JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT

JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court is the highest appellate Court of the land. It has the following kind of jurisdiction:

1.      Original jurisdiction (Arts. 71 & 131)
2.      Appellate jurisdiction (Arts. 132 - 134)
a.       Constitutional jurisdiction
b.      Civil jurisdiction
c.       Criminal jurisdiction
3.      Special Leave to Appeal (Art.136)
4.      Review Jurisdiction (Art.137)
5.      Advisory jurisdiction (Art.143)
6.      Writ jurisdiction (Art. 32)
7.      Curative Petition (Judicial innovation)

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Article 71 vests all types of disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of a President or Vice-President on the Supreme Court whose decision shall be final.

Under Article 131 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in the following cases of disputes:

1.      Between the Government of India and one or more States or
2.      Between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other or
3.      Between two or more States.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Under Article 132, an appeal shall lie to Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of any High Court if it involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution. For making such appeal no certification of the High Court under Article 134A is required. (Constitutional jurisdiction)

In civil matters as provided in Article 133, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court if the High Court certifies under Article 134A that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance and that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. (It may be noted that in the event of failure to secure required certificate from the High Court, the aggrieved party can still try for Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court by invoking Article 136 on the same matter).

Under Article 134, an appeal in criminal matters shall lie to the Supreme Court if the High  Court has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death, has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from  any  court  subordinate  to  it  and  convicted  the  accused  person  and sentenced  him  to  death  or  certifies  that  the  case  is  a  fit  one  for  appeal  to  the Supreme Court. (in the first two conditions, no certificate for appeal is required from the High Court).

SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (ARTICLE 136)

It is a discretionary power vested in the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order passed by any court or tribunal. (Excluding judgement, decree etc passed by the Armed Forces court or tribunal)

REVIEW JURISDICTION (ARTICLE 137)

Under the Review jurisdiction, the Supreme Court shall have the power to review any judgement pronounced or order made by it.

CURATIVE PETITION

A person who is aggrieved by a final judgment or order of the apex court, after a petition for `review' of the same has been dismissed is entitled to relief if he establishes:

1)      Violation of principles of natural justice even though he was not a party to the legal dispute but the judgment adversely affected his interests or, if he was a party, he was not served with a notice of the proceedings and the matter proceeded as if he had notice and

2)      where in the proceedings a learned judge failed to disclose his connection with the subject-matter or the parties giving scope for an apprehension of `bias' and the judgment adversely affects the petitioner.

The petitioner, in the `curative petition', shall aver specifically that the grounds mentioned therein had been taken in the `review petition' (filed by him after the final judgment) and that it was dismissed by `circulation' and that the curative petition shall contain a certification by a senior advocate. The curative petition has to be first circulated to a Bench of three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment complained of, if available. It is only when a majority of the learned judges on this Bench conclude that the matter needs hearing that it should be listed before the same Bench (as far as possible) which may pass appropriate orders. In the event of the Bench holding at any stage that the petition is without any merit and vexatious, it may impose exemplary costs on the petitioner. (As held in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002).[1] 

In Zakarius Lakra v. Union of India, the Supreme Court entertained a curative petition on the ground that the school certificate showed that the accused, who had been sentenced to death, was a minor when the offence was committed.

The court has clarified in the above-given cases that after the rejection of review petition by the Supreme Court, the same cannot be entertained under the writ jurisdiction contained in Article 32. The appropriate remedy is only to file a curative petition as per the procedure indicated by this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra case. There was a growing tendency to challenge under Article 32 of the Constitution of India final judgments/orders of the Supreme Court after the dismissal of review petitions. The reason for such an unhealthy and unconstitutional practice, common to all such petitions, was lack of a forum where the petitioners could seek appropriate relief.

Recently, the Supreme Court has reopened the Bhopal gas leak disaster case after a curative petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI), seeking harsher punishments for the accused. The CBI petitioned that the apex court should invoke its inherent power in public interest to address and remedy errors apparent on the face of the record in the judgement and order of September 13, 1996. 

This is a noble way to bring justice to the aggrieved as well as last opportunity for the Supreme Court to set right miscarriage of justice. A ray of hope for the case that truly and genuinely deserves reconsideration. This judicial mechanism is being already widely in use now.  However, the judiciary must ensure that curative petition is maintainable only for rarest of the rare cases and it does not become a tool in the hands of rich and powerful to deny justice to the poor by exploiting this provision.


*Disclaimer: The contents of the blog are not intended to convey any legal advice to the reader neither the blog creates any attorney-client relationship. You may contact an enrolled legal practitioner for assistance with your legal needs.*

[1] In this case the question of constitutional law of considerable significance arises for consideration had been whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against a final judgment/order of this Court, after the dismissal of review petition under Article 137, either under Article 32 of the Constitution or otherwise.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

HOHFELD’S ANALYSIS OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES

HOHFELD’S ANALYSIS OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES                                                                              INTRODUCTION Jurisprudence is the branch of philosophy which deals with principles of law and the legal systems through which the law is applied. Hohfeld's contribution was to simplify; he created a very precise analysis which distinguished between fundamental legal concepts (of correlatives & opposites) and then identified the framework of relationships between them [1] which consecutively help to clarify the juridical relationship between the relevant parties better i...
Read more

Doctrine of Res Judicata

INTRODUCTION 1859 marked the beginning of civil procedural law in India before it there was no uniformity in the law of civil procedure applicable to the whole of the country. Sir Charles Wood, the then President of the Board for the affairs of India instructed the Second Law Commission to address themselves for preparing a Code of simple and uniform procedure applicable to all the courts of the country. The Commission drafted 4 drafts for civil courts of Bengal, the presidencies of Madras, Bombay and the North- Western Provinces. Soon it was released that Code of 1859 lacked in many respects, Mr. Harrington later introduced a number of new provisions based on orders and rules made under the Judicature Acts in England and also borrowed some provisions of the New York Civil Code. Later Sir Arthur Hobhouse, the then Law Member, made substantial contribution to the draft bill, with certain modification, the bill was enacted as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1877. Then after several ...
Read more

INDIAN JUDICIARY ON PREVENTION OF OPERATION AND MISMANAGEMENT VIS-À-VIS COMPANIES ACT, 2013

I NDIAN J UDICIARY O N P REVENTION O F O PERATION A ND M ISMANAGEMENT V IS -À-V IS C OMPANIES A CT , 2013 I NTRODUCTION M ajority rule is the hallmark of democracy and like any other countries democracy, corporate democracy is equally vulnerable to its pitfalls and abuses. Today the Indian corporate sector faces a massive problem of protecting minority shareholders from the dominant(majority) ones. The real problem lies with controlling the majority shareholders and preventing oppression and mismanagement [1] at the same time. With a view to check and prevent the abuse of power by the majority, the Companies Act, 2013(hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 2013’ or ‘2013 Act’) (Chapter XVI- Section 241-246) contains special provisions for Prevention of Oppression and Mismanagement. The term ‘Minority Shareholders’ has not been defined in Companies Act but by virtue of section 241 of 2013 Act, minority shareholders have been set out as ten percent (10%) of shares or minimu...
Read more