Introduction

India has a well – regulated judicial machinery with the Supreme Court at the apex. India has a unified system of
courts as opposed to the U.S.A. The Supreme Court, the High Courts, and the Lower Courts constitute a single,
unified, judiciary having jurisdiction as mentioned by the constitution. The powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court are well–defined in the Constitution. It has a much wider jurisdiction than the highest court in any other
federation.

The Supreme Court acts as a court of appeal, the sentinel of the Constitution and also has advisory jurisdiction.
Further, it can hear appeals from any court or tribunal in the country and can issue writs for enforcing the
Fundamental Rights. This article critically analyses the various jurisdictions of the Supreme Court of India which
helps in protecting the spirit of the constitution among other things the fundamental rights and the concept of
federalism.

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of India

Generally speaking, jurisdiction means the general authority of a court to adjudicate a legal matter. It is important
because if a court lacks jurisdiction then any judgement passed by the court regarding that matter would be
invalid/void. In order to make a binding decision, the court must be well aware of its jurisdiction and act within its
jurisdiction as mentioned in the Constitution.

The judiciary in India has been assigned a significant role to play. It has to dispense justice not only between one
person and another but also between the state and the citizens. It interprets the Constitution and acts as its guardian
by keeping all authorities – legislative, executive, administrative, judicial and quasi-judicial within bounds. The
judiciary is entitled to scrutinise any governmental action in order to assess whether or not it conforms with the
Constitution and the valid laws made thereunder.

“The judiciary supervises the administrative process in the country, and acts as the balance-wheel of federalism
by settling intergovernmental disputes.”

The judiciary has the power to protect people’s Fundamental Rights from any undue encroachment by any organ of
the government. The Supreme Court, in particular, acts as the guardian and protector of the Fundamental Rights of
the people.

In order to compensate for a wide range of responsibility, the Supreme Court is provided with multiple
jurisdictions. Thus it is a multi-jurisdictional court and may be regarded as the most powerful Apex Court in the
World.
Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court of India, is the supreme judicial body of the Government of India and
India's highest court. It is the highest constitutional court and has judicial review authority. As specified by the type
of case, and the location of the question, jurisdiction can be interpreted as the practical authority given to a legal
entity to administer justice.

Articles 131, 133-136 and 143, respectively, of the Indian Constitution provide for the three types of jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court of India.

There are three forms of jurisdiction for the Supreme Court: Original, Appeal and Advisory.

1. Original jurisdiction:

Original jurisdiction of a court refers to a matter for which the particular court is approached first. In the case of the
Supreme Court in India, its original jurisdiction is covered under Article 131. It involves the following cases:

1) Any dispute between the Indian Government and one or more States.
2) Any dispute between the Indian Government and one or more States on one side and one or more States on
the other side.
3) Any dispute between two or more States.
4) Article 32 of the Constitution provides original jurisdiction to the SC for matters regarding the enforcement
of Fundamental Rights.
5) The SC can issue writs, directions, or orders including writs in the nature of mandamus, habeas corpus, quo
warranto, prohibition and certiorari.
6) The SC also has the power to direct the transfer of a criminal or civil case from the High Court in one State
to the High Court in another State.
7) It can also transfer cases from one subordinate court to another State High Court

If the SC deems that cases involving the same questions of law are pending before it and one or more High Courts,
and that these are significant questions of law, it can withdraw the cases before the High Court or Courts and
dispose off all these cases itself.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 gives SC the authority to initiate international commercial arbitration.

In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v Union of India, the Court held that Central enactments could be only
challenged as writ petitions under Article 32 and 262 of the Constitution and not under the original jurisdiction of
the Court under Article 131.
But a few years later, in another case, it disagreed with the previously mentioned judgement stating that Article 131
works as an addition to Article 32 to deal with Centre-State Dispute.

Furthermore, the Court explicitly mentioned that it was unable to accept that the constitutional validity of a Central
Law can be challenged under Article 131.

As the Court did not have the requisite bench strength to overturn the prevision decision, it left the matter open for
a larger bench to decide. However, this inconclusive situation has not been resolved yet, which allows both the
judgements to be used as a precedent for future references.

This further aggravates the dispute between Centre-State, as Parliament can pass laws that infringe upon the latter's
power.

2. Appellate Jurisdiction:

A superior or higher court's authority to hear and resolve appeals against the lower court's decision is called appeal
jurisdiction. For political, civil and criminal cases, the Supreme Court is a court of appeal. It will hear appeals
against the High Courts' decisions. It has the authority to review its own decisions as well. It may grant special
leases to appeal against any judgement or order delivered or issued by any court or tribunal within the territory of
India at its own discretion.
In addition, in any criminal case, an appeal can be brought before the Supreme Court if the High Court certifies
that the case is eligible for an appeal before the Supreme Court. In order to challenge decisions relating to elections
and Labour and Industrial Tribunals, the special appeal power has become a convenient tool in the hands of the
Court.

In State of U. P V/s Raj Nath The High court acquitted the accused in appeal solely on the ground that it regarded
the testimony of eye-witness to be baseless. It was held that the order of acquittal had resulted in the manifest
miscarriage of justice because the High court did not make an attempt to evaluate the evidence of eye-witness
properly. Accordingly , the order of the High court was set-aside and it was directed to dispose of appeal a fresh
after evaluating the evidence. Parliament is empowered under Article 134(2) to extend the appellate jurisdiction of
the supreme court in criminal matters. Certificate for Appeal to Supreme Court - 134(A) The constitution 44th
amendment has amended Art-132.133 and 135 And inserted a new Article- Article134-A for regulating the grant of
the certificate for appeal to the supreme court by the high court. The object of this new provision is to avoid delay
in cases going to the Supreme Court in appeal from the judgment, decree, final order or sentence of the High court
3. Advisory Jurisdiction:

In matters that may be expressly referred to by the President of India, the Supreme Court has special advisory
jurisdiction. If it is evident to the President at any time that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise,
which is of such public interest that it is imperative to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court on that question,
he/she may refer it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may report its opinion to the President after such a
hearing as it considers necessary. The report or the Supreme Court's decision is of course, not binding on the
President. There is, equally, no compulsion for the Court to offer its advice.
In accordance with Article 145 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court Rules of 1966 control the practice and the
procedure of the Supreme Court.

Cauvery Dispute Tribunal Case

In the case of the Cauvery Dispute Tribunal, the Central Government appointed a Tribunal to look into the dispute
regarding the Cauvery River between the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

 The Tribunal in one of its orders directed the State of Karnataka to release a certain amount of water to
Tamil Nadu.

 The Karnataka Government refused to honour the Tribunal’s decision and promulgated an ordinance which
empowered them to not implement the Tribunal’s order.

 The President, in order to resolve the dispute, sent a reference to the Supreme Court for its opinion on the
matter.

 The Supreme Court held that the impugned ordinance was unconstitutional because it not only violated
Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956 but was also against the principles of natural justice as the Karnataka
Government became a judge in its own cause.

Ismail Faruqui v Union of India

In Ismail Faruqui v Union of India, a five-judge bench of the SC contended that the Presidential reference
seeking the Court’s opinion on whether there was initially a temple where the Babri Masjid later stood was
unnecessary and superfluous and also against the concept of secularism favouring one religious section over
another and hence, doesn’t need to be answered.

 In Special Reference No. of 2002, the Apex Court held that it was well within its jurisdiction to answer and
advice the President in a reference made under Article 143(1) if the questions referred are likely to arise in
 future or such questions are of public importance or there is no decision of the Supreme Court which has
decided the question.

Some of the other important cases that were referred to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion include Re
Kerala Education Bill, Re BeruBari, Re Sea Customs Act, Special court Reference case, Re Presidential
Bill  and Re Special Courts Bill.

Conclusion

Appellate jurisdiction is different from the concept of original jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction is the power of a
court to review decision and change. It reviews the case for error. Appellate trail is based on simple argument of
lawyers. No testimony or witnesses.

To conclude, the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Article 143 gives the President the power to make
references to the SC on any matters but it can’t be called the Jurisdiction of Supreme Court. The views taken by the
Court are not binding on the President and it is not law within Article 141. It is on the Court to examine if it should
be answered or not, if not then with valid reasons.