday’s regular hearing matters is issued on the Saturday of the preceding week. For Wednesdays and Thursdays, this list is issued on the preceding day.

Weekly List: An advance list of regular hearing matters issued on the Friday of the preceding week.

Supplementary List: The matters that are not listed in the Daily Causelist are listed in the Supplementary List.

How is the causelist generated?

The Registrar of the Court draws up the causelist according to the roster created under the directions of the Chief Justice of India. Fresh admissions hearings are included in the Daily Causelist chronologically (in the order of institution) through a computerised system. There can be no changes made to the causelist once it is published.

What are Civil Appeals?

A civil appeal is filed in the Supreme Court to appeal against a judgment, order or final decree of a High Court in India.

A civil appeal can be filed if the High Court (HC) which issued the judgment grants a certificate of fitness for appeal. This must be filed within a period of 60 days from the date the certificate is granted, as per Order XIX of the Supreme Court Rules (an example can be found here).

Apart from ordinary Civil Appeals the Supreme Court has the power under Article 136 to hear any case, from any subordinate court, on appeal under its Special Leave to Appeal jurisdiction.

When can a HC issue a Certificate to Appeal?

There are two grounds on which a civil case can be taken on appeal to the Supreme Court.

The first is under Article 132 of the Constitution of India, 1950. This Article allows appeals  in cases that involve a substantial question related to the interpretation of the Constitution. The Article applies to any kind of case that has been heard and decided by a High Court first.

The second ground is under Article 133. This applies specifically to civil proceedings. Such an appeal may be allowed when the HC believes that the case involves a ‘substantial question of law of general importance’ which should be decided by the Supreme Court.  An appeal under this ground may also involve an interpretation of the Constitution.

In deciding whether a matter raises a ‘substantial question of law’, the Supreme Court generally considers whether the case raises questions of public importance. It may also consider the impact of the rights of the parties. In Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v Century Spg. & Mfg.Co.Ltd, the Supreme Court held that if the principles of law were already decided and had to be merely applied, it would not qualify as a ‘substantial question of law’.

Appeals under either of these Articles are subject to the High Court’s certification. The HC must certify that the case meets one of the two criteria. It must involves a substantial question of law or interpretation of the Constitution. Additionally, the HC must also believe that this question needs to be answered by the Supreme Court.

What Should a Civil Appeal Include?

An application for a civil appeal must include a chronological list of events leading up to the appeal. It must also specify the grounds for an appeal. It must avoid repeating facts that have already been presented before, and considered by the High Court. Instead, it should highlight the provisions of the judgment which are being challenged, and the reasons for calling these into question.

A certified copy of the concerned judgement, along with a completed Form No. 28 must be attached with the application. Form No. 28 is used for all kinds of appeals including Special Leave Petitions. So, it must be modified as appropriate for civil appeals.

The form should contain any applications for interim relief.

What is a Constitution Bench? 

Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India states that a bench of a minimum of five judges must hear any case concerning “a substantial question of law” regarding the interpretation of the Constitution or cases that fall under Article 143. Article 143 grants the President the power to refer a “question of law” to the Supreme Court. 

Such a bench, consisting of five or more judges which is tasked with deciding larger questions of law is called a Constitution Bench. A Constitution Bench can have five, seven and nine-judges. When the court first decides that a case requires the scrutiny of a Constitution Bench, it first refers it to a five-judge bench. Hence, five-judge benches convene more frequently compared to benches with seven or nine-judges. Further, a seven-judge bench assembles to review decisions made by a five-judge bench, and similarly, a nine-judge bench undertakes the same task for the decisions of seven-judge benches.

Since 1950, the largest number of judges on a Constitution Bench consisted of 13 judges in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973). 

What is a “substantial question of law”? 

“Substantial question of law” is not defined by the legislature or the Supreme Court. The contours of the concept have taken shape through various decisions of the Court. In 1962, Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. laid down the test to determine a question of law as “substantial”: 

1. Whether the question of law is of “general public importance” 
2. Whether “directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties” 
3. The question has not been settled by the Supreme Court of India, or by the Privy Council or the Federal Court. 
4. There are alternative views on a single question of law. 

In Boodireddy Chandraiah v Arigela Laxmi (2007), the Supreme Court defined a “substantial question of law” as something which is not settled by an existing statute or a binding precedent. Additionally, the question of law must be such that it has a “material bearing” on the final decision of a case i.e.the case’s outcome must be contingent upon the resolution of the identified “substantial question of law.”

How is a case referred to a Constitution Bench? 

A Constitution Bench reference can happen in two ways. 

First, under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, the President of India has the power to refer a “question of law” to the Supreme Court. This “question of law” is heard and considered by a Constitution Bench of a minimum of five-judges. 

A smaller bench i.e. a division bench of two or three judges can refer a case to a Constitution Bench if they recognise a “substantial question of law” in an appeal. After the Constitution Bench settles the question, the division bench (of two or three judges) will consider the appeal on the basis of that decision. 

The Chief Justice has the discretion to form a Constitution Bench and its composition. There is no discernable method using which the CJI is known to select the judges that form the bench. 

Looking Ahead 

On 20 September 2023, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud expressed his intentions to make Constitution Benches a “permanent feature” of the Supreme Court. Currently, there is a backlog of 56 Constitution Bench cases across five, seven, and nine-judge matters. The decisions of these cases will have an impact on several pending cases in several high courts and lower district courts. There is also talk about splitting the Supreme Court’s function into a Constitutional Court and a Supreme Appellate Court. Many argue that these changes would expedite several cases pending due to a lack of clarity on the substantial question of law.

What is ‘Contempt of Court’?

Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘contempt’ as “a willful disregard of the authority of a court of justice or legislative body or disobedience to its lawful orders.” 

This “disregard” may include disrespect, non-cooperation and resistance towards a Court of law and misbehaviour with legal officials. Scandalising or “lowering the authority of the Court”, obstructing justice, prejudicing a court hearing are also instances of contempt. This category of contemptuous behaviour is considered criminal contempt. 

Non-compliance with a court’s “judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process” is also considered to be contemptuous behaviour. This type of “wilful disobedience” amounts to civil contempt. 

In India, the law outlining contempt is the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Contempt Act). 

Contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court 

Section 23 of the Contempt Act empowers the Supreme Court and High Courts to make rules on the process of hearing and clearing contempt cases, as long as they are consistent with the Act. The Supreme Court has exercised this power through the Supreme Court Rules 2013 in a chapter titled “Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.”  

The Supreme Court’s power to punish for contempt is found under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India. Article 129 says that the Supreme Court has the authority to “punish for contempt.” Additionally, Article 142, which deals with the “enforcement of decrees and orders,” of the Supreme Court, grants the Court the authority to punish parties for failure to abide by its orders and decrees. 

The Contempt Rules distinguish acts of contempt committed within the Court and outside it. According to Rule 2, contemptuous acts committed in the presence of the Court can be punished immediately or on a later date. 

For contemptuous acts committed outside the Court, the Supreme Court may take up the case : 

1. suo motu (on its own volition)
2. Through a petition by the Attorney General or Solicitor General, or
3. Through a petition filed by any person. Where a criminal contempt is being alleged by the private individual, the petition must be accompanied by a written consent from the Attorney General or Solicitor General. 

Notable Judgements

In Supreme Court Bar Association v Union of India (1998), a five-judge Constitution Bench held that the Supreme Court cannot debar lawyers who are found guilty of contempt. This power vests only with a State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India. 

In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v State Of Gujarat (2006), the Supreme Court held the Contempt Act only stipulates punishment for contempt in High Courts. The Supreme Court has been conferred the power to make its own rules, and is only obligated to refer to the Contempt Act as a guide while exercising its own contempt jurisdiction.

In 2002 the Supreme Court was hearing contempt alleged by a private person against  comments made by author Arundhati Roy. In a protest against Narmada Bachao Andolan outside the Court premises, she had remarked that the Court was trying to “silence criticism and muzzle dissent, [and] to harass and intimidate those who disagree with it.” In the In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002) judgement, Chief Justice G.B. Pattanaik and Justice R.P. Sethi clarified that constructive criticism of a judge or the judicial system does not amount to contempt if it is made in good faith and in the interest of the public. 

The Supreme Court took suo moto action in a case titled In Re Prashant Bhushan & Anr (2020) and held Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Twitter India, guilty of criminal contempt on 14 August 2020. In his tweets, Bhushan had remarked that the Supreme Court played a role in the “destruction” of democracy over the past six years. He accused four preceding CJIs of facilitating it. He had also tweeted a photograph of former Chief Justice S.A. Bobde riding a motorbike owned by a political leader. Bhushan pointed out that the Chief Justice was “without a mask” and “helmet” despite keeping the Supreme Court in a “lockdown mode,” denying justice to several litigants. At the time of the tweet and the judgement, CJI Bobde was serving as Chief Justice of India. Bhushan was fined ₹1 for his statements. 

In the challenge to the Electoral Bonds Scheme, a five-judge Constitution Bench was forced to threaten contempt proceedings twice. The first instance was when the State Bank of India sought for an extension of the Court’s deadline for disclosing details of bond transactions, citing certain difficulties in making the data public. Unconvinced, the Court refused and directed SBI to submit details by the next day. They threatened to initiate proceedings for civil contempt if they did not comply. 

The second instance took place days later, when advocates began to “shout” in Court, demanding that their grievances over the Court’s decision be heard out of turn. When the counsel refused to stop speaking despite the Bench’s instruction to follow proper procedure to qualify for mentioning, the Court warned that they would initiate criminal contempt proceedings for obstruction of justice.

What are criminal appeals?

A criminal appeal may be filed in the Supreme Court to appeal against a judgement, order or final decree issued by a High Court in criminal proceedings. A criminal appeal to the Supreme Court may originate in three modes:

• A criminal appeal may be filed within a period of 60 days if the High Court grants a certificate of fitness for appeal. Order XIX of the Supreme Court Rules sets out a model certificate of fitness.
• In cases where the conditions under Article 134 are met there is an automatic right of appeal irrespective of whether the High Court has granted a certificate of appeal.
• The Supreme Court under Article 136 may hear any case on appeal under its Special Leave to Appeal jurisdiction.

When can a HC issue a Certificate to Appeal? 

A High Court may issue a Certificate to appeal in two circumstances. First, under Article 134A of the Constitution of India, 1950 when the matter involves a substantial question related to the interpretation of the Constitution (Article 132) or where a substantial question of criminal law may be raised (Article 134). Article 134 uses the phrase ‘fit for appeal’ which extends to substantial questions of law and not to questions of fact (Nar Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1954).

When is there an Automatic Right to Appeal?

There is a second route available only to criminal cases under Article 134. This is an automatic right to appeal. Such an automatic right is available when the High Court has sentenced an accused to death. However, not all death sentences have an automatic appeal. It is only when the High Court has reversed a trial court’s acquittal, or withdrawn a case from a trial court and heard the case itself that an automatic right to appeal exists. There is no need for a certificate in such cases.

The Supreme Court has clarified that for an automatic right to appeal, it is not necessary that the High Court reversed a ‘complete acquittal’ in the trial court. For example, in Tarachand Damu Sutar v State of Maharashtra (1961), the accused was convicted of a lesser offence, but was acquitted of murder at the trial court. The High Court reversed this decision and held him guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. Here, the Supreme Court held that the convicted person was entitled to file an appeal under Article 134.

Besides this, Article 134 also gives Parliament the power to extend the scope of the Supreme Court’s criminal appellate jurisdiction. One such change took place by way of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970. This Act allows automatic appeals when the High Court either reverses an acquittal in, or withdraws a case from, a trial Court and then sentences the accused to ten years or more in prison.

What Should a Criminal Appeal include?

The application for a criminal appeal must include the details of the original judgment against which the appeal is being filed, including the name of the judge and the designation of the Court. It should also include details of the conviction such as the relevant provisions of law and the sentence imposed, including any fines.

The application must explain the facts of the case chronologically, the questions of law which are being raised and a list of grounds for the appeal. It may also disclose the grounds for interim relief sought while the appeal is being decided.

A criminal appeal must be filed along with a certified copy of the concerned judgement and a completed Form No. 28. Form No. 28 is used for all kinds of appeals including Special Leave Petitions. So, it must be modified as appropriate for criminal appeals.

A ‘proof of surrender’ also needs to be filed. This is a declaration that the convicted person is in custody or has surrendered after the conviction. The declaration should contain the details of the prison in which they are serving their sentence, and a certificate from a competent officer of the prison.

What is a Curative Petition?

A Curative petition is considered the last available remedy for reconsidering a judgement delivered by the Supreme Court. The curative remedy was introduced by a Constitution Bench in Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra (2002). 

As per Rupa Ashok Hurra, the Supreme Court can only entertain a curative petition if it falls into the following criteria: 

1. If there was a violation of the principles of natural justice, 
2. If there was a question of bias against the presiding judge, 
3. If there was an abuse of the process of the court.

These grounds were not exhaustive. In Rupa Ashok Hurra, the Supreme Court cautioned that a curative petition should only be considered in rare circumstances to prevent frivolous litigation. The Court stated, “Curative petitions ought to be treated as a rarity rather than regular.” 

Prior to the introduction of the concept of a curative petition, the last stage to reconsider a Supreme Court judgement was through a review petition. The curative remedy is an additional stage available for the parties to reconsider a judgement after a review petition is exhausted. 

Procedure of Curative Petition

The procedure for entertaining a curative petition is provided under the Supreme Court Rules 2013. 

1. The curative petition shall declare that the grounds mentioned in the petition were dismissed in a review petition. 
2. A Senior Advocate should attest that the petition matches the requirements in Rupa Ashok Hurra. 
3. An Advocate-on-record should attest that the petition was the first and only petition filed in the case
4. The curative petition should be filed within a “reasonable time” from the date of judgement or order in a review petition. The rules do not expressly define “reasonable time.” 

A Bench of the three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, and the judges who passed the judgement will consider the petition. If the majority of the judges on that Bench agree that the matter needs substantial hearings, it will be taken up by the same Bench. 

The Bench also has the power to impose exemplary costs if the petition is found to be without merit and vexatious.  

Notable Cases

In National Commission for Women v Bhaskar Lal Sharma (2013), a curative bench set aside a judgement which observed that “kicking your daughter-in-law” does not amount to cruelty. The National Commission for Women filed the curative petition on behalf of Monica Sharma, who had accused her husband and in-laws of cruelty. The Supreme Court held that the observations were made in a summons order against the accused person, and stated, “it was too early a stage, in our view, to take a stand as to whether any of the allegations had been established or not.” They ordered a fresh hearing.

In Union of India v Union Carbide (2023), a Constitution Bench rejected a curative petition seeking additional compensation for victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. They held that it did not meet any of the grounds necessary to entertain a curative petition. The Bench viewed that allowing this curative petition would open a ‘Pandora’s box‘ stating—”We find it difficult to accept that this Court can devise a curative jurisdiction that is expansive in character”.

The cases scheduled to be heard in each room of the Supreme Court are listed on the daily causelist. Typically, the list includes 60-70 cases per court. To help track the order of these cases and when one is being heard, the Supreme Court website has developed a “Display Board”.

The Display Board shows the Court number and the item number of the case being heard. Item numbers are assigned according to the order of cases in the causelist. For example, if Court 1 is hearing the case listed at Item 50 in the causelist, the display board will show “C1/50”. 

Practitioners and parties can use the Display Board to track their item number and assess when their case is being heard. Generally, Courts follow the order of cases in the causelist. If the sequence is altered, the Display Board reflects those alterations. Additionally, the Display Board also notifies when certain listed cases are not going to be heard by the bench. 

The new Supreme Court website contains two different types of display boards: 

1. Display Board (as per the old Supreme Court website)
2. Display Board Module (New)

The Display Board Module shows the Court Number, the Item Number, the Case Number, the name of the parties, and the counsel appearing in the case. The new module makes the case more identifiable than the previous one. 

Although similar in function, both display boards differ in terms of look and feel. For instance, on the old Display Board, the courts that are no longer in session, are marked in grey. Whereas the Display Board Module writes “Not in Session” next to the Court number. 

What is Disposal? 

Disposal of a case refers to its ‘exit’ from a particular court. It does not necessarily mean the end of the case as a whole.

At the Supreme Court, a case can be disposed of at four stages— the stage before admission, admission, final disposal on merit at admission and regular hearing.

1. Disposal by the Registry: The Registry can reject a petition or application after a preliminary check, before it gets admitted. A petition or application can be rejected at this stage if:

• Defects pointed out by the Registry are not rectified within due course of time (generally 28 days). 
• The Registrar finds that the petition “has no reasonable cause or appears frivolous or is related to a scandalous matter.” The Registry gets this power from Order XV, Rule 5 of Supreme Court Rules, 2013. For instance, on 29 May 2024, the Registrar rejected Delhi’s Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking an extension of the interim bail granted to him on grounds of ‘non-disclosure of reasonable cause in the petition.’

2. Disposal at Admission Stage:  Once the Registry clears a petition as valid, it enters the admission stage. At this stage, a Division Bench of the Court assesses the case and can dismiss it if it does not involve ‘a substantial question of law.’

3. Final Disposal on merit at Admission Stage: When there are cases which can be admitted and disposed of within a few hours, a bench hearing the case at the admission stage can issue notice to both parties, hear the case on merits and dispose of it. It is also called a ‘Motion Hearing’. The rationale behind motion hearings is to save the Court’s time. 

4. Disposal at Regular Hearing Stage: Once admitted, the case is assigned to a bench. The bench hears the case on merits and it is disposed of when the bench delivers a final judgement. 

What are the types of disposal?

A case can be disposed in five ways: 

1. Dismissed: The Court rejects a petition at the admission stage either because it does not concern a question of law or no further hearing is required because the matter was previously adjudicated by the Court. 
2. Disposed: The Court rejects the prayer through the final order or judgement after hearing the matter on merits. 
3. Allowed: The Court accepts the petitioner’s prayer in its final order or judgement. 
4. Granted: The Court accepts the prayer which seeks certain permission from the court. It can be permission to grant special leave for an appeal or to alter the fine, penalty or compensation amount.
5. Partly Allowed or Granted: The Court accepts certain parts of the prayer.
6. Conditional Order: The Court accepts all or some of the prayers but under certain conditions. The right granted by the court is conditional upon the execution of the order of the Court. 

How are cases disposed according to their registration status? 

1. Registered Cases:  The registered cases can be either dismissed at the admission stage or disposed of after the regular hearing stage.
2. Unregistered Cases: The cases waiting for approval of the Registry in general or the Registrar, in particular, can be dismissed or disposed of by the Registry for non-rectification of defect or by the Registrar. It also includes cases falling under the court’s inherent powers which are heard and then either admitted, dismissed or disposed of. 

Where can we find the data about disposal?

Information relating to the number of cases disposed of by the Supreme Court can be found annually in the Supreme Court’s annual reports. On a day-to-day basis, the information is available on two major platforms:

National Judicial Data Grid: The NJDG  of the Supreme Court is maintained by the Supreme Court Registry in assistance with the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice.  It provides simplified data on the Supreme Court. 

The Grid displays the case disposals in the past month and the ongoing year, the disposal rate in the past month and the ongoing year and divides the disposal data into civil and criminal cases.  

The ‘Disposal Dashboard’ on the grid shows the disposal data for every year since 2018. It enumerates the disposal of registered and unregistered cases, the disposal of different categories of cases, the nature of disposal, the time taken for disposal, and the list of cases disposed of. All this information in data form is demarcated into civil and criminal cases with a combined final tally. 

Justice Clock: It is managed entirely by the Supreme Court Registry on the website of the Supreme Court. A board-like screen displays the number of cases instituted and disposed of on that specific day, the previous day, the previous week, the ongoing year and the previous year. It also displays the Case Clearance Ratio i.e. the percentage of the number of cases disposed against the number of cases instituted during a given time frame. 

The Chief Justice of India is the highest ranking Judge at the Supreme Court. Article 124(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 establishes the Supreme Court of India. Crucially, it adds that the SC that it must have a Chief Justice of India (CJI). The CJI is often called the ‘First among equals’ among the Judges of the SC. When a case is admitted by the Supreme Court, the CJI has the duty to assign the case to a particular Bench. The CJI decides how many judges should hear the matter, and which judges will be on the Bench. Further, the CJI leads the SC Collegium which is responsible for recommending Judges for appointments at High Courts and the Supreme Court. 

The President is given the power to appoint SC Judges, including the CJI, under Article 124(2). The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for the appointment of SC Judges provides the steps to be taken to appoint a new CJI. The MoP states that the CJI should be the ‘senior-most Judge of the Supreme Court considered fit to hold the office’. The Union Minister for Law, Justice and Company Affairs (Law Minister) writes to the outgoing CJI, asking them to recommend a successor. After receiving the recommendation, the Law Minister forwards it to the Prime Minister of India who advises the President. Ultimately, the President decides whether to approve the recommended appointment for the next CJI. 

Further, the MoP provides the procedure for the appointment of a CJI when there are doubts regarding the ‘fitness’ of the senior-most Judge at the SC besides the outgoing CJI. The President, after consulting the outgoing CJI, may consult other SC or High Court Judges ‘as they deem necessary’, as per Article 124(2), and make the appointment for CJI. 

If the office of the CJI is vacant for any reason, the MoP states that the President will make an appointment using their power under Article 126 of the Constitution. During the vacancy period, before the President has made an appointment, the MoP states that the senior-most Judge of the Court will perform the duties of the CJI. 

The new Supreme Court of India website has been updated (as of 28 January 2024) with a fresh look and feel. The homepage now features all necessary functions in one place, including access to the cause list, a tool for finding case status, judgements, office reports, and the display board (used to check which case is being heard in which courtroom).

How to use the Supreme Court case page?

 Once you click on the case status page, you will be able to access the status of a case through the following important modes: Diary Number, Case Number, AOR Code, and Party Name.

1) Diary Number: This is the number provided by the registry at the filing counter. The Diary number is useful to check the status of a case. Once you enter the diary number in the search field, the system will provide details such as the filing date, case type, current status, and listing and hearing dates (click on VIEW). Below is an example of accessing the details of a case using a diary number.

2) Case Number: This is the default selection when you click on the case status page. Select the type of case that was filed, key in the number assigned to the case, and the year it was registered by the Court. For example, if it is a writ petition, a special leave petition, a civil or criminal appeal, the user simply selects the relevant option. This will render results such as the current status of the case, dates it was listed on, and past orders given by the Court.

3) AOR Code: This option allows users to access case details based on the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) involved in the case. By entering the name or code of the AOR, one can retrieve information on all the cases that the AOR has filed or is representing in the Supreme Court.

4) Party Name: This option is useful for finding cases based on the names of the parties involved. Whether you are interested in a particular petitioner or respondent, you can enter the party’s name along with the year in which the case was instituted to retrieve case details.

With this, you can now access the Supreme Court website and find the cases you want! All you have to do is know basic mathematics to crack the captcha and you are all set to go exploring. 

In its literal sense, ”in chambers” means those dialogues and decisions which occur “in private” or in a chamber. In the context of the Court, this chamber is the judge’s office. In chamber proceedings are conducted in the absence of the media and public. 

Typically, in-chamber proceedings are less time consuming than the proceedings in open court. They comprise only the judges and parties to the suit and their lawyers. In some jurisdictions, like in the United States and the United Kingdom, “in chamber” hearings are also held inside courtrooms, instead of the judge’s chamber. However, the hearing is conducted in private, involving only the parties and the courtroom is closed to the public. In jurisdictions such as in Singapore, “in chamber” proceedings also take place in the registrar’s chambers. 

When are proceedings held “in chambers”? 

Open court proceedings display everything about the ongoing matter to the media and public persons. But “in chamber” proceedings are, by their nature, more privately conducted. This does not mean that public interest issues are not adjudicated through “in chamber” hearings. In the Supreme Court of India, “in chamber” decisions and discussions are conducted in the following situations:

1. A single-judge takes decisions “in chambers” on particular types of applications filed before the Court such as application for amendment of pleading, application for registration of Advocates-on-Record, or application to be exempted from paying court fees. The single judge “in chamber” also takes decisions on rejection of plaints, or issuing of fresh summons and notices. The judge “in chamber” further takes decisions regarding the institution of cases, particularly when the defects or errors in the filing have not been “cured.”
2. Generally, review or curative petitions are heard “in chambers.” Review pleas are decided by the bench which delivered the original decision, while curative pleas are decided by the three senior-most judges of the Court, along with the judges who delivered the original decision, if they have not yet retired. In most such cases, there are no formal hearings in chambers and the petition is circulated among the judges, who then come to a decision. The Court has sometimes exercised discretion to hold such hearings in an open court.

Where do judges get the power to conduct “in chamber” proceedings?

Judges of the Supreme Court derive the power to undertake “in chamber” decisions on various types of application from the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Rule (2) of Order V of the Rules provides an exhaustive list of 41 situations where the decision is to be taken by the judge in chambers.

Meanwhile, review power of the Court is crystallised in Article 137 of the Constitution. However, Article 137 does not mention any specific procedure to conduct review proceedings. The Court exercises discretion on the specific mode of the proceedings, whether public or “in chambers”. 

The curative power of the Court is a judicial creation developed in Rupa Hurra v Ashok Hurra (1997). In rare cases, where the original judgement was “manifestly incorrect”, “palpably absurd” or “patently without jurisdiction,” curative power was exercised. But Rupa Hurra does not state how the proceedings should be conducted. Similar to its review powers, the Court has exercised discretion on whether to conduct curative proceedings in public or “in chambers”.

What is Institution?

Institution of a case refers to its ‘entry’ in a particular court. It does not necessarily mean the commencement of the hearings in the case. A petition, plaint, appeal, or application is filed by a party in person or through her advocate. A case can also be filed virtually through the Supreme Court website’s E-Filing portal. Once the case is filed, the Court’s Registry undertakes a preliminary check of the petition and the supporting documents attached to it. Post the check, the registry uploads the description of the parties and their advocates on its virtual register and generates a ‘diary number’ for the case. 

The entire process of filing of petition, followed by the cognisance of the Registry at the filing counter, and then the allotment of diary number, constitutes the ‘institution of the suit.’

The President, the Union government, or any statutory tribunal can refer certain matters directly to the Supreme Court. Disputes arising from elections of President and Vice President are also decided exclusively by the Supreme Court. All such matters are referred directly to the Registrar who institutes the case. 

What happens after a case is instituted?

1. Before Admission: Once a case is instituted, a Security Assistant at the Registrar’s filing counter scrutinises it for defects. If found, the defects have to be rectified within 28 days and re-filed.  The rectified document is further scrutinised by a Senior Officer of the Registry. Once approved, the Security Assistant registers the case and assigns it a case number. 

 In case the Security Assistant is doubtful about the case’s maintainability, they may present the same to the Branch Officer. If the Branch Officer is also doubtful about maintainability, it is placed before the Registrar or a Single Judge (appointed on a timely basis by CJI ) in her Chamber who takes the final decision on the maintainability. If the case is found maintainable, it comes back to the Security Assistant for registration and assignment of case number.

2. The Admission Stage: Once registered, the case is forwarded to a specifically assigned ‘Court of Admission’ for listing. The Court of Admission is a Division Bench which decides whether to ‘admit’ the case for ‘regular hearings’ or not. These admission hearings are conducted every Monday and Friday—Miscellaneous Days of the Court. If there exists a ‘substantial question of law’, the Court admits the case.

Statutory criminal appeals (such as those involving the death penalty), automatically proceed to regular hearings. 

3. The Regular Hearing Stage: If a case is admitted, it is assigned by the registry to a bench based on the Court’s ‘Roster System.’ The bench then commences regular hearings of the case. 

How are instituted cases distinguished on the basis of registration status?

1. Unregistered Case: These are cases instituted at the Court but are under scrutiny of the registry or require correction of defects or whose maintainability is under consideration. They are not classified into a specific case category, or allotted a case number or listed for admission or regular hearing. These cases can be rejected and disposed of by the Registry.

2. Registered Case: These cases are instituted and registered by the Registry. The Registry categorises them based on the nature of the petition, allots a case number and lists them for admission or regular hearing. 

How to navigate the data on Institution? 

Information relating to the number of cases instituted by the Supreme Court can be found in the Supreme Court’s annual reports. On a day-to-day basis, the information is available on two major platforms:

National Judicial Data Grid: The NJDG is maintained by the Supreme Court Registry in assistance with the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice.  This grid provides simplified data on the Institution of Cases by the Supreme Court. 

The page displays the number of cases instituted in the past month and the ongoing year. It also classifies the institution data into civil and criminal cases.  

The ‘Pending Dashboard’ section of the grid compares the institution and disposal data for every year since 2018. It also provides key insights into the institution of registered and unregistered cases, the institution of different categories of cases, the nature of the institution, and the list of cases instituted. All this data is classified into civil cases, criminal cases and a combined final tally. 

Justice Clock: It is a virtual information board managed entirely by the Supreme Court Registry on the website of the Supreme Court. 

A board-like screen displays the number of cases instituted and disposed of on that day, the previous day, the previous week, the ongoing year and the previous year. It also displays the Case Clearance Ratio i.e. the percentage of a number of cases disposed against the number of cases instituted during a given set of time frame. 

Judges issue interim orders during the pendency of a case. Interim orders do not decide the outcome of a case. By issuing interim orders, Judges do not adjudicate on the substantive issues raised in the petition or appeal, but instead grant immediate relief to the parties.

At the Supreme Court, one of the parties may file an ‘interlocutary application’ asking for interim relief. Prayers for interim relief may be made in both appeals and petitions before the Court. Interim relief may be in the form of a restrictive order that preserves status quo between the parties (such as halting the construction of a building on disputed land) or directing the parties to perform a specific action (such as transferring possession of property to the opposite party).

When a party ‘prays’ for interim relief, it must clearly lay out the grounds on the basis of which it is seeking such relief.

Sometimes, interim relief may be granted on an ex-parte basis. This means that the Court hears arguments only by the party praying for interim relief. In an application seeking ex-parte interim relief, the party must institute a ‘notice of motion’, stating the time and place of the application and the nature of the order sought by the party. This notice of motion must be addressed to the opposite party, and is signed by the Advocate-on-Record instituting the motion.

While separate applications for interim relief may be filed in certain cases, grounds for interim relief in Special Leave Petitions and Writ Petitions are laid out in the body of the petition.

Applications may also be made for ‘vacating’ an interim order. In such cases, the interlocutory application shall be processed within three working days from the date of filing and listed before a Bench.

What is an Interlocutory Application?

After the institution of a case, an Interlocutory Application can be filed at the Court claiming relief before the Court delivers its final decision. Interlocutory Applications may be filed for a range of reliefs, some of which include the grant of Interim (or temporary) Relief, the vacation of a stay order, or the grant of anticipatory bail.

At the Supreme Court, no Interlocutory Application can be filed without serving a copy on the Advocate-On-Record of the opposite party. When a party files an Interlocutory Application at the Court, the Application is processed within three days of its filing. It is then listed before an appropriate Bench.  

What is an Interlocutory Order?

The relief that the Court grants is delivered in the form of an ‘Interlocutory Order’. The Court issues Interlocutory Orders to prevent irreparable damage to a person or property during the pendency of proceedings. These Orders decide the intermediate or collateral matters in a case. They do not decide its outcome.

An example of an Interlocutory Order is an order by the Court to one of the parties asking them to sell perishable property (such as food items) that is the subject matter of the suit.

What is the difference between an Interlocutory Application and an Application for Interim Relief?

An application for Interim Relief is a type of Interlocutory Application. Interlocutory Applications cover a wide ambit of reliefs, out of which Interim Relief is only one type. Interlocutory Applications may be filed for relief until the suit is decided. However, Interim Relief typically lapses after a specific period of time.

What is Intervention?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “intervention” as “ stepping into or interfering in any affair”. 

In the legal context, intervention happens when a third party joins an ongoing litigation which may impact their rights in some way. The discretion to add an intervener to a case lies with the Court. The person who intervenes is called an intervener. 

Legal Provisions Related to Intervenors

An application for intervention is moved, heard, and decided upon at an earlier stage of the lawsuit. The provisions about interveners are found in the Supreme Court Rules of 2013. They are as follows:

1. A Single Judge sitting in chambers considers an application for rejecting or adding a third party as an intervenor. 
2. If the intervention is permitted, the intervenor is entitled to receive documents relied upon by the petitioners. 
3. The intervener is allowed to make oral submissions with the approval of the Court.
4. An intervener is not entitled to pay any costs that are incidental to the Court proceedings unless directed by the Court. 

Once an intervener is included in a hearing, they are considered respondents to the case. 

Difference between Intervention and Impleadment

Another closely related legal term is impleadment. Just like in an intervention, even an impleadment tries to make a non-party, a part to the suit. However, there is a crucial difference between the two concepts. In an impleadment, a necessary party is added to the suit to determine its liability or remedy. On the other hand, intervention only allows the intervenor to present its concerns to the Court. 

The party added through an impleadment is necessary to adjudicate the matter. Without such a party contending in the case, the remedy or liability cannot be decided. An intervenor however is not the original party to the case. Their contentions are not important to decide the issues of the case. 

Who can intervene and when?

Interveners can make a motion in a civil suit. They are allowed to make oral submissions on how the remedy sought by a petitioner or the judgement would affect their rights. Interveners may include non-governmental organisations or public institutions who have an interest in the subject matter of the suit. 

Intervention is not permitted in criminal cases, as these proceedings are exclusively between the accused and the prosecution.

Examples 

In Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v Union of India (2023) petitioners approached the Supreme Court seeking legal recognition for sexual minorities in India. Several religious organisations and states (Gujarat, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Andhra Pradesh) who opposed non-heterosexual marriages, were admitted as intervenors in the case.

In Union of India v Union Carbide Corporation (2023), interveners from organisations representing the Bhopal Gas Tragedy victims filed an application in the Union government’s petition seeking a top-up on the original settlement granted to victims as compensation. 

In In Re Prashant Bhushan (2020), the Supreme Court issued a suo motu proceedings for defamation against Advocate Prashant Bhushan. Social Activist Aruna Roy made an intervention application which was rejected by the registry on grounds of it being frivolous.

In Supreme Court Bar Association v Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court held that its contempt jurisdiction cannot entertain interveners as it is only between the Court and the contemner.

What is a Judgment?

Judgments conclusively decide the outcome of a case. They are judicial opinions that explain what the case is about and how and why the Supreme Court is resolving the case.

After hearing the case, Judges of the Supreme Court pronounce the judgment in open court. Before a Judgment is pronounced, notice is given to the parties in the case and their Advocates-on-Record. A decree or order is subsequently drawn up in accordance with the Judgment.

What are the Components of a Judgment?

Typically, a Judgment contains the facts of the case, the legal questions the Court is resolving, relevant provisions of the law, an analysis of previous cases, arguments of the parties, the reasoning of the Court, and its ratio or conclusive decision. The ratio decidendi of a Judgment is the principle of reasoning that determines the outcome of a case. The observations of the Court are known as the obiter dicta.

Are Judgments of the Supreme Court Binding?

As per Article 141 of the Constitution, a Judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India. This includes both principles of law detailed in the Judgment as well as the Court’s interpretation of any other Judgment of the Court. This is known as a system of precedent. The ratio decidendi of a Judgment is binding on all future cases where identical facts and issues are involved. The obiter dicta are not binding.

The judgment that binds the parties is known as the ‘Majority Judgment’, delivered by a majority of the Judges on the Bench. One or more Judges may deliver a ‘Dissent’ or ‘Dissenting Judgment’, where they detail their points of disagreement with the majority Judgment. It is only the Majority Decision of the Court that forms binding precedent.

Once a Judgment is delivered, it cannot be altered or added to, except in the case of clerical or arithmetic errors, or those involving accidental omissions.

What is Jurisprudence?

Jurisprudence is best defined as the philosophy of law. It deliberates on the many facets of the law, as well as the reasoning behind legal principles. Studying jurisprudence helps both judges and lawyers understand the essential principles girding a law. This allows them to discern how the application of the law affects different aspects of society—as well as when legal reform may be required. 

When Did It Evolve?

Although jurisprudence—in the West—has its origins in ancient Rome and Greece, modern Western jurisprudence as we know it today largely evolved during the Enlightenment (17th century onwards). 

What Are the Major Schools of Jurisprudence?

Jurisprudence is studied through the approaches laid out by various schools. Using these frameworks helps better grasp who benefits or loses from a specific law, as well as how to situate it within a specific cultural context.

Positivist School or Analytical School

The positivist school does not focus on what the law ought to be in an ideal society, but on how to best frame it given the shortcomings of society as it is. Under this school, the law is instituted by the sovereign State. The State is viewed as a necessary evil whose power is needed to facilitate the delivery of justice in an imperfect society.

Some of the major proponents of this school are Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), Thomas Erskine Holland (1835-1926), John Austin (1790-1859), John Salmond (1862-1924), H.L.A. Hart (1907-1992), and Joseph Raz (b. 1939). 

Natural School

This school examines the purpose for which a law has been enacted. Under this school, the law is not viewed as part of the larger historical evolution of society or as an arbitrary regal diktat. Instead, it is understood as the product of pure human reason—and its aim is to uplift society.

Some of the major proponents of this school are Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), Immanuel Kant (1784-1804), G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), and Ronald Dworkin (1931-2013).

Historical School

The historical school views law as the outcome of social development, steeped in changing cultural and political mores. As a result, it is primarily concerned with observing the historical evolution of laws themselves.

Some of the major proponents of this school are Montesquieu (1689-1755), Friedrich Carl von Savigny (1779-1861), and Henry Maine (1822-1888).

Sociological School

This school of thought is less concerned with the principles underlying law, and more with how the law impacts society. This school of thought seeks to balance State and individual welfare.

Some of the major proponents of this school are Auguste Comte (1798-1857), Montesquieu (1689-1755), and Herbert Spencer (1820-1903).

Realist School

The school is concerned with understanding the law as it is practised, as opposed to how it is written. the school asserts that the cultural motivations and biases of the Judge or lawyer are inseparable from their readings of the law. In short: legal realism examines human influences on the drafting and application of the law.

Some of the major proponents of this school are Karl Llewellyn (1893-1962) and Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935).

Feminist School

This school is rooted in the feminist gaze—which advocates for social, political, and economic equality between the sexes. By routing its analysis through specific social categories, feminist jurisprudence genders laws otherwise thought to be neutral—even as they were largely designed by White men. A product of second-wave feminism from the 1960s, this has led to progressive legal readings of women’s rights and violence against women.

Some of the early proponents of this school are Ann C. Scales (1952-2012), Martha Fineman (b. 1943), and Nicola Lacey (b. 1958). 

Critical Legal Theory

This expanding school seeks to interrogate the assumed ‘neutrality’ and ‘objectivity’ of the law. Developed in the 1970s, this school rests on the assumption that the law is political. 

By studying how it is shaped by internal cultural and political biases, critical legal theory aims to expose why the law often leads to unjust outcomes for specific social groups. Critical legal theory primarily draws from socialist as well as postmodernist critical theories. The latter developed post World War 2, and was popularised by the likes of Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), Michel Foucault (1926-1984), and Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). 

 Some of the early proponents of this school of jurisprudence are Robert W. Gordon (b. 1941), Duncan Kennedy (b. 1942), and Roberto Mangabeira Unger (b. 1947).

The two Memorandums of Procedures for the Supreme Court and High Courts describe the process used for the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary. The memorandums were first drawn up by the Union Government (in consultation with the judiciary) in 1999, in order to codify the judgements made in the First (1981), Second (1993), and Third Judges Cases, the last of which was pronounced in 1998. 

In 2014, the Union Government introduced the National Judicial Appointments Bill. Its constitutionality was challenged and invalidated in the Fourth Judges Case in 2015. Since then, the Memorandum has been subject of renegotiation after the Supreme Court passed an order stating that the government had to consult the CJI when proposing changes to the Memorandum.  

Tug-of-war between Collegium and Union Government 

In the Fourth Judges Case, the Court stated that the procedure of appointment as prescribed by the Memorandum of Procedure “definitely needs fine tuning,” and even stated that hearings needed to be held to streamline the judge selection process, make it transparent, and responsive to the needs of the people and society, all in the name of “avoid[ing] a fifth judges case.” This prompted the Union Government to start negotiating for more power in the judge selection process. 

In March 2017, Justice J.S. Khehar and the Supreme Court Collegium rejected the additions to the Memorandum of Procedure suggested by the Union Government, the most prominent of which gave the government the power to reject an appointment for ‘national security’ reasons. While the Collegium said that it would take into account the Union Government’s concerns, they were not ready to hand a veto to the executive. 

The Collegium also rejected other mechanisms suggested by the Union Government. These include appointing a secretary to help the Collegium screen candidates, taking candidates suggestions from High Court judges, Senior Advocates and Advocate Generals in the states and putting in place a formal process to assess the merits of candidates. So while the Memorandum of Procedure remains, it is unclear whether it is now in its final form and still effective, or whether it is still ‘pending’ as the Union Government suggests.

The Union Government insists that the Memorandum of Procedure is not in its final form and remains “pending”. The Supreme Court, however, has a different view. In a December 2022 order, the Supreme Court stated that while the government may make suggestions, the existing Memorandum of Procedure would remain in effect until such suggestions are accepted.

The Supreme Court Memorandum

While Article 124(2) states that the President of India shall appoint judges to the Supreme Court, the Article is sparse in the details of how to go about the process. The Supreme Court’s Memorandum of Procedure aims to fill that gap.

When the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court leaves, custom dictates that the next Chief Justice be the senior-most judge on the Court, “considered fit to hold the office.” Usually this just means the senior-most judge becomes Chief Justice, but the ‘fitness’ language leaves some wiggle room to recommend a different puisne judge. Indeed, non-senior-most judges have been appointed as CJIs before, but all of these instances have taken place before the MoP was first published. A particularly infamous instance of a junior justice jumping the queue was in 1977, when Justice M.H. Beg was preferred over Justice H.R. Khanna. It was also the last time the senior-most judge has been overlooked. 

When there is any other vacancy in the Supreme Court, filling it will be the task of the Supreme Court Collegium, made up of the Chief Justice and the four senior-most puisne judges on the Court. (In the instance that a successor CJI is not one of the four senior-most judges, he will still have to be made part of the Collegium.) The Collegium will also consult the senior-most Supreme Court Justice who was appointed from the High Court that the recommended judge comes from. The opinions of the Chief Justice and other judges will ultimately reach the Prime Minister by way of the Union Minister of Law, Justice, and Company Affairs. The Prime Minister is then expected to advise the President.

The Memorandum of Procedure does not contain any language that contemplates the President disagreeing with the appointment. Likewise, there is nothing in the document that directly says that the President is bound to the Collegium’s recommendation.

However, in the Third Judges Case, the Court said that the government is not bound when the recommendations are outside the “norms and requirements” of the consultation (referring to Memorandum of Procedure). The corollary of this may mean that the executive is bound to accept the recommendation if it fulfills the formal steps laid down in the Memorandum. 

The High Court Memorandum

Article 217 governs the process of appointing High Court Justices, noting that the decision rests with the President of India. Like the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, the gaps in the process of filling High Court seats are filled by a Memorandum of Procedure, which is different from the one relating to Supreme Court appointments.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, along with the Court’s two senior-most judges, are the ones entrusted with recommending a puisne judge of a High Court be elevated to Chief Justice of another High Court. This recommendation has to be based on inter-se seniority of puisne judges within their own High Courts—if a judge is senior enough to be considered for the Chief’s role in their ‘home’ High Court, they can be considered for the Chief’s post in other High Courts. 

The Memorandum states that the Government has decided, “as a matter of policy” and in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, to appoint Chief Justices of all High Courts “from outside”.This means that, as a norm, a Chief Justice vacancy in a High Court must be filled by an eligible judge from a different High Court. But the Memorandum also carves out an exception—if a judge whose name is being considered has only a year or less left before his retirement, he may be considered for appointment as Chief Justice of their own court if there is a vacancy.

The Chief Justice of India is also required to consult with that senior-most Supreme Court judge who is “conversant with the affairs” of the concerned High Court. This recommendation is then sent to the Union Minister of Law, Justice, and Company Affairs, who will then get the opinion of the state government. The Law Minister will then forward the complete file to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will use the Court’s recommendation and the State government’s opinion to advise the President on the best course of action.

The Supreme Court’s role in the appointment of permanent judges to High Courts is more limited, as the process begins with the Chief Justice of the High Court itself. This recommendation is first sent to the Governor of the state, which is then sent to the Union Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. The Union Minister independently judges the recommendation. The recommendation is then assessed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, along with the two senior-most justices of the Court. 

After taking into account the opinion of the Chief Justice of the High Court, and the opinions of the Supreme Court judges “conversant with the affairs” of that High Court, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will send his recommendation back to the Union Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, who will then send the recommendation to the Prime Minister, who will then advise the President on the best course of action. 

The Registry of the Supreme Court is responsible for preparing an “Office Report”. The document provides an overview of the key details of a matter and summarises the current status of the case. 

An Office Report typically contains:

1. The type of list in which a case was listed i.e. whether it was in the supplementary list or advance list
2. The court number in which it was listed
3. The item number assigned to is on the causelist 
4. The next date of hearing
5. Petition number of the lead matter, followed by details of related applications and petitions
6. The Cause title, which is the official name given to that case
7. A report on the case

The Office Report incorporates excerpts from the latest court orders, details of the counsel who argued in the last hearing, and updates on parties’ compliance with court directions. This helps judges, parties, and interested persons to track the progress of the case, especially if it has been adjourned for several months. 

Unlike the Record of Proceedings—which only records hearing details for a particular date—the Office Report includes additional case information, such as whether written submissions or affidavits have been filed, and by whom. This helps counsel and us Court observers stay informed about the filings and documents submitted by the other side.

After it is prepared by the Registry, the Office Report is shared with the Advocates-on-Record in the case. 

Office Reports are publicly available on the Supreme Court of India’s website. Users can access them by entering the case number in the Case Status section.

Below are samples of Office Reports in two recent cases: 

1. Remission of  convicts in the Bilkis Bano case
2. State’s power to tax mines and minerals

What Is An Order?

An order, as per Section 2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), refers to a formal decision by a Civil Court that is not a decree. 

A decree, as per S. 2(2) of the CPC refers to a formal expression of adjudication by the Court that decides the rights of those parties involved in the suit. A decree can either be preliminary; or issued when further proceedings are required to determine the suit’s outcome; or final, after which the Court disposes of the suit.

Unlike a decree, an order does not conclusively establish the rights of the parties. That is, it does not imply that the suit has been closed. It is simply a directive issued towards either of the parties. It can arise in a suit upon presentation of a complaint by one of the contesting parties.

Classes of Orders

Interim or Interlocutory Orders

Judges issue interim orders while the case is still pending before the Court. These grant immediate relief to the contesting parties regarding issues that may have arisen while the case is being tried. They settle lesser issues as they emerge from the proceedings. 

Interim orders do not affect the outcomes of the case itself, as the Judge does not adjudicate on the issues raised in the appeal. For example, assume a construction company wants to build a mall on land nearby a residential area. The residents approach the Court to stop the construction process, in the fear that it will affect the surrounding environment and their quality of life. In this case, before the Court hears the case and comes to a verdict on it, the residents can request it to grant interim relief to prevent the construction from beginning. If the relief is granted the construction will stop for the duration of the proceedings—whether it will continue or not after the proceedings depends on the Court’s final verdict in this case.   

Visit SCO’s Procedure page for more information on Interim Orders.

Final Orders

The final order is that which adjudicates the verdict of the suit, after which the suit is disposed of. This is the same as a judgment.

Types of Orders

There are two broad types of orders: appealable and other orders.

Appealable orders are those against which a party can file an appeal. As per S. 104 of the CPC, orders that determine costs payable by parties; decide matters of public nuisance; on petitions for arrest or injunction based on insufficient grounds; or orders that impose a fine or arrest, can be appealed by the parties. Further, a party may also appeal orders where the Court has decided that the party approached the wrong forum to resolve their dispute. Such appeals cannot be further appealed.  

As per S. 105 of the CPC, other orders are those orders made by a Court exercising its jurisdiction that cannot be appealed, unless explicitly allowed in the CPC.

The Registrar is one of the senior officers of the Supreme Court, responsible for its administration. Section 2(n) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 defines a Registrar as ‘The Registrar of the Court and also includes Additional Registrars.’ The Supreme Court Handbook on Practice & Procedure, 2017 also defines the term in the same manner. The Rules and the Handbook prescribe the roles, responsibilities, and powers of the Registrar. 

The Supreme Court Registry is broken down into different departments, each led by a Registrar. Some of these departments are the Department of Judicial Listing, Judicial Administration, Courts & Buildings, etc. Apart from that, the Chief Justice of India can also appoint an Officer on Special Duty to discharge the functions of a Registrar. There are also Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars who are subordinate to the Registrar. Apart from that, Additional Registrar’s are also appointed.

The registrar is the next-in-line officer of the Registry, after the Secretary General of the Supreme Court. The Secretary-General is considered the head of the Supreme Court Registry. According to the Organisation Chart of the Supreme Court, the Registrar works as per directions of the Secretary-General. When the Secretary-General is unavailable, the Registrar takes up their role. 

Appointment of Registrar

The Registrar is appointed by the Chief Justice of India under the Supreme Court Officer and Servants (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1961. Candidates must fulfill the following criteria:  

1. A law degree from any University recognised by the Bar Council of India or a State Bar Council. 
2. The candidate must have an experience of three years in State Judicial Service to be appointed in the Supreme Court through deputation or transfer from a High Court. 
3. An Additional Registrar must have a three-year experience to be promoted to the post of Registrar in the Supreme Court. 

Authority of Registrar: The powers and responsibilities

The Registrar holds administrative and quasi-judicial responsibilities which are discharged before a case is registered and after a case is heard and disposed of by the court. 

Some of the key responsibilities of the Registrar would be the following:

• The Registrar prepares the ‘subject-wise roster’ under the directions of the CJI. The subject-wise roster assigns subject categories to the 16 seniormost judges of the Court. If an instituted case falls within that category, the case is allocated to that judge.  

• The Registrar prepares the daily cause list i.e. the list of cases that will be heard by the Court each day. They also prepare a terminal list which includes all regular matters that will be heard in a term. 

• The Registrar may consider requests and applications from parties, such as withdrawing an appeal, discovery and inspection of documents submitted in a case. The Supreme Court Rules list 30 such applications that can be made to the Registrar. 

• The Registrar is permitted to scrutinise petitions and appeals filed in the Supreme Court. They also have the liberty to refuse a petition on grounds of it being frivolous, scandalous, and without reasonable cause. 

• The Registrar can direct a party to cure defects in a plaint, petition or appeal within 28 days. If these defects are not cured, they become grounds for rejection of the petition. If the petition is without any defects, a case number is allotted to the petition or appeal and is then displayed on the cause list. 

• The Registrar fixes the date of hearing of appeals, petitions or other proceedings and issue notices. 

• The Registrar signs every decree/order/direction issued by the court. 

• The Registrar places any important and sensitive case’ filed in the court before the CJI. The phrase ‘important’ and ‘sensitive case’ is not defined in the Rules and the Handbook. 

Review petition – Features and Function

A review petition is filed before the Supreme Court when a party asks the Court to decide the validity of an earlier Order or Judgment by the Supreme Court itself. When a review petition is accepted, a binding decision of the SC can be reversed or modified. 

Usually, the SC is asked to decide cases on ‘appeal’, when a party challenges a decision of a lower court, such as a District Court or a High Court. However, the grounds for accepting a review petition are more limited than the grounds of an appeal. In civil matters, the SC may review a case when there is an ‘error apparent on the face of the record’, such as a mistake regarding the law or the facts or ‘for any other sufficient reason’. In criminal cases, the grounds for review are only allowed in cases where there is an apparent error. 

When a Judgment or Order is delivered by the SC the party will receive a copy. From the date that they receive the copy of the Judgment or Order, they may file a review petition within 30 days. 

What does a Review Petition Contain?

A review petition must begin by providing the Court with information about the petitioners, the respondents. Next, it must give details of the Order or Judgment which it is asking the Court to ‘review’. The petition must be accompanied by a certificate from the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) (a lawyer who is permitted to argue in the SC) filing the review. The AoR will certify that it is the first application for review and that it is based on grounds permissible under the Supreme Court Rules.

The grounds for the petition need to be clearly laid out in its contents. The petition must also contain brief facts of the case explaining how the Order or Judgment is affecting one’s rights.

Usually, the petition is sent to the same Bench which pronounced the Judgment that is being challenged. For example, the SC delivered the Judgement in the Sabarimala Temple Entry case in September 2018, and ruled that the temple’s exclusion of women from entry was unconstitutional. Over 50 review petitions were filed against the Judgment in the following month. In November 2018 the same 5-Judge Bench that decided the Sabarimala Temple Entry case heard the review petitions as well. In November 2019, the Majority (in a 3:2 split) delivered a Judgment referring the case to a larger 9-Judge Bench, arguing that there were large constitutional questions to be answered. Justices Chandrachud and Nariman, who dissented, stated that the Court was meant to consider review petitions only on the grounds of factual or legal error.

What is the Source of the Supreme Court’s Power to Review Judgments?

Article 137 of the Constitution of India, 1950 permits the Supreme Court to review Judgments or Orders that the Court has itself delivered. Article 145 states that the Supreme Court may make rules specifying the grounds for reviewing a Judgment or Order. However, the Article further provides that any laws enacted by Parliament can override these rules. For example, on June 28th 2021 the SC rejected a review petition that sought reconsideration of the Court’s decision in the Maratha Reservations case, where it was held that States did not have the power to identify backward classes for the purposes of providing reservations. In August 2021, Parliament enacted The Constitution (One-Hundred and Fifth) Amendment Act, 2021 to restore States’ powers to identify backward classes. 

A review petition can be filed under Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The rules were created by the SC using the powers granted by Article 145. The rules specify that the grounds for accepting a review petition in civil cases are limited to those mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.  Under the Code the SC may review a case when there is an ‘error apparent on the face of the record’ such as a mistake regarding the law or the facts, or ‘for any other sufficient reason’. 

The rules limit the grounds for review even further for criminal cases, restricting it to instances where there is an ‘error apparent on the face of the record’. 

Prominent cases that involved Review Petitions:

In 2013 a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to undergraduate and postgraduate medical/dental courses was unconstitutional. The Union Government filed a review petition after the Judgment was delivered. In 2016, the SC accepted the review petition and overturned their 2013 decision, allowing the Union to administer NEET for admission to undergraduate and postgraduate medical and dentistry programmes.

In 2011 the SC upheld the conviction and death sentence given to Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist Mohammad Arif for his role in the Red Fort attack in 2000 where three people were killed including two army jawans. He was convicted and sentenced to death by a Sessions Court, which was upheld by the Delhi High Court,. However, in September 2014 a Constitution Bench of the SC in Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v The Reg. Supreme Court of India held that death row prisoners had a right to have their review petitions heard orally in open court by a 3-Judge Bench. Mohd. Arif’s review petition challenging his death sentence was allowed in 2016. 

The Supreme Court and lower courts may ask for and accept sensitive and confidential information from government agencies or other persons in ‘sealed covers’. These envelopes can be accessed only by Judges. The contents of sealed covers in court proceedings are inaccessible to the other parties to the case. The practice of Judges asking for evidence in sealed covers and making decisions based on such evidence is known as ‘sealed cover jurisprudence’.

When are sealed covers used?

Sealed covers are typically used when the information submitted to the Court by government agencies or by other persons is sensitive and confidential. In these situations, the Court requests information in sealed covers to ensure ‘complete justice’. This ensures that the investigation is unaffected and that there is no adverse impact on the party submitting the information.

Where Does the Court Derive the Power to Ask for ‘Sealed Covers’?

Order XIII Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, states that no person has the right to access the information contained in a sealed cover prepared under the directions of the Chief Justice or the Court. Only with the permission of the Chief Justice and the Court can persons access the sealed cover.

What is a Special Investigation Team (SIT)?

SITs are bodies specifically constituted to investigate a specific crime. Unlike other investigative agencies or teams, SITs usually investigate severe crimes or crimes that carry serious allegations. SITs mostly include officers from Indian law enforcement agencies selected on the basis of their merits and experience at the discretion of the authority composing the SIT.

Who can appoint an SIT? 

Authorities that appoint an SIT are namely the Supreme Court of India, Union Government and State Government. The Supreme Court can appoint one after overseeing the merits and submissions of a case. If the Court believes that the investigation was biassed or unfair, it has the discretion to appoint an SIT. Similarly, the Union and State governments can also set up such teams to probe cases that need to be reinvestigated or important matters that need to be investigated thoroughly. High Courts can form SIT as well. 

What is their responsibility? 

SITs are formed to ensure a fair investigation. A wide variety of crimes, such as those that may affect the country at large, serious crimes or financial crimes, are usually placed in the hands of an SIT.  For example, SITs were formed for the investigation of the anti-sikh riots of 1984, the 2002 Gujarat riots, fake vaccines  during Covid-19, and as an oversight body to monitor tax evasion. These crimes are usually handed over to the SIT after there are reasons to believe that the police were incapable of unbiased and competent investigation. 

SITs’ responsibilities and powers are determined by the authority forming them. In some cases, the SIT may be asked to initiate proceedings and prosecute certain cases as well. The powers that are exercised by the SITs during the course of their investigation are usually clarified by the authority appointing them. There is no definitive list of powers and responsibilities that an SIT holds. SITs are expected to provide regular updates on the investigation to the authorities that composed them. This way the authority gets to supervise all instances of the investigation. It is a form of investigation with oversight that guarantees fairness. 

By the end of the investigation, the SIT has to submit a report. The report is a detailed account of their investigation. It includes everything that is required to be known including investigation procedure, interviews, discovered evidence, investigative methodology, findings etc. The report concludes the role of the SIT. The report can be used by the authorities at their discretion. The report can be accepted or rejected by the authority. 

Notable Examples 

In Ram Jethmalani v Union of India, the petitioners stated that the Government of India failed in tackling corruption, prosecuting entities who indulged in tax evasion and offshore storage of funds. The Court favoured the petitioners and acknowledged the need of an SIT to investigate the allegations. The results of this SIT report were kept in seal covers and not revealed to the petitioners. 

In National Human Rights Commission v State of Gujarat the Supreme Court had directed the Gujarat Government to form an SIT to investigate the 2002 Gujarat Riots. The SIT was also instructed to investigate claims made by Mrs. Zakia Jafri in the case. The SIT filed a report and closed the investigation granting a ‘clean chit’ to the 63 accused, including then Chief Minister Narendra Modi. This report was also challenged by Mrs. Jafri in the Supreme Court. On June 24th, 2022 the Supreme Court upheld the report made by the SIT. The SIT is still actively investigating the Gujarat Riots case. 

The Uttar Pradesh Government had set up an SIT to probe into the Kanpur violence involving gangster Vikas Dubey. 8 police personnel were killed in the Kanpur violence allegedly at the hands of Vikas Dubey. Vikas Dubey was also killed two days later by the police when he allegedly attempted to escape. The SIT was tasked to find information and links between the gangster and the police, illegal wealth, weaponry, call detail records, property, etc. The SIT submitted a report where a link was found between Vikas Dubey and the police. The report also found details on police officials who helped Vikas Dubey and his gang in all his criminal activities. It further recommended that there should be a probe in the property owned by Dubey.

What is a Stay Order?

A Stay Order is formally known as a temporary injunction. 

An injunction is issued by a Court in the form of an Order. It directs a party to the suit to either perform a certain action or to refrain from performing an action. Injunctions are meant to offer relief to an injured party. They are to be mandatorily followed. They can be applied for by both the plaintiff and defendant. They cannot be targeted against third parties, the Court, or any judicial officer.

There are two types of injunctions: permanent and temporary.

A permanent injunction permanently prohibits the action, even after the Judgment is passed. It is ordered after hearing the arguments put forth by the parties to a suit. A permanent injunction is a type of decree.

A temporary injunction, or Stay Order, temporarily prevents a party from performing a certain kind of act. It can be in force either until the Court issues a fresh order, or until the suit is disposed of. The Court is to always notify the opposing party of the injured party’s Stay Order application. 

What Does A Stay Order Look Like?

Suppose a city’s corporation starts dumping garbage in a residential area without notice. The residents, concerned about the effects this has on the environment and their quality of life, file a case at the Court seeking damages. 

The proceedings are now ongoing. However, the residents realise the Court will take time to deliver a verdict—the case could carry on for months or even years. If the garbage dumping continues unabated for as long as the case is tried, the environment and the living standards of the residents would further deteriorate. 

So, the residents approach the Court requesting a temporary injunction of a specific kind. To protect their health and community, they request the Court to order the corporation to halt the dumping until it reaches a verdict. 

After considering the application, the Court grants the Stay Order. Bound by the Court, the corporation stops the dumping until the case is closed.

When Is A Stay Order Granted?

In 2019, the Supreme Court outlined three aspects it considers before granting a Stay Order. The first is that the Order should not benefit the party violating the law. The second is that the Order should not harm or injure any of the parties. The third is that there should be a prima facie case to grant the Stay Order.  

More specifically, Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 specifies the nature of temporary injunctions in India, as well as the consequences of breaching them. A Stay Order may be granted if any property relevant to the suit is in danger of being damaged or sold by one of the parties, if the defendant plans to destroy or dispose of their property in order to defraud their creditors, or if the defendant seeks to cause injury to either the plaintiff or the disputed property.   

The Court may also grant Stay Orders of a specific duration to restrain the defendant from continuing to breach a contract or commit injuries against a plaintiff. These Orders can be requested by the plaintiff at any point of the suit, whether before or after a Judgment is arrived at. A Stay Order can be directed towards a corporation body to restrain its actions—in such a case, the order is binding on all members and employees of the organisation.

If requested by a party to the suit, the Court has the power to order the interim sale of a property. On application by any party to a suit, the Court may also order the detention or inspection of property related to the suit. 

What Happens If A Stay Order is Breached?

Breaching specific Stay Orders allows the Court to attach the property of the offender. Disobeying a stay order may also result in a person being detained in civil prison. Any attachment of property cannot be enforced for longer than a year. If the Order is still being breached at the end of the period, the Court may sell the attached property.

The Supreme Court Collegium is a body comprising the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the top court. This five-member Collegium recommends judges for appointment to the Supreme Court. 

For appointments and transfers in the High Courts, the Supreme Court Collegium comprises the Chief Justice and two senior-most judges of the top Court. 

How does the Collegium work?

When a vacancy arises in one of the High Courts or the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court Collegium assembles to recommend names of judges for elevation or transfer. The parameters to be considered by the Collegium are not mandated or codified. However, from recent Collegium resolutions that are made public, we know that they judges consider the following criteria to make their recommendation: 

1. The seniority of the judges; 
2. Merit as demonstrated by the judgments and performance of the judges; 
3. Integrity;
4. The need to ensure diversity at the Supreme Court in terms of region, gender and community; and
5. The need for inclusion of marginalised and backward segments of the community

Typically, for appointments to the Supreme Court, the Collegium considers Chief Justices and senior judges of the various High Courts. Past appointments indicate that the primary factor is seniority but this principle is sometimes set aside to ensure diversity at the bench. Additionally, the Collegium may also recommend senior lawyers to be elevated to the bench directly from the bar. Members of the Collegium must record their opinions in writing and file it. These opinions are not made available to the public. If any members of the Collegium seek another person’s views in order to arrive at a decision, the consultation between the judge and the other person need not be in writing, but the judge who is eliciting the opinion must make a memorandum of the substance of such opinion and add it to the file. 

Where there is a difference of opinion amongst the members of the Collegium, the majority view is considered. Once the recommended names are agreed upon by the Collegium, they pass a resolution. According to the Memorandum of Procedure, once the Collegium sends the recommendation to the Law Minister, they forward it to the Prime Minister to advise the President. The Collegium resolutions are publicly available on the Supreme Court’s website. 

The President of India notifies the appointments or transfers of judges to the higher judiciary. In case an appointment is not notified, or if the executive refuses to appoint a particular candidate, the Collegium may reiterate its recommendation. The Court has in several orders and judgements held that once reiterated, Collegium recommendations must be notified by the government. 

What is the constitutional basis for appointment of judges to the higher judiciary?

Article 124 of the Constitution states that the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court is done by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The CJI is to be consulted in all appointments, except his or her own. The unwritten convention is that the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court becomes the Chief Justice and is appointed by the President. This convention has been overlooked three times in the Court’s history (as of the time of writing, India has had 50 Chief Justices in all).

Article 217 states that appointments of High Court judges must be made by the President after consultation with the CJI. The Chief Justice of the High Court concerned, and the Supreme Court judges “conversant” with the affairs of the High Court are also consulted.

The Constitution does not create a Collegium or make any reference to it. The Collegium system evolved through Supreme Court decisions. The history of the evolution of the Collegium system can be best understood through decisions in what are known as the four Judges Cases—the first of these was pronounced in 1981 and the fourth one was in 2015.

Evolution of the Collegium System 

In S.P. Gupta v President of India (1981), the First Judges Case, a seven-judge Constitution Bench held that the President holds the final authority in appointing judges, and is not bound by the advice of consulted judges. The judgement made it clear that the word “consultation” under Article 124 does not mean “concurrence.”

However, this was overruled in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another v Union of India (1993), the Second Judges Case. In this case, a nine-judge Constitution Bench introduced the Collegium System for appointing and transferring judges in the higher judiciary. This system granted primacy to the Chief Justice of India in matters of appointment and transfer. 

In 1998, the President referred to the Supreme Court a question on the Collegium system. In the Third Judges Case, the Court reaffirmed its 1993 decision with modifications. Solidifying the Collegium’s role in the appointment process, this case stipulated that the CJI and their four senior-most colleagues should make recommendations for appointments. The judgement specifically states that if the CJI does not comply with the “norms and requirements” of the consultation, the recommendation would not be “binding” upon the Government. The corollary of this declaration would be that any recommendation that is made by the Collegium after following the proper procedure (laid down in a Memorandum of Procedure—more on this below) would be binding on the Government. 

In 2014, the Parliament approved the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, which established a National Judicial Appointments Commission to replace the Collegium system. The NJAC was meant to consist of the CJI, two senior-most judges, the Union Law minister and two “eminent persons” who would be nominated by the CJI, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. One of the two eminent persons would be from the following underrepresented communities: Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, religious minorities, or women. 

In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record -Association and another v Union of India (2015), or the Fourth Judges Case, a five-judge Constitution Bench struck down the 99th Amendment as unconstitutional. This ruling upheld the Collegium System, ensuring the judiciary’s autonomy in appointing and transferring judges.

Controversy surrounding the Collegium system

The Collegium system has been a point of contention between the judiciary and executive since its inception. The executive has been sceptical of the Collegium system for the lack of transparency, accountability and representation, allowing a small group of judges to monopolise appointments. The Court, on its part, has maintained that the system ensures judicial independence and shields the appointment process from executive interference.

This tussle has escalated in the past decade. Kiren Rijiju, the law minister in the NDA government from July 2021 to May 2023, was often in the news for publicly criticising the Collegium system. Several times in the last few years, the Court has pulled up the Union for delays in notifying Collegium recommendations. 

The question on the finalisation of the Memorandum of Procedure for the appointment of judges also remains in limbo. The MoP is the document that crystallises the Collegium-led appointment process that has been established and clarified by the Court in the Second, Third and Fourth Judges cases. While the Supreme Court has stated that the current MoP is final, the Union claims that it is still being finalised. On assuming office as Law Minister in the Bharatiya Janata Party-led NDA government’s third term, Arjun Ram Meghwal expressed his desire to find a solution to the MoP issue soon. 

Who is the Master of the Roster? 

The Chief Justice of India is referred to as the Master of the Roster. As Master of the Roster, the CJI has the administrative power to create benches and assign cases to judges. The process of assigning benches and designating cases to them is called rostering. 

Since 2018, rostering is usually done based on a subject wise sequence—PILs, tax law, service law etc. However, the CJI has the power to constitute Special Benches to resolve specific cases The CJI can also constitute a large bench with five or more judges to deal with substantive questions on the law. These larger benches are known as Constitution Benches.

Evolution of the Master of the Roster 

When it was first established, the Supreme Court consisted of only eight judges. They sat together to hear all cases and therefore, the Chief did not have to create benches. 

Over the years, with an increase in the workload the number of judges also increased. With this came the necessity to constitute smaller benches, pushing the CJI to exercise his power as Master of the Roster and assign cases to the smaller benches. This also included the creation of larger Constitution Benches when required.

Earlier, rostering was not public knowledge. In 2018, following a controversy (explained below), then Chief Justice Dipak Misha made the Supreme Court’s roster public. Since then, the roster is publicly available on the Supreme Court website. 

Controversy surrounding the Master of the Roster

On 12 January 2018, Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph held a press conference to criticise then Chief Justice Dipak Misra. They claimed that CJI Misra was assigning cases to benches arbitrarily. 

The four judges also stated that being the “Master of the Roster” did not confer the Chief Justice with a superior administrative authority. Rather, they said that the Chief Justice is merely “the first among equals”. 

They further explained that the Chief was responsible for ensuring the “disciplined and efficient transaction of business”. As such, the Chief Justice could not “arrogate to [himself] the authority to deal with and pronounce upon matters which ought to be heard by appropriate benches”.

A month after the press conference, Chief Justice Dipak Mishra responded by introducing a subject-wise roster system. His goal was to introduce a transparent, rule-bound system for assigning cases. The system came into effect on 5 February 2018. 

In addition to introducing the subject-wise roster system, the Court also heard a petition filed by Former Union Law Minister Shanti Bhushan seeking the Chief Justice to consult with his or her seniormost colleagues when determining the roster. A Bench comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan rejected the plea but re-affirmed that the Chief Justice is only ‘the first among equals’. 

The Court continues to follow the subject-wise roster system.

Why file a Transfer Petition?

When a party wants to transfer their case from one court to another, a transfer petition is filed before the Supreme Court (SC). Two types of transfer petitions may be filed. First, a transfer between courts at the same level within a State or across States. These transfers may be between High Courts (HC) or subordinate courts. Second, a transfer from High Courts to the Supreme Court.

The party who wants to transfer their case must file a petition to the SC disclosing relevant grounds including, prejudice in the original jurisdiction, threat to the party’s life, family issues, lack of income and medical issues.

What Should a Transfer Petition Include?

A transfer petition begins with a short synopsis of the reasons for a transfer. The main body contains the facts of the case and the grounds for transfer explained in greater detail. It must also mention the court to which the party seeks a transfer.

The petition can also include a request for interim relief. For example, the party can request a stay on the current proceedings until the Court decides whether to transfer the case. Finally, the party that is filing the transfer petition must inform the other parties in the case.

What are the Provisions for Transferring Cases?

The Supreme Court’s power to transfer cases comes from three sources. They are Article 139A of the Constitution of India, 1950, the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Supreme Court’s power to transfer cases  was  introduced into the Constitution and relevant statutes between 1976 and 1977.

The Constitution

There are two kinds of transfer under Article 139A of the Constitution.

The first kind of transfer is when there are multiple cases involving the same question of law before the SC and one or more HCs. The Supreme Court can transfer the cases to itself in order to interpret the law. The cases then go back to the HC, where based on the SC’s interpretation, they are decided. This is also applicable in cases where similar questions are posed in front of two or more High Courts.

The second kind of transfer is when the Supreme Court transfers any proceedings from one High Court to another, ‘in the interests of justice’. In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v Rani Jethmalani (1978), the Court clarified what this meant. Rani Jethmalani, a lawyer, had accused Maneka Gandhi, editor of ‘Surya’, of defamation. The case was being heard in the Bombay High Court, where the magazine was published. A transfer was sought to Delhi, since both parties were there. The Court held that a transfer between High Courts could not be for ‘relative convenience’. They rejected the transfer petition as it wasn’t compelling from the perspective of ‘public justice’.

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908

The Supreme Court has the power to transfer any proceedings from the High Court or any other civil court of one state to another under s 25 of the CPC. A majority of cases that seek a transfer under this provision are matrimonial disputes. For example, in Krishna Veni Nigam v Harish Nigam (2017), the wife had separated from her husband because of ill-treatment and moved to Hyderabad. The husband filed for divorce in Jabalpur. Since the wife was living alone with her minor daughter, she sought a transfer. Because of the wife’s financial and physical difficulties in travelling to Jabalpur, the Court transferred the case to Jabalpur.

Additionally, a petition may be filed by a party who has a reasonable apprehension that they may not get justice in the court where their case is being heard. A transfer petition may also be filed to avoid unnecessary expenses for either of the parties. Finally, a transfer may be filed if the case involves  important questions of the law or public interest.

The Criminal Procedure Code, 1978

The Supreme Court can transfer criminal cases between High Courts or other criminal courts under s 406 of the CrPC where a transfer is ‘expedient for the ends of justice’.

In Abdul Nazar Madani v State of Tamil Nadu (2000), the SC held that there are ‘no hard and fast rules’ when deciding what cases should be transferred. The Court can apply its discretion to decide what is ‘expedient for the ends of justice’. When the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Jayalalitha was being prosecuted, this provision was invoked to transfer the case from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution was not being conducted in a fair manner because the prosecution in Tamil Nadu was influenced by political factors.

What Are Vacation Benches?

The Supreme Court of India takes multiple breaks in a year—during summer, winter, and on other religious holidays. Summer breaks are approximately held for seven weeks and usually last from mid-May up to the first week of July. The Court also takes week-long breaks for Dussehra and Diwali, as well as for Christmas during the last two weeks of December.

During these vacation periods, the Chief Justice of India may appoint single Judges or constitute special Benches called Vacation Benches to hear ‘matters of urgent nature’ or to clear the Court’s backlog.

A Vacation Judge may sit on their own, or a Division Bench may be constituted. Vacation Benches are usually decided based on the availability of Judges and not according to seniority.

The Origins of Vacation Benches

Vacation Benches can be traced back to the colonial era. British Judges sailed back home for respite from the Indian summer heat and returned only in the monsoon months. During this break, it was an accepted practice to mail Judgments to India instead of physically sitting in Court. Today, vacations are viewed as a necessary break for not just lawyers and Judges, but for the dispensation of justice as well.

When Do Vacation Benches Sit?

Six Vacation Benches are usually constituted during the summer vacation, each comprising of no more than two Judges and sitting for six days at a time. Division Benches sit regularly during the summer vacation to hear urgent admission matters as well as old regular hearing matters identified as urgent by the Supreme Court Registry. 

The Vacation Judge sitting by themselves exercises all the powers of a Judge in Chambers, as well as all the powers of the Court with respect to matters specified in Order VI Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules.

Nature of Matters

The cases heard by Vacation Benches usually pertain to the award of the death penalty, habeas corpus or an appeal against wrongful imprisonment, human rights violations, elections, bail, and evictions. However, Vacation Benches do not hear matters involving a substantial interpretation of the Constitution. The Chief Justice may also constitute a Bench of any composition as well as direct a particular case or class of cases to be listed before a particular Bench.

Procedure

Litigants may approach the Court with their pleas, and if the Court ascertains that these pleas are indeed urgent, the Vacation Bench will hear the case on merits.

The Registrar prepares, publishes, and ports the Advance List of such cases to the Supreme Court website. No case is listed for regular hearing during vacation unless it has been certified by the Registrar. The listing of all urgent matters during vacation is regulated by the Registrar.

The Court also appoints a Vacation Officer for each month of the year. Their contact details are ported to the Court website for the purpose of hearing urgent matters on Saturdays, holidays or after Court hours on working days.

What is a written submission?

Written submissions are documents submitted to the court prior to a hearing. They contain a framework of a party’s arguments, details of relevant facts, discussions of the law in question and reasoning for a party’s plea. Written submissions accompany oral arguments and aid the Court in understanding a party’s view on an issue. 

Written submissions contain details and arguments of the entire scope of the case. Arguments made in Court however, may not always cover all the arguments listed in the written submissions. The mis-match between the oral and written submissions is seen sometimes when a case has numerous interlocutory applications. In the interest of saving time, the Court requests some parties to submit only the written submissions. When writing a judgement, judges consider submissions made in Court as well as the written submissions.

Elements of written submissions

A written submission must first indicate the Court before which a party has filed the case, the constitutional provision under which the party is appearing before the Court, and the names of the parties. The submission often has an index (a table of contents) with page numbers.

The submission then begins with a brief on events and dates. 

The submission must bifurcate admitted and disputed facts, from the issues and facts mentioned in the complaint. 

Denied facts must be accompanied with reasoning and laws that are in favour of such denial. 

The relevant laws and judgements cited are organised in chronological order of reference. A brief description of relevant facts of the case and the relevant paragraphs of judgement may be added. 

Contentions of the opposing parties are addressed in these submissions. . 

Parties must also attach relevant documents and materials with the written submission. 

Supreme Court guidelines on written submissions

As part of its drive towards paperless courts and digitisation of processes, in August 2023, the Supreme Court released guidelines for written submissions in Constitution Bench cases. 

In five, seven and nine-judge Bench cases, the Court requires documents to be submitted in five volumes. 

1. Volume I – Written Submissions of Petitioners/Appellants 
2. Volume II – Written Submissions of the Respondents: 
3. Volume III – Documents: This will include pleadings, affidavits and orders which are a part of the record but compiled for convenience of reference. 
4. Volume IV – Statutory enactments and research material: This shall comprise of statutes, rules, regulations, legislative debates, report of Commissions and other material such as research articles. 
5. Volume V – Precedents

The guidelines state that written submissions must be in an electronic form. It prescribes a format with a Times New Roman font at 12.5 font size. The PDF document must contain 2.54 cm on all sides, and must have number 2 setting for line spacing. The PDF must be bookmarked and the index must be hyperlinked to take the reader to the relevant section of the document. 

Further, the written submissions must include the name of the lawyers and the parties for whom they are appearing for. 

The written submissions have to be submitted with other documents such as pleadings, documents, relevant research material, statutes, and judgements in a chronological order.

Counsel can provide additional written submissions if the Supreme Court permits it. 

The Court also stipulates that arguing counsel and Senior Advocates must inform the nodal counsel about the tentative time they require for their oral arguments. This information must come at least five days before the hearing begins. 

Illustration of written submissions

Aligarh Muslim University Minority Status: Written Submissions by Attorney General R. Venkataramani

States power to tax mines and minerals: Written Submissions by Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi

Aligarh Muslim University Minority Status: Written Rejoinder Submissions by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal