Understanding the Constitution, Qualifications, Appointment, and Recent Judgments of Supreme Court Judges in India

Introduction to the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India stands as the apex judicial authority in the country, entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the Constitution and ensuring the rule of law. Established on January 28, 1950, following the adoption of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court emerged as the embodiment of justice in post-independence India. It was created to serve as a guardian of the Constitution, a role that includes the interpretation of constitutional provisions and the protection of fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court is located in New Delhi and its structure comprises the Chief Justice of India along with a sanctioned strength of 34 judges. This composition allows the Court to handle a vast array of cases, ranging from civil and criminal matters to constitutional questions. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is extensive, encompassing original, appellate, and advisory capacities. In its original jurisdiction, it addresses disputes between different states or between the central government and one or more states. Through its appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court serves as the highest appellate tribunal, reviewing decisions of lower courts to ensure consistency and justice. Additionally, its advisory jurisdiction allows the President of India to seek its opinion on significant legal matters.

The Supreme Court's role in the Indian judicial system is multifaceted. It not only adjudicates individual cases but also has the authority to review and strike down legislation that contravenes the Constitution. This power of judicial review positions the Supreme Court as a vital check and balance within the framework of India's democracy. The Court has been instrumental in landmark judgments that have shaped the socio-political landscape of the nation.

In this context, understanding the composition, qualifications, and appointment procedures of Supreme Court judges, along with their recent judgments, is crucial for a comprehensive grasp of the Indian judicial system. This exploration will illuminate how the Supreme Court functions as the cornerstone of justice in India, reflecting its enduring significance in upholding democratic values.

Constitution and Composition of Supreme Court Judges

The Supreme Court of India, as established by the Constitution of India, serves as the highest judicial body in the country. The Court is composed of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and a number of other judges. Originally, the Constitution stipulated that the Supreme Court would consist of a Chief Justice and seven other judges. However, this number has been amended over time to accommodate the increasing workload and the growing complexity of cases.

As per the latest amendment, the Supreme Court of India now comprises the Chief Justice and 33 other judges, making a total strength of 34 judges. This change was instituted through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019, reflecting the need to enhance judicial efficiency and reduce the pendency of cases.

The Chief Justice of India holds a pivotal role, not only presiding over the judicial functions but also administratively leading the Supreme Court. The CJI is responsible for the allocation of cases and the formation of benches to hear them. In addition, the Chief Justice has a significant role in the appointment of other judges, a process that involves consultations with the Collegium—a body comprising the CJI and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.

Associate justices, on the other hand, support the Chief Justice in adjudicating cases across a broad spectrum of legal issues. They bring diverse expertise and perspectives to the bench, contributing to a well-rounded interpretation of the Constitution and legal statutes. Each judge is also assigned specific administrative responsibilities within the Court, ensuring the smooth functioning of its various departments.

The hierarchical structure of the Supreme Court is designed to foster a collaborative and efficient judicial process. While the Chief Justice of India stands at the helm, the associate justices play an indispensable role in upholding the principles of justice and delivering judgments that shape the legal landscape of the nation. This synergy between the CJI and other judges underscores the robust and dynamic nature of the Supreme Court of India.

Qualifications for Supreme Court Judges

In India, the qualifications for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court are explicitly outlined in the Constitution of India. Article 124(3) specifies the criteria for eligibility, ensuring that only individuals with significant legal expertise and experience can ascend to the highest judicial office in the country.

First and foremost, a candidate must be a citizen of India. This foundational requirement underscores the importance of national allegiance and understanding of the Indian legal system. From an educational perspective, the individual must have served as a judge of one or more High Courts for at least five years or must have been an advocate in one or more High Courts for at least ten years. Alternatively, a person is also eligible if the President deems them to be a distinguished jurist. This provision allows for the inclusion of eminent legal scholars and academicians, broadening the pool of potential candidates.

Professional experience is a core criterion. The requirement of high court judgeship or extensive advocacy ensures that candidates have substantial exposure to judicial processes and legal practice. This experience is critical as it equips them with the necessary legal acumen and practical insights to adjudicate complex cases that come before the Supreme Court.

Age is another crucial consideration. There is no explicit minimum age requirement; however, the extensive experience criteria implicitly necessitate a mature professional life. Typically, individuals appointed as Supreme Court judges are in their 50s or 60s, bringing decades of legal experience to the bench.

Over the years, there have been discussions and debates about these qualifications. Some legal experts argue for more stringent criteria or additional qualifications to ensure the continued integrity and efficacy of the judiciary. However, any such changes would require constitutional amendments, reflecting the gravity and significance of these qualifications.

In conclusion, the qualifications for Supreme Court judges in India are designed to ensure that only the most skilled and experienced legal professionals are entrusted with this vital role. These stringent requirements uphold the integrity and effectiveness of the judiciary, reinforcing public confidence in the highest court of the land.

Appointment and Removal Procedure of Supreme Court Judges

The appointment of Supreme Court judges in India follows a meticulous and structured process, ensuring that the judiciary remains independent and robust. The appointment procedure is primarily governed by the Constitution of India, which enshrines the role of the President in conjunction with the Collegium system. The President of India appoints Supreme Court judges based on the recommendations of the Collegium, a body of the country's senior-most judges. This system aims to maintain a balance of power, ensuring that the executive branch does not unduly influence judicial appointments.

The Collegium system comprises the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. They assess potential candidates based on their judicial acumen, experience, and integrity. Upon reaching a consensus, the Collegium sends its recommendations to the President. Although the President has the authority to return the recommendations for reconsideration, if the Collegium reiterates its decision, the President is constitutionally obliged to accept the recommendations.

On the other hand, the removal of Supreme Court judges is an arduous and exceptional process, reflecting the gravity of such an action. The procedure for removal, commonly known as impeachment, is outlined in Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution. A judge can be removed only on grounds of 'proved misbehavior or incapacity.' The impeachment process begins with a notice of motion, which must be signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha. The motion is then investigated by a committee formed for this purpose.

If the committee finds the judge guilty of the charges, the motion is debated and voted upon in each house of Parliament. For the removal to be successful, the motion must be passed by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. This high threshold ensures that the removal of a judge is not influenced by transient political pressures.

Historically, there have been few instances where the impeachment process has been initiated. The most notable case occurred in 1991 against Justice V. Ramaswami, who was accused of financial misconduct. Although the investigation committee found him guilty, the motion for his removal failed to pass in the Lok Sabha, illustrating the rigorous checks and balances embedded in the system.

The Constitutional Bench of Judges

The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India is a specialized panel of judges formed to address and adjudicate cases of paramount constitutional significance. According to Article 145(3) of the Indian Constitution, a Constitutional Bench must consist of at least five judges. This bench is convened to deliberate on substantial questions pertaining to the interpretation of the Constitution or any matter involving significant constitutional law principles. The Supreme Court's Chief Justice has the authority to constitute such a bench when the need arises.

The primary purpose of the Constitutional Bench is to ensure a thorough and authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. These benches are crucial in maintaining the sanctity and supremacy of the Constitution by providing definitive rulings on complex and contentious issues. Their judgments often shape the legal landscape of the country, influencing legislative and executive actions. The formation of a Constitutional Bench underscores the importance of the matter at hand and reflects the judiciary's commitment to upholding constitutional values.

One of the circumstances under which a Constitutional Bench is formed includes cases that challenge the validity of laws passed by the Parliament or state legislatures. Additionally, matters involving significant public interest, fundamental rights, and the federal structure of the country are also referred to these benches. Notably, the Constitutional Bench plays a pivotal role in resolving conflicts between various laws and the Constitution, ensuring that the latter remains the supreme law of the land.

Over the years, several landmark cases have been adjudicated by the Constitutional Bench, leaving an indelible mark on India's legal and constitutional history. For instance, the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case in 1973, which established the Basic Structure doctrine, was a landmark ruling that defined the inviolable framework of the Constitution. Another significant case includes the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), which clarified the principles regarding the imposition of President's Rule in states.

In essence, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India serves as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that its provisions are interpreted with precision and upheld with integrity. Their decisions continue to influence the legal and constitutional trajectory of the nation, reaffirming the judiciary's role as the custodian of constitutional governance.

Recent Landmark Judgments of the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India, as the apex judicial authority, has delivered numerous landmark judgments that have significantly influenced the legal and social landscape of the country. These rulings not only interpret the Constitution but also address critical issues affecting citizens' rights and governance.

One of the most notable recent judgments is the decriminalization of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court, in a historic verdict, ruled that consensual same-sex relations between adults are no longer a criminal offense. This judgment was hailed as a monumental step towards ensuring equal rights and non-discrimination for the LGBTQ+ community in India.

Another significant judgment came in the form of the Sabarimala Temple case. The court ruled that women of all ages have the right to enter the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, challenging the traditional prohibition against women of menstruating age. This decision underscored the importance of gender equality and the right to worship without discrimination.

The Supreme Court also played a crucial role in the Ayodhya land dispute case. After decades of legal battles, the court awarded the disputed land to the Hindu side for the construction of a temple, while allocating an alternative site for the Muslim community to build a mosque. This judgment aimed to resolve a long-standing conflict with sensitivity to both communities' sentiments.

Environmental issues have also been addressed, with the Supreme Court issuing directives to combat air pollution in Delhi and the National Capital Region. The court's intervention has led to stricter regulations and enforcement measures to improve air quality, reflecting its commitment to safeguarding public health and the environment.

These judgments demonstrate the Supreme Court's pivotal role in shaping Indian society and upholding constitutional values. The implications of these rulings are far-reaching, prompting legislative changes and influencing public discourse on key issues.