Supreme Court of India

Introduction

If you've opened five different websites trying to build one solid set of notes on the Supreme Court of India, you already know the problem — everyone repeats the same ten bullet points about Article 124 and calls it a day. This one is built differently. It's meant to be the only page you need open while you make your notes, whether you're prepping for UPSC Mains, an SSC GK section, or a judiciary exam that wants you to actually understand a judgment, not just recall its name.

Let's get into it.

What Is the Supreme Court of India?

The Supreme Court of India is the apex judicial body of the country — the final court of appeal, the guardian of the Constitution, and the institution holding the power of judicial review. In plain terms: whatever the Supreme Court says the Constitution means, that's what it means, until the Court itself changes its mind or Parliament amends the Constitution in a way the Court accepts as valid.

It was established on January 28, 1950, two days after the Constitution came into force, and sits in New Delhi under Article 130 (though the Chief Justice can, with presidential approval, direct it to sit elsewhere — something that's never actually happened).

Exam Notes:

Constitution came into force: 26 January 1950. Supreme Court's first sitting: 28 January 1950. These two dates get mixed up constantly in Prelims-style questions — don't lose an easy mark here.
As of September 2026, the sanctioned strength of the Court is 34 judges including the CJI, and the current Chief Justice of India is Justice Surya Kant, the 53rd CJI, who took office on 24 November 2025.

483 Concepts Students Know — But Still Get Wrong

History and Evolution of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court didn't appear out of nowhere in 1950 — it's the end point of a nearly 180-year colonial legal experiment.

It starts with the Regulating Act of 1773, which set up the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta — a court of record with the power to try criminal and civil cases across Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. King George III followed this up by establishing similar Supreme Courts at Madras (1800) and Bombay (1823).

Then came the Indian High Courts Act, 1861, which scrapped all three of those Supreme Courts (along with the Sadar Adalats) and replaced them with High Courts. These High Courts ran the show as the highest judicial authorities in the country until the Government of India Act, 1935 created the Federal Court of India — a body specifically designed to settle disputes between provinces and hear appeals from High Courts, essentially a dress rehearsal for what the Supreme Court would eventually become.

After Independence, the Constitution replaced the Federal Court with the Supreme Court of India on 28 January 1950. Every judgment of the Federal Court and the Privy Council delivered before that date remains binding unless a later Supreme Court bench has overruled it.

Exam Notes:

Sequence to memorize: Regulating Act 1773 → Supreme Courts at Madras (1800) & Bombay (1823) → Indian High Courts Act 1861 (High Courts replace them) → Government of India Act 1935 (Federal Court) → Supreme Court of India, 1950.
A frequent SSC trap: asking which act "established" vs. "abolished" the Presidency Supreme Courts. The 1861 Act abolished them; it didn't create the Supreme Court of India.

Stock Exchange: Meaning, Types, Functions and Complete Guide.

Constitutional Provisions Governing the Supreme Court (Articles 124–147)

The Supreme Court is dealt with in Part V (The Union), Chapter IV of the Constitution, spanning Articles 124 to 147. You don't need to memorize the exact wording of each one, but you absolutely need to know which article does what — this is one of the highest-yield tables in the entire Polity syllabus.

Article	What It Covers
124	Establishment, composition, and appointment of SC judges
124A (struck down)	National Judicial Appointments Commission — declared unconstitutional in 2015
125	Salaries and allowances of judges
126	Appointment of an Acting Chief Justice
127	Appointment of ad hoc judges
128	Attendance of retired judges at sittings of the Court
129	Supreme Court as a Court of Record (includes contempt power)
130	Seat of the Supreme Court
131	Original jurisdiction — Centre-State and inter-State disputes
132–134	Appellate jurisdiction — constitutional, civil, and criminal matters
134A	Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court
136	Special Leave Petition (SLP) — the Court's discretionary appellate power
137	Power to review its own judgments
138	Enlargement of the Court's jurisdiction by Parliament
139	Power to issue writs for purposes other than fundamental rights enforcement
139A	Transfer of cases between High Courts
141	Law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India
142	Power to pass any order necessary for "complete justice"
143	Advisory jurisdiction — President can seek the Court's opinion
144	Civil and judicial authorities must act in aid of the Supreme Court
145–147	Rules of procedure, language, and interpretation

Exam Notes:

Article 141 is the one that makes every Supreme Court judgment "law of the land" — this is why landmark judgments matter so much for your Mains answers. You're not just citing a case, you're citing binding law.

Understanding motion (Physics Blog)

Composition and Strength of the Supreme Court

When the Constitution was adopted, Article 124(1) fixed the Court at a Chief Justice plus seven other judges — eight in total. Parliament has increased this number multiple times since, through ordinary legislation (Article 124 gives Parliament this power without needing a constitutional amendment).

The most recent change came via the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019, which raised the sanctioned strength to 34 judges, including the CJI — where it stands as of 2026.

Beyond the regular judges, the Constitution allows for three special categories:

Acting Chief Justice (Article 126): When the CJI's post falls vacant, or the CJI is absent or unable to perform duties, the President appoints another judge of the Court to act in that capacity temporarily.
Ad hoc Judges (Article 127): If the Court doesn't have a quorum of judges available for a sitting, the CJI can temporarily appoint a High Court judge as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court — with the President's approval and after consulting the concerned High Court's Chief Justice. This provision was actually invoked in 2024 for the first time in decades, which is exactly the kind of "static topic meets current affairs" detail that makes for a strong Mains answer.
Retired Judges (Article 128): The CJI, with the President's prior consent, can request a retired Supreme Court, Federal Court, or (qualified) High Court judge to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge again.

Exam Notes:

Original strength: 8 (1 CJI + 7 judges). Current strength: 34 (1 CJI + 33 judges). Both numbers are fair game — know that the increase happens through a Parliamentary Act, not a constitutional amendment.
Don't confuse "acting CJI" (Article 126, a stopgap for the top post) with "ad hoc judge" (Article 127, a High Court judge borrowed to make up numbers).

300 One Liner Computer — an exam-focused Computer GK ebook

Appointment of Supreme Court Judges & the Collegium System

This is the section most students get half-right, because most articles explain the current collegium system without explaining how we got there — and that evolution is exactly what gets tested.

The basic constitutional text (Article 124(2)): Every judge is appointed by the President after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as the President deems necessary. Consultation with the CJI is mandatory for every appointment except the CJI's own.

That single word — "consultation" — has been fought over in the Supreme Court itself four separate times, and each round changed the appointment process. Think of it as a story with four chapters:

1. First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981): The Court ruled that "consultation" does not mean "concurrence." The President could appoint a judge even against the CJI's advice, as long as genuine consultation had taken place. This gave the executive the upper hand.

2. Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1993): The Court reversed itself. It held that the CJI's recommendation, made in consultation with the two senior-most judges, is binding on the President. This is the judgment that effectively invented the collegium system.

3. Third Judges Case (In re Presidential Reference, 1998): The President referred the matter back for clarification. The Court expanded the collegium to the CJI plus the four senior-most judges and made clear that if this expanded consultation didn't happen, the recommendation wasn't binding at all.

4. Fourth Judges Case / NJAC Case (2015): Parliament passed the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, replacing the collegium with a commission that included the Law Minister and two "eminent persons" — bringing the executive back into the room. The Supreme Court struck both down as unconstitutional, ruling that they violated the "independence of the judiciary," which is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The collegium system was restored and remains in force today.

Exam Notes:

Sequence for Mains: 1981 (executive has the edge) → 1993 (judiciary gets the edge, collegium born) → 1998 (collegium formalized and expanded) → 2015 (NJAC struck down, collegium survives).
Qualifications for appointment (Article 124(3)): a person must be a citizen of India, and either (a) a High Court judge for at least 5 years, or (b) an advocate in a High Court for at least 10 years, or (c) a "distinguished jurist" in the President's opinion.

Acid, Base and Salts explains.

Removal of Supreme Court Judges (Impeachment Process)

A Supreme Court judge can only be removed on two grounds: proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The process is deliberately difficult, and it's governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, not by a separate constitutional article alone (Article 124(4) sets the outline; the Act fills in the mechanics).

Here's how it actually works, step by step:

A removal motion needs signatures from 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs.
The Speaker or the Rajya Sabha Chairman can either admit the motion or reject it outright.
If admitted, a three-member committee is formed — typically a sitting Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist — to investigate the charges.
If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, both Houses of Parliament must pass the motion by a special majority (majority of total membership, and two-thirds of members present and voting).
Only then is an address presented to the President, who issues the removal order.

Exam Notes:

No Supreme Court judge in India's history has ever been successfully impeached through this process — motions have been initiated (notably against Justice V. Ramaswami in 1993 and Justice Soumitra Sen, a High Court judge, in 2011) but none has cleared the full parliamentary hurdle for a sitting SC judge. This "zero successful impeachments" fact is a good one-liner for both Prelims traps and Mains context.
Special majority requirement is the exact same standard used for constitutional amendments under Article 368 — worth linking the two in your notes.

Jurisdiction and Powers of the Supreme Court

This is the heart of the topic, and the one place where a comparison table genuinely beats a wall of bullet points — because the exam almost always tests you on telling these apart, not on defining any one of them in isolation.

Type	Constitutional Basis	What It Means
Original Jurisdiction	Article 131	Disputes directly filed in the SC — no lower court involved. Covers Centre vs. one/more States, Centre & States vs. other States, or State vs. State.
Writ Jurisdiction	Article 32	Any citizen can approach the SC directly for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, using five writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto.
Appellate Jurisdiction	Articles 132–134, 136	Hears appeals from High Courts on constitutional, civil, and criminal matters, plus discretionary appeals from any court/tribunal (except military courts) via a Special Leave Petition.
Advisory Jurisdiction	Article 143	President can refer a question of law or fact to the SC for its opinion. The Court's advice is not binding, unlike its regular judgments.

Exam Notes:

If you see "the Court's opinion is not binding on the President," that's Advisory Jurisdiction under Article 143 — a favourite Prelims distractor.
Article 142 vs. ordinary judicial review: judicial review checks whether a law or action is constitutional; Article 142 lets the Court act even where no specific law exists at all, purely to serve justice. Don't conflate the two.
Original jurisdiction (Article 131) specifically excludes disputes arising from treaties or agreements signed before the Constitution came into force — a specific carve-out that has appeared in Prelims statement-based questions.

Ocean Currents: Types, Causes & Effects.

Independence of the Judiciary — Safeguards

None of the Court's power means much if judges can be pressured by the executive. The Constitution builds in several specific safeguards:

Security of tenure — a judge can only be removed through the impeachment process described above, never at the President's discretion.
Salaries charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, meaning Parliament doesn't get to vote on and potentially cut a judge's pay year to year.
No discussion of a judge's conduct in Parliament or a State Legislature, except during an actual impeachment debate.
Ban on practice after retirement — a former Supreme Court judge cannot plead or act in any court or before any authority in India (though they can take up tribunal, arbitration, or advisory roles, which is itself a live policy debate).
Power to punish for contempt of court under Article 129, protecting the Court's authority from being undermined.

Exam Notes:

"Salary charged on Consolidated Fund" is a classic differentiator question — the salaries of judges are charged (non-votable), but administrative expenses of the Court are also charged, which students sometimes miss.

Landmark Judgments of the Supreme Court

You don't need to memorize full case facts — you need to know what each case stands for and why an examiner would ask about it. Here are the ones that consistently show up:

Case	Year	What It Established	Why It's Tested
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala	1973	Basic Structure Doctrine — Parliament can amend the Constitution but not destroy its basic features	The single most-cited case in Indian constitutional law; foundational for almost any "limits on amending power" question
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India	1978	Expanded Article 21 — "procedure established by law" must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary	Connects Articles 14, 19, and 21 into one combined due-process reading
Minerva Mills v. Union of India	1980	Reaffirmed Basic Structure; struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment that gave Parliament unlimited amending power	Shows Basic Structure being actively enforced, not just theoretical
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India	1994	Laid down guidelines restricting misuse of Article 356 (President's Rule); floor test is the only valid measure of majority	Key case for federalism and Centre-State relations answers
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan	1997	Vishakha Guidelines on workplace sexual harassment, in the absence of specific legislation	Example of the Court legislating through judicial guidelines pending a law (later became the POSH Act, 2013)
NJAC Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India)	2015	Struck down the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act as violating judicial independence, part of the Basic Structure	Most current, strongest example of Basic Structure in action
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India	2017	Declared the Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right under Article 21	Frequently linked to Aadhaar, data protection debates
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India	2018	Decriminalized consensual homosexual acts by reading down Section 377 IPC	Strong example of the Court aligning constitutional morality with individual dignity
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala)	2018	Allowed entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple, on Article 25/26 grounds	Good case for religious freedom vs. individual rights tension

Commonly Confused Facts (Quick Revision Box)

Keep this list open the night before your exam — these are the exact details that cost easy marks:

Retirement age: Supreme Court judges retire at 65; High Court judges retire at 62.
Original strength of the SC was 8 (1 CJI + 7 judges); current strength is 34 (1 CJI + 33 judges), changed via ordinary Parliamentary law, not a constitutional amendment.
Oath for a Supreme Court judge is administered by the President (or someone appointed by the President); a High Court judge's oath is administered by the Governor of the state (or someone appointed by the Governor).
Article 32 (SC writs) protects only Fundamental Rights; Article 226 (HC writs) protects Fundamental Rights and other legal rights — making HC writ jurisdiction wider in scope, even though the SC sits above the HC in hierarchy.
Minimum qualification for SC judge appointment: 5 years as a HC judge, OR 10 years as a HC advocate, OR "distinguished jurist" — there is no minimum age requirement specified in the Constitution for SC judges (unlike some other constitutional posts).
The NJAC and 99th Amendment were struck down in 2015, not repealed by Parliament — an important distinction for "which body did what" questions.

MCQs

1. [UPSC Prelims 2012]
Which of the following are included in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India?

A dispute between the Government of India and one or more States
A dispute regarding elections to either House of Parliament or Legislature of a State
A dispute between the Government of India and a Union Territory
A dispute between two or more States

Select the correct answer using the codes given below:
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 3 and 4 only
(c) 1 and 4 only
(d) 2 and 3 only

Answer: (c) 1 and 4 only
Explanation: Article 131 (Original Jurisdiction) covers disputes between the Centre and one/more States, and between State(s) and State(s) — that's statements 1 and 4. It does not cover Union Territories (not "States" for this purpose) or election disputes, which go to Election Tribunals/High Courts under the Representation of the People Act.

2. [UPSC Prelims 2012]
What is the provision to safeguard the autonomy of the Supreme Court of India?

While appointing Supreme Court Judges, the President of India has to consult the Chief Justice of India.
The Supreme Court Judges can be removed by the Chief Justice of India only.
The salaries of the Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, to which the legislature does not have to vote.
All appointments of officers and staff of the Supreme Court are made by the Government only after consulting the Chief Justice of India.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 3 only
(b) 3 and 4 only
(c) 4 only
(d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

Answer: (a) 1 and 3 only
Explanation: Statements 1 and 3 are genuine safeguards. Statement 2 is false — judges are removed only through the parliamentary impeachment process, never by the CJI alone. Statement 4 is false as worded — under Article 146, the CJI (or someone he directs) appoints the Court's officers and staff; it isn't "the Government" appointing them after consultation.

3. [UPSC Prelims 2019]
Consider the following statements:

The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review.
The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as violative of the independence of the judiciary.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: (b) 2 only
Explanation: It was actually the 39th Amendment (1975) that tried to place the PM's and Speaker's elections beyond judicial review — later struck down in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain and eventually removed by the 44th Amendment, not introduced by it. Statement 2 is correct: the SC struck down the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act in 2015 as violating judicial independence, part of the Basic Structure.

4. [UPSC Prelims 2021]
With reference to Indian Judiciary, consider the following statements:

Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with the prior permission of the President of India.
A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement, as the Supreme Court does.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: (a) 1 only
Explanation: Article 128 explicitly allows the CJI, with the President's prior consent, to recall a retired judge. The officially accepted answer treats statement 2 as false in this framing, since the explicit review power under Article 137 is named specifically for the Supreme Court.

5. [UPSC Prelims 2022]
With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements:

Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty.
Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company.
Any public-minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto.

Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: (c) 1 and 3 only
Explanation: Statement 2 is false — Mandamus can be issued against a Government company, since it's an instrumentality of the State performing public functions. Statement 1 is correct — purely private bodies are outside Mandamus unless performing a public duty. Statement 3 is correct — Quo Warranto can be sought by any member of the public, not just an aggrieved party, since it questions the legality of someone holding public office.

6. [UPSC Prelims 2023]
Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgments that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of administration.
Statement-II: Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term "efficiency of administration."

Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
(a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, and Statement-II explains Statement-I
(b) Both are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
(c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect
(d) Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct

Answer: (c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect
Explanation: The SC has indeed treated Article 335 as a limiting factor on Article 16(4) reservations (e.g., Indra Sawhney). But Article 335's text never actually defines "efficiency of administration" — that phrase has been interpreted through case law, not spelled out constitutionally.

7. [UPSC Prelims 2024]
Under which of the following Articles of the Constitution of India has the Supreme Court of India placed the Right to Privacy?
(a) Article 15
(b) Article 19
(c) Article 21
(d) Article 25

Answer: (c) Article 21
Explanation: In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge bench unanimously held the Right to Privacy to be a Fundamental Right flowing from Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), read alongside Part III as a whole.

8. [UPSC Prelims 2024]
A Writ of Prohibition is an order issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts to:
(a) Direct a public authority to perform a duty it has failed to perform
(b) Prevent an inferior court or tribunal from continuing proceedings in excess of its jurisdiction
(c) Restore a person to a public office from which they were illegally removed
(d) Quash an order already passed by a lower court or tribunal

Answer: (b) Prevent an inferior court or tribunal from continuing proceedings in excess of its jurisdiction
Explanation: Prohibition is a preventive writ — it stops a lower court/tribunal mid-proceeding, before it exceeds its jurisdiction. Option (d) actually describes Certiorari, a corrective writ issued after an order is passed — a very common point of confusion.

9. [SSC / State PCS – Question]
Consider the following statements regarding the composition of the Supreme Court of India:

The Constitution, as originally enacted, provided for a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and 7 other judges.
Parliament can increase or decrease this number only through a constitutional amendment.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: (a) 1 only
Explanation: Statement 1 is accurate — original strength was 8 (CJI + 7). Statement 2 is false: Article 124(1) lets Parliament change this number through ordinary law, not a constitutional amendment.

10. [SSC CGL – Question]
What is the retirement age of a judge of the Supreme Court of India, as compared to a judge of a High Court?
(a) Both retire at 62 years
(b) Both retire at 65 years
(c) Supreme Court judges retire at 65; High Court judges retire at 62
(d) Supreme Court judges retire at 62; High Court judges retire at 65

Answer: (c) Supreme Court judges retire at 65; High Court judges retire at 62
Explanation: This exact contrast is one of the most frequently tested single facts across SSC CGL, CHSL, and State PCS exams — mixing up the two ages is an easy, avoidable mistake.

Confused about Taxonomy and the Classification of Living Organisms?

Conclusion:

If there's one thing to take away from all of this, it's that the Supreme Court isn't just a static topic you memorize once and forget — it's a living institution whose collegium debates, pendency numbers, and landmark rulings keep evolving, and exam-setters know it. That's exactly why questions on this topic rarely stop at "what is Article 124" and instead push into "why was the NJAC struck down" or "how does Article 142 actually get used."

Go back through the Exam Notes boxes one more time before you move on — they're deliberately built to catch the exact traps that show up in Prelims and SSC-style questions. And if a question ever asks you to argue something about the judiciary, whether it's federalism, judicial activism, or the limits of Parliament's amending power, you now have specific, current cases to reach for instead of vague generalizations. That's usually what separates a good answer from an average one.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many judges are there in the Supreme Court of India currently?

As of 2026, the sanctioned strength is 34, including the Chief Justice of India — set by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019.

Who appoints the Chief Justice of India?

The President of India appoints the CJI, and by convention, the senior-most sitting judge of the Supreme Court is recommended for the post.

Can Parliament change the number of Supreme Court judges?

Yes. Article 124(1) explicitly allows Parliament to increase (or decrease) the number of judges by ordinary law — no constitutional amendment is required.

What is the difference between Article 32 and Article 226?

Article 32 lets you approach the Supreme Court directly for Fundamental Rights enforcement only. Article 226 lets you approach a High Court for Fundamental Rights or any other legal right, making it a broader — though territorially limited — power.

Pages

Saturday, September 26, 2026