Examine the evolution of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India as a constitutional court. (2021, 15 Marks)
Unlike Hans Kelsen‘s specialised European constitutional courts, the Supreme Court was designed in 1950 to be two things at once: a constitutional court and the final court of appeal for the whole country. The first role has grown through interpretation; the second has grown faster still.
The jurisdiction as designed
| Jurisdiction | Article | Function |
|---|---|---|
| Original | 131 | Exclusive: Union–state and inter-state disputes |
| Writ | 32 | Enforcement of fundamental rights, itself a right |
| Appellate | 132–134, 136 | Constitutional, civil and criminal appeals; special leave from any court or tribunal |
| Advisory | 143 | Opinions on Presidential references |
| Plenary | 141, 142 | Binding law; “complete justice” |
How the constitutional jurisdiction grew
- Over amendments: after Golak Nath (1967), Kesavananda Bharati (1973) held that amendments cannot destroy the basic structure — the Court alone deciding what is basic. The 42nd Amendment (1976) tried to fence it in (Articles 32A, 131A, 368(4)); the 43rd Amendment (1977) and Minerva Mills (1980) undid those curbs.
- Over access: from 1979–80 Justices P. N. Bhagwati and V. R. Krishna Iyer built public interest litigation — relaxed standing, letters as petitions, continuing mandamus — widening Article 32 to social justice, environment and human rights.
- Over remedies and itself: Article 142 filled gaps (Vishaka, 1997); the curative petition was created in Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002); L. Chandra Kumar (1997) made judicial review over tribunals basic; the Judges Cases (1993, 1998, 2015) gave it control over appointments.
- Federal and advisory revival: it held West Bengal’s Article 131 suit over CBI investigations maintainable (July 2024) and referred Kerala’s borrowing dispute to a Constitution Bench (April 2024). The 2025 Presidential reference produced an Article 143 opinion (20 November 2025) that displaced a two-judge ruling on Governors.
The drift towards a court of appeals
- Appellate widening: the Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1970 and the 30th Amendment (1972), which replaced the monetary threshold for civil appeals with a “substantial question of law”, opened the gates; Article 136 special leave now brings over 60,000 petitions a year.
- Constitution benches shrank: Nick Robinson and colleagues (EPW, 2011) found five-judge-plus decisions falling from around a hundred a year in the 1960s to about ten a year in the 2000s, with two-judge benches deciding most cases.
- Backlog: 94,639 cases were pending on 31 August 2026, including 29 Constitution Bench matters.
Correctives
- A National Court of Appeal, suggested in Bihar Legal Support Society (1986), or regional cassation benches (Law Commission, 229th Report, 2009); the V. Vasanthakumar reference (2016) remains undecided.
- Chief Justice U. U. Lalit set up daily Constitution Benches in 2022; their hearings have been live-streamed since 27 September 2022; 2024 brought three nine-judge judgments, including Mineral Area Development Authority and Property Owners Association.
Conclusion
The Court’s jurisdiction as a constitutional court has grown mainly by interpretation — basic structure, PIL, Article 142 — while its docket has made it chiefly an appellate forum. In reach it is among the world’s most powerful constitutional courts; in practice its constitutional work queues behind special leave petitions. Separating constitutional from appellate work is now the unfinished part of its evolution.