View source for Supreme Court of India

{{Short description|Highest court of jurisdiction in India}}
{{Use Indian English|date=February 2023}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox high court
| court_name = Supreme Court of India
| native_name = 
| image = File:Emblem of the Supreme Court of India.svg <!-- Current, as of 2025, emblem/insignia of the Supreme Court !-->
| imagesize = 125px
| caption = Emblem of the Supreme Court of India
| image2 = File:Supreme Court of India - 200705 (cropped).jpg
| caption2 = Supreme Court building
| established = {{start date and age|1937|10|1|df=yes}}
| jurisdiction = India
| location = Tilak Marg, [[New Delhi]]
| coordinates = {{Wikidatacoord|Q213380|region:IN_type:landmark|display=inlinemtitle}}
| type = [[Three Judges Cases|Collegium of the Supreme Court of India]]
| authority = Article 124 of the [[Constitution of India]]
| appealsfrom = [[High courts of India]]
| terms = Mandatory retirement at 65 years of age
| positions = [[List of sitting judges of the Supreme Court of India|34]] (incl. chief justice)<ref>{{cite web |title=Chief Justice & Judges |url=https://www.sci.gov.in/chief-justice-judges |work=Supreme Court of India |access-date=12 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191025230422/https://sci.gov.in/chief-justice-judges |archive-date=25 October 2019 |url-status=}}</ref>
| language = [[Indian English|English]], [[Hindi]]
| website = {{URL|https://www.sci.gov.in}}
| motto = ''यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः <br /> {[[Yato Dharmastato Jayah|Yatō Dharmastatō Jayaḥ]]}''<br /><small> Where there is Dharma, there will be victory.</small>
| chiefjudgetitle = [[Chief Justice of India]]
| chiefjudgename = [[Surya Kant (judge)|Surya Kant]]
| termstart = 24 November 2025
| termend = 9 February 2027
}}
{{Courts of India}}
{{Politics of India}}
The '''Supreme Court of India''' is the supreme [[judiciary of India|judicial authority]] and the [[supreme court|highest court]] of India. It is the highest [[appellate court]] for all [[Civil law (common law)|civil]] and [[Criminal law|criminal]] cases in India. The court is led by the [[Chief Justice of India]] and has a maximum sanctioned strength of 33 judges excluding the chief justice. It was established on 28 January 1950, two days after India became a republic, and replaced the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] as the highest court of appeal. It has operated from the Supreme Court building in [[New Delhi]] since 1958. With expansive authority to initiate actions and wield appellate jurisdiction over all courts and the ability to invalidate amendments to the constitution, the Supreme Court of India is widely acknowledged as one of the most powerful supreme courts in the world.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Zwart |first=Tom |year=2003 |title=Review of Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Rights |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1410775 |journal=Journal of Law and Society |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=332–337 |jstor=1410775 |issn=0263-323X |access-date=10 March 2023 |archive-date=15 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231215121915/https://www.jstor.org/stable/1410775 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Chandra |first1=Aparna |title=The Supreme Court of India: An Empirical Overview of the Institution |year=2019 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/qualified-hope/supreme-court-of-india/5631C3B57D9C3FDE75E5A91D516D5F40 |chapter=A Qualified Hope: The Indian Supreme Court and Progressive Social Change |pages=43–76 |editor-last=Rosenberg |editor-first=Gerald N. |access-date=10 March 2023 |series=Comparative Constitutional Law and Policy |place=Cambridge |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=978-1-108-47450-4 |last2=Hubbard |first2=William H. J. |last3=Kalantry |first3=Sital |editor2-last=Bail |editor2-first=Shishir |editor3-last=Krishnaswamy |editor3-first=Sudhir |archive-date=28 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230928183140/https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/qualified-hope/supreme-court-of-india/5631C3B57D9C3FDE75E5A91D516D5F40 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Established under the [[Constitution of India]], the Supreme Court has extensive powers in the form of [[original jurisdiction|original]], [[appellate jurisdiction|appellate]] and [[Advisory opinion|advisory]] [[jurisdiction]]s.<ref>{{cite web |title=Rule of law index 2016 |url=http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/# |access-date=13 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150429071718/http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/ |archive-date=29 April 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref> As the apex [[constitutional court]], it takes up appeals primarily against verdicts of the [[List of High Courts of India|High Courts of various states]] and tribunals. As an advisory court, it hears matters which are referred by the [[President of India#Judicial powers|president of India]]. It also has the power of [[Judicial review in India|judicial review]], in which the court invalidates both ordinary laws as well as [[Amendment of the Constitution of India|constitutional amendments]] as per the [[basic structure doctrine]] that it developed in the 1960s and 1970s.

As mandated by the constitution, the Supreme Court is required to safeguard the [[Fundamental rights in India|fundamental rights]] of citizens and to settle legal disputes among the [[Government of India|central government]] and various state governments. Its decisions are binding on other Indian courts as well as the union and state governments.<ref name="History PDF">{{cite web |title=History of Supreme Court of India |url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supct/scm/m2.pdf |work=Supreme Court of India |access-date=30 August 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141222100038/http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supct/scm/m2.pdf |archive-date=22 December 2014}}</ref> As per the [[Wikisource: Constitution of India/Part V|Article 142]] of the constitution, the court has the inherent jurisdiction to pass any order deemed necessary in the interest of ''complete justice'' which becomes binding on the president to enforce.<ref name="Consti">{{cite web |title=Constitution of India |work=Legislative Department |url=https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/ |access-date=20 January 2024 |archive-date=23 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231223032122/https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/ |url-status=live}}</ref>

== History ==
In 1861, the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|British parliament]] enacted the [[Indian High Courts Act 1861|Indian High Courts Act]] and the [[Indian Councils Act 1861|Indian Councils Act]], which abolished the existing Supreme Courts in [[Calcutta]], [[Madras]], and [[Bombay]] and the [[Sadr Diwani Adalat]]s, and gave power to the [[English crown]] to establish High Courts in India. Three charter High Courts were established in the three cities which earlier had Supreme Courts, by the [[letters patent]] granted by the English crown on 26 June 1862.<ref>{{cite report|url=https://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/event/OriginAndGrowthOfHighCourtSDayal.doc%23:~:text%3DIn%2520the%2520year%25201861%2520the,in%2520the%2520three%2520Presidency%2520towns.&ved=2ahUKEwjGn_ih-b6RAxWr3TgGHaPaII0Q-NANegQIEBBB&usg=AOvVaw3RExUEZjb8bcAMhzO8uzBf|title=Origin and growth of High Courts|work=[[Allahabad High Court]]|access-date=1 June 2025}}</ref> These High Courts were  the highest courts for all cases in the respective regions under their jurisdiction until the creation of the [[Federal Court of India]] under the [[Government of India Act 1935]]. The Federal Court had the jurisdiction to hear appeals against judgement of the high courts, and solve disputes between the various provinces of the [[British Raj]] and later between the federal states and provinces after the Indian independence in August 1947.<ref name="History PDF" />

The Supreme Court of India came into existence on 26 January 1950 after the adoption of the [[Constitution of India]].<ref name="history">{{cite web |title=History of the Supreme Court of India |url=https://api.sci.gov.in/history |access-date=2 November 2022 |archive-date=2 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221102084959/https://main.sci.gov.in/history |url-status=live}}</ref> The first [[chief justice of India]] was [[H. J. Kania]].<ref name="History PDF" /> It replaced the Federal Court and the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]], which were then at the apex of the Indian court system. The first proceedings and inauguration, took place at 9:45 am on 28 January 1950, when the judges took their seats, and the date is thus regarded as the official date of establishment of the Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://delhibarcouncil.com/resources-for-lawyers/delhi-courts/supreme-court/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190128191100/http://delhibarcouncil.com/resources-for-lawyers/delhi-courts/supreme-court/ |url-status=dead |title=Supreme Court |work=Bar Council of Delhi |archive-date=28 January 2019}}</ref>

The Supreme Court initially had its seat at the [[Chamber of Princes]] in the [[Old Parliament House, New Delhi|Parliament House]] where the Federal Court sat from 1937 to 1950. In 1958, the Supreme Court moved to its present premises. Originally, the constitution envisaged a Supreme Court with a chief justice and seven judges, and granted the power to increase the capacity to the [[Parliament of India]]. In its formative years, the Supreme Court met from 10 am to 12 pm in the morning and then from 2 pm to 4 pm in the afternoon for 28 days per month.<ref name="history" />

== Jurisdiction and powers ==
The Supreme Court of India was constituted as per Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution of India titled "The Union Judiciary". Under the chapter, the Supreme Court is granted required jurisdiction and powers. It is the foremost [[appellate court]] in India, and the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in the country.<ref name="Consti" />

{|class="wikitable" style="text-align:left;" style="font-size: 90%"
|+Jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court as per the Constitution of India
|-
!Article
!Description
|-
|Article 124
|Constitution and establishment of the Supreme Court
|-
|Article 129
|Declaration of Supreme Court as the Court of Record
|-
|Article 131
|Authorisation of the [[original jurisdiction]] of the Supreme Court
|-
|Articles 132, 133 and 134
|Authorisation of the Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
|-
|Article 135
|Power of the Federal Court granted to the Supreme Court
|-
|Article 136
|Special leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court
|-
|Article 137
|Review power of the Supreme Court
|-
|Article 138
|Enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
|-
|Article 139
|Powers of the Supreme Court to issue certain writs
|-
|Article 140
|Ancillary powers to the Supreme Court
|-
|Article 141
|Law making power of the Supreme Court
|}

Article 145 of the constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to create its own rules, subject to presidential approval, to govern the practice and procedures of the court. These rules have been revised and published three times, in 1950, 1966, and 2013.<ref>{{cite web |title=Supreme Court rules,1966 |url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scrules1966.pdf |work=Supreme Court of India |access-date=22 July 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140816090224/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scrules1966.pdf |archive-date=16 August 2014}}</ref>

=== Review petition ===
{{see|Review petition}}

Article 137 of the constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to reevaluate its own decisions. The Supreme Court can review any judgment or order it has previously pronounced. This power is subject to any laws created by the parliament and other rules established under Article 145. However, no application for review is to be entertained in a civil proceeding except on certain grounds as per the [[Code of Civil Procedure (India)|Code of Civil Procedure]]. Additionally, the Supreme Court holds the ability to invalidate parliamentary and governmental decisions if they violate fundamental features. Additionally, it can overturn the impeachment process of the president and the judges, as decided by the parliament, based on constitutional validity or fundamental features.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Chowdhury |first1=Rishad Ahmed |title=Missing the Wood for the Trees: The Unseen Crisis in the Supreme Court |journal=NUJS Law Review |volume=2012 |issue=3/4 |page=367 |url=http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/04_rishad_ahmed.pdf#page=17 |access-date=3 November 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208081111/http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/04_rishad_ahmed.pdf#page=17 |archive-date=8 December 2015}}</ref>

=== Powers to punish for contempt ===
Under Articles 129 and 142 of the constitution, the Supreme Court has been vested with power to punish anyone for [[Contempt of court|contempt]] of any court in India including itself. In May 2006, it directed a sitting minister in the [[Government of Maharashtra|Maharashtra government]] to serve a one month jail term for contempt of court.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.ibnlive.com/news/maha-minister-gets-jail-for-contempt/10038-4.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061115231830/http://www.ibnlive.com/news/maha-minister-gets-jail-for-contempt/10038-4.html |url-status=dead |title=Maha minister gets jailed for contempt of court |archive-date=15 November 2006 |work=[[News18]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/11/stories/2006051116320100.htm |title=Maharashtra Minister gets one-month jail term |date=11 May 2006 |access-date=30 November 2011 |location=Chennai, India |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110912021501/http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/11/stories/2006051116320100.htm |archive-date=12 September 2011 |work=[[The Hindu]] |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://ibnlive.in.com/news/maha-minister-gets-jail-for-contempt/10038-4.html |title=Maha minister gets jail for contempt |work=[[News 18]] |date=11 May 2006 |access-date=30 November 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110812003309/http://ibnlive.in.com/news/maha-minister-gets-jail-for-contempt/10038-4.html |archive-date=12 August 2011}}</ref>

== Court building ==
[[File:Supreme Court of India - Central Wing.jpg|thumb|upright=0.75|Central Wing of the court]]

The court building is shaped to symbolise the [[Scales of justice (symbol)|scales of justice]] with a central wing flanked by two wings on either side. These two wings act as the two limbs of the balance and end with two semi-circular hooks that represent the pans of the balance, and the centres of the two semi-circular pans connect to a centrally placed statue of "Mother and Child" in the garden.<ref name="Kumar 2017 637–675" />

[[File:Building of The Supreme Court of India.jpg|thumb|left|upright=0.75|Side view of the Supreme Court building]] 

The central wing consists of the chief justice's court, the largest of the courtrooms, flanked on by two court halls on either side.<ref name="Kumar 2017 637–675">{{cite journal |last=Kumar |first=Shailesh |year=2017 |title=Interpreting the Scales of Justice: Architecture, Symbolism and Semiotics of the Supreme Court of India |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11196-017-9513-1 |journal=International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique |volume=30 |issue=4 |pages=637–675 |doi=10.1007/s11196-017-9513-1 |access-date=12 May 2024 |archive-date=27 April 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240427001515/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11196-017-9513-1 |url-status=live|url-access=subscription }}</ref> It has a {{cvt|27.6|m}} high dome and a spacious colonnaded verandah. The right wing of the building houses the [[Bar (law)|Bar]], the offices of the [[Attorney General of India|attorney general]] and other law officers, and the library of the court. The left wing houses the offices of the court. There are 15 courtrooms located in the various parts of the building.<ref name="History PDF" /><ref name=history />

The foundation stone of the building was laid on 29 October 1954 by [[Rajendra Prasad]], the first [[President of India]]. The main block of the building was built on a triangular plot of land measuring {{cvt|17|acre}}. It is designed in [[Indo-Saracenic Revival architecture|Indo-British architecture]] by [[Ganesh Bhikaji Deolalikar]], the first Indian to head the [[Central Public Works Department]]. The design of scales of justice was to conform to this triangular site and according to Prasad was the conception of justice for Indians.<ref name="Kumar 2017 637–675" /> The court moved into the building in 1958. In 1979, two wings were added to the complex, and they were further extended in 1994.<ref name="history" />

The court premises also hosts [[legal aid]],<ref>{{cite web |title=Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society |url=http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/mig.htm |access-date=1 December 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141205125716/http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/mig.htm |archive-date=5 December 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Types Of Legal Services Provided |url=http://nalsa.gov.in/legalservices.html |work=National Legal Services Authority |access-date=1 December 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150214041428/http://nalsa.gov.in/legalservices.html |archive-date=14 February 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Supreme Court Legal Services Committee |url=http://www.sclsc.nic.in/faq.htm |access-date=1 December 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141111071123/http://sclsc.nic.in/faq.htm |archive-date=11 November 2014}}</ref> Supreme Court museum, court-fee vendors, and other services such as medical and emergency services, rail reservation counters, canteen, post office and banks.<ref name="facilities">{{cite web |title=Facilities at Supreme Court of India |url=http://sci.nic.in/registry_facilities.pdf |work=Supreme Court of India |access-date=14 May 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140514184826/http://sci.nic.in/registry_facilities.pdf |archive-date=14 May 2014}}</ref>

=== Mother and Child sculpture ===
[[File:Inside the Supreme Court of India. 16.jpg|thumb|upright=0.75|Mother and Child sculpture]]

On 20 February 1978, a {{cvt|210|cm}} high bronze sculpture of "Mother and Child" was installed in the lawn of the court building. It was designed by [[Chintamoni Kar]], who described the statue as "[[Bharat Mata|Mother India]] sheltering young republic represented by the symbol of a child upholding the law of the country shown in the form of an open book, with the symbol of the balance representing law and justice". The official court account states that it represents a "dispensation of equal justice to all".<ref name="Kumar 2017 637–675" /> The sculpture is located at the center of the park on the lawn of the court besides the statue of [[Mahatma Gandhi]], which is in front of the staircase of the central wing in the front lawn.<ref name="Kumar 2017 637–675" /> 

When the statue was installed in 1978, there was  protests by a section of advocates of the court demanding its removal.<ref name="Kumar 2017 637–675" /> A memorandum was submitted to the then law minister [[Shanti Bhushan]], which stated that "the statue is supposedly a symbol and inspiration for the highest institution of justice, the Supreme Court….The child is nondescript, but the mother’s resemblance to Mrs. [[Indira Gandhi]] is discernible even to the ordinary eye not trained for appreciating the nuances of sculpture".<ref name="Kumar 2017 637–675" /> As the statue was put up the post-[[The Emergency (India)|emergency]] period, they contended that it is symbolic of perversity and is based on the theme of the mother-and-son cult built up during the period.<ref name="Kumar 2017 637–675" /> Other statements from advocates included, "It’s like Indira mothering the judges and telling them you practice justice like I tell you to", and "symbolizing justice is terribly conservative as justice is constantly changing".<ref name="Kumar 2017 637–675" /> Later on, as it was clarified that the model was made in the year 1969, the advocates submitted an apology and withdrew the protests.<ref name="Kumar 2017 637–675" />

=== Nyay Devi statue ===
[[File:Nyay Devi India.png|thumb|upright=0.4|''Nyay Devi'' statue]]

[[Lady Justice|Goddess of Justice]] is a symbolic statue of justice installed in the library of the judges in the court building  It was installed on 16 October 2024.<ref name="Times2410">{{cite web |date=17 October 2024 |title=Law is not 'blind': Lady Justice statue no longer unseeing, sword gone too |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/major-transformation-of-lady-justice-statue-at-indias-supreme-court/articleshow/114325214.cms |access-date=20 October 2024 |work=[[The Times of India]] |issn=0971-8257}}</ref><ref name="Jansatta2410">{{cite web |date=16 October 2024 |title=सुप्रीम कोर्ट में न्याय की देवी की आंखों से खुली पट्टी, अब एक हाथ में संविधान तो दूसरे में तराजू, CJI चंद्रचूड़ के ऑर्डर से बनी | trans-title=New lady of justice statue at Supreme Court: CJI Chandrachud |url=https://www.jansatta.com/national/new-lady-of-justice-statue-at-supreme-court-holding-constitution-cji-dy-chandrachud/3633496/ |access-date=1 June 2025 |work=Jansatta |language=hi}}</ref><ref name="Jagran2410">{{cite web |title=अब कानून 'अंधा' नहीं... न्याय की देवी की आंखों से हटी पट्टी, हाथ में तलवार की जगह संविधान; तिलक मार्ग पर लगी जस्टिस क्लॉक |trans-title=Goddess of justice new statue in supreme court with law is not blind message |url=https://www.jagran.com/news/national-goddess-of-justice-new-statue-in-supreme-court-with-law-is-not-blind-message-23816888.html |access-date=20 October 2024 |work=[[Dainik Jagran]] |language=hi}}</ref>

After the new criminal justice laws (the [[Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita|BNS]], [[Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita|BNSS]] and [[Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam|BSA]]) were introduced in 2023, the Indianised version of the goddess of justice was commissioned and then inaugurated by then chief justice [[Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud|D. Y. Chandrachud]]. The statue is seen as a step towards decolonisation of justice system in India and the symbolism attached to it. The prominent and distinguishing features being the removal of the blindfolds depicted conventionally in the western depiction of [[Lady Justice|Justicia]], along with the addition of Indian attire and jewelry. She wears a ''[[sari]]'' having a crown on her head as well as a ''[[Bindi (decoration)|Bindi]]'' on her forehead and Indian jewelries on her ears and neck.<ref name="Jansatta2410" /> In the right hand of the statue, she holds the scales of justice, symbolising the equality in society during the process of justice. In her left hand, there is a book which symbolizes the [[Constitution of India]], and symbolises that the process of justice would be according to the constitution.<ref name="Times2410" /><ref name="Jansatta2410" /><ref name="Jagran2410" />

== Insignia ==
=== Seal ===
{{Multiple image
| align = right
| total_width = 450
| image1 = Emblem of the Supreme Court of India 2025.svg
| caption1 = Emblem of the Supreme Court<ref>{{cite web |title=SCI logo |url=https://www.sci.gov.in/sci/ |work=Supreme Court of India |access-date=1 June 2025}}</ref>
| image2 = Flag of the Supreme Court of India.webp
| caption2 = Flag of the Supreme Court with a new emblem, used briefly in 2024
|}}
The court's seal consists of a [[Dharma chakra|wheel]] with 32 spokes atop an adaptation from the [[Lion Capital of Ashoka|Sarnath Lion capital of Ashoka]]. The inscription "[[Yato Dharma Tato Jaya|यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः]]" ([[International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration|IAST]]: {{IAST|Yato Dharmastato Jayaḥ}}) in [[Sanskrit]], meaning "whence justice (dharma), thence victory", is embellished below the same. The wheel symbolises righteousness, encompassing truth, goodness and [[Equity (legal concept)|equity]].<ref>{{cite web |title=History of Supreme Court of India |url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supct/scm/m2.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141222100038/http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supct/scm/m2.pdf |archive-date=22 December 2014 |access-date=30 August 2014 |work=Supreme Court of India |quote=page 7: "Dharma Chakra logo of the Supreme Court: Its design is reproduced from the wheel that appears on "the abacus of the Sarnath Lion capital of Ashoka with 32 spokes". The inscription in Sanskrit ''yatodharmastato jaya'' means – "Truth alone I uphold". It is also referred to - as the wheel of righteousness, encompassing truth, goodness and equity."}}</ref>

=== Flag ===
On 1 September 2024, the Supreme Court unveiled a flag for the court's use, combining elements of the seal and the court's architecture. The deep blue colored flag depicts the [[Ashoka Chakra]] set above the rotunda of the Court, on a book depicting the constitution. It was unveiled by president [[Droupadi Murmu]] on 1 September 2024, commemorating the 75th anniversary of court.<ref>{{cite web |title=Waving flag |url=https://www.scobserver.in/journal/waving-flag/ |access-date=1 June 2025 |work=Supreme Court Observer }}</ref> The flag and insignia were designed by the [[National Institute of Fashion Technology]], Delhi.<ref>{{cite web|date=2 September 2024 |title=What the new flag and insignia of the Supreme Court of India represent |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/etimes/trending/what-the-new-flag-and-insignia-of-the-supreme-court-of-india-represent/articleshow/113001813.cms |access-date=1 June 2025 |work=[[The Times of India]]}}</ref> However, when [[B. R. Gavai]] took over as the chief justice, the court reverted to its original logo based on the Sarnath lion pillar in 2025.<ref>{{cite web |title=The story behind the Supreme Court's logo change |url=https://www.scobserver.in/journal/the-story-behind-the-supreme-courts-logo-change/ |access-date=25 August 2025 |work=Supreme Court Observer}}</ref>

== Composition ==
The Supreme Court consists of the judges appointed to the court and the associated officers.

=== Judges ===
{{see|List of chief justices of India|List of former justices of the Supreme Court of India|List of sitting judges of the Supreme Court of India}}
When adopted in 1950, the constitution provided for a Supreme Court with eight judges including a chief justice, who headed the court. In the early years, a [[En banc|full bench]] of the Supreme Court sat together to hear the cases presented before them. As the work of the Court increased and cases began to accumulate, the parliament enacted laws to increase the number of judges from the original eight in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986, 31 in 2009, to 34 in 2019. As the number of the judges increased, they sat in smaller [[division bench]]es of two or three judges for normal cases.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Chowdhury |first1=Rishad Ahmed |title=Missing the Wood for the Trees: The Unseen Crisis in the Supreme Court |journal=NUJS Law Review |date=July–September 2012 |volume=5 |issue=3/4 |page=358 |url=http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/04_rishad_ahmed.pdf#page=8 |access-date=3 November 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208081111/http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/04_rishad_ahmed.pdf#page=8 |archive-date=8 December 2015}}</ref> A larger bench of five or more, referred to as a [[Constitution bench (India)|constitution bench]], is consituted when required to settle fundamental questions of law. A bench may refer a case before it to a larger bench, should the need arise.<ref name="Supreme Court of India&nbsp;— History">{{cite web |title=Supreme Court of India: History |url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/history.htm |work=Supreme Court of India |access-date=21 June 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120527162408/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/history.htm |archive-date=27 May 2012}}</ref> The largest-ever bench was constituted in 1973 in the case of ''[[Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala]]'', where a bench of 13 judges was set up to decide whether parliament had the unfettered right to amend the constitution.<ref>{{cite web|date=24 April 1973 |title=His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala |url=https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/admin/judgement_file/judgement_pdf/1973/Supp.%20(1)/Part%20I/S_1973_1-1002_1702634535.pdf |work= Supreme Court of India |access-date=17 December 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Keane |first1=Debasish Roy Chowdhury & John |title=From checks and balances to compliance: How the judiciary has responded to government pressure |url=https://scroll.in/article/1013211/from-checks-and-balances-to-compliance-how-the-judiciary-has-responded-to-government-pressure |work=Scroll.in |date=21 December 2021}}</ref>

;Eligibility
As defined in the Article 124 of the Indian constitution, an [[Indian nationality law|citizen of India]] not exceeding 65 years age who has been:
* a judge of one high court or more (continuously), for at least five years,
* an advocate there, for at least ten years,
* a distinguished [[jurist]], in the opinion of the president,
is eligible to be recommended for appointment, as a judge of the Supreme Court.<ref name="Section 124, Constitution of India">{{cite web |title=Section 124, Constitution of India |url=http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/Constitution/S124.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070314031734/http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/Constitution/S124.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=14 March 2007 |publisher=VakilNo1 |access-date=27 October 2012}}</ref>

;Appointments
A judge is appointed to the Supreme Court by the president on the recommendation of the collegium &ndash; a closed group composed of the chief justice of India, the four most senior judges of the court and the senior-most judge hailing from the high court of a prospective appointee.<ref>{{cite book |title=Supreme but not infallible: Essays in honour of the Supreme Court of India |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=2013 |isbn=978-0-19-567226-8 |editor=Kirpal |editor-first=Bhupinder N. |edition=6th impr. |location=New Delhi |pages=97–106 |oclc=882928525}}</ref> Earlier, judges used to be appointed by the president on the advice of the [[Union Council of Ministers|union cabinet]]. The collegium system was evolved by the Supreme Court on the basis of the [[Three Judges Cases]] (1981, 1993, and 1998), the executive cannot directly suggest any names to the president, and the president ultimately decides on appointing the judges only from a list of names recommended only by the collegium. However, as held in the judgments, the executive was given the power to reject a recommended name.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Venu |first1=M.K. |title=Government may drop gag clause, wants judges to show restraint |url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/government-may-drop-gag-clause-wants-judges-to-show-restraint/article4883161.ece |access-date=5 November 2015 |work=[[The Hindu]] |date=5 July 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160106074107/http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/government-may-drop-gag-clause-wants-judges-to-show-restraint/article4883161.ece |archive-date=6 January 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Hegde">{{cite web|last=Hegde |first=Sanjay |title=Judging the Judge-Maker |url=http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/njac-judging-the-judgemaker/article7777564.ece |work=[[The Hindu]] |date=19 October 2015 |access-date=24 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160106074107/http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/njac-judging-the-judgemaker/article7777564.ece |archive-date=6 January 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref>

The collegium system has come under criticism from certain quarters over the years.<ref name="Hegde" /> The consensus within the collegium is at times achieved through trade-offs, resulting in unreliable appointments with consequences for litigants. [[Sycophancy]] and [[lobbying]] within the system is prevalent, and judge [[Jasti Chelameswar]] claimed that in one case, "a judge was blocked from elevation from the [[Madras High Court]] in 2009, in what 'appeared to have been a joint venture in the subversion of the law governing the collegium system by both the executive and the judiciary.'"<ref>{{cite web |url=https://caravanmagazine.in/law/what-judiciary-done-itself |title=What the Indian judiciary has done to itself |last=Dev |first=Atul |work=The Caravan |access-date=16 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190716201734/https://caravanmagazine.in/law/what-judiciary-done-itself |archive-date=16 July 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2015, the Indian parliament passed a law to replace the collegium with a [[National Judicial Appointments Commission]]. However, the law was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, as the new system would undermine the independence of the judiciary.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/sc-exposes-tyranny-of-the-elected/295674 |title=SC Exposes 'Tyranny Of The Elected' |last=Sengupta |first=Uttam |date=21 October 2015 |work=[[Outlook (magazine)|Outlook]] |access-date=4 September 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160917213615/http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/sc-exposes-tyranny-of-the-elected/295674 |archive-date=17 September 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> Restoring the old system of the collegium, the court invited suggestions, from the executive and the general public, on recommendations to improve the collegium system, broadly along the lines of{{Snd}}setting up an eligibility criteria for appointments, a permanent secretariat to help the collegium sift through material on potential candidates, infusing more transparency into the selection process, grievance redressal and any other suggestion not in these four categories, like transfer of judges.<ref>{{cite web |last1=WP(C) No. 13/2015 |title=Report filed by Ms. Pinky Anand ASG and Arvind P. Datar on Representation/Suggestions for Improving the Collegium |url=http://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/userfiles/SUGGESTIONS.pdf |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6cpVbj1LA?url=http://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/userfiles/SUGGESTIONS.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=6 November 2015 |publisher=Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt. of India |access-date=6 November 2015}}</ref> This resulted in the court asking the government and the collegium to finalize the memorandum of procedure incorporating the above.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-12-16_1450258558.pdf |title=Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association & Anr. v/s Union of India |date=16 December 2015 |website=Supreme Court of India |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170305015323/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-12-16_1450258558.pdf |archive-date=5 March 2017}}</ref>

In 2009, a challenge arose in the Supreme Court regarding the recommendation for the appointment of a [[high court judge]] made by the collegium of that specific court. The court asserted that the eligibility to become a judge was a factual matter, open to questioning by any individual. On the contrary, the determination of who should become a judge was deemed a matter of opinion and was beyond questioning. The court emphasised that, as long as a thorough consultation occurred within the collegium to form this opinion, the content or material considered in shaping the opinion was not subject to scrutiny in a court of law.<ref>{{cite journal |date=6 July 2009 |title=Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. |url=http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=34990#page=18 |journal=Supreme Court of India |volume=2009 (8) SCC 273 |page=18/59 |last1=Transferred Case(C) No. 6 of 2009 |access-date=7 November 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208151733/http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=34990#page=18 |archive-date=8 December 2015 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

;Tenure and emoluments
Judges of the Supreme Court conclude their service mandatorily upon reaching the age of 65. There have been proposals advocating for the implementation of a predetermined tenure for judges, including the chief justice.<ref>{{cite web |last=Chhibber |first=Maneesh |title=CJIs must have fixed tenures: Sathasivam |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/cjis-must-have-fixed-tenures-sathasivam/ |access-date=26 April 2014 |work=[[The Indian Express]] |date=25 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140426054956/http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/cjis-must-have-fixed-tenures-sathasivam/ |archive-date=26 April 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> As per the Article 125 of the constitution, the Indian parliament is responsible for determining the salary, and other emolutments of the judges. However, the parliament is not allowed alter any of these privileges rights to the judge's disadvantage after their appointment.<ref>[[s:Constitution of India/Part V#Article 125 %7BSalaries, etc., of Judges%7D]]</ref> A judge of the Supreme Court draws a basic salary of {{INRConvert|250|k}} per month, equivalent to the [[Cabinet Secretary of India|cabinet secretary]]&ndash; the most-senior [[civil servant]] of the Indian government, and the chief justice earns basic salary of {{INRConvert|280|k}} per month.<ref>{{cite news |title=Salaries of SC, HC judges to increase three-fold |url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Salaries-of-SC-HC-judges-to-increase-three-fold-/articleshow/4183674.cms |access-date=9 June 2014 |work=[[The Times of India]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160507170643/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Salaries-of-SC-HC-judges-to-increase-three-fold-/articleshow/4183674.cms |archive-date=7 May 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref>

;Oath or affirmation
Per Article 124 and [[Third Schedule]] of the constitution, the chief justice (or a judge) of the Supreme Court is required to make and subscribe in the presence of the president an oath or affirmation:

{{Blockquote|That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgement perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws.}}

;Removal
As per [[Wikisource: Constitution of India/Part V|Article 124(4)]] of the constitution, the president can remove a judge on the grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity when parliament approves with a majority of the total membership of each house in favor of impeachment and not less than two thirds of the members of each house present. For initiating [[impeachment]] proceedings against a judge, at least 50 members of [[Rajya Sabha]] or 100 members of [[Lok Sabha]] shall issue the notice as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thenewsinformer.com/national-news/supreme-courtsc-stcentral-gormentsc-st-actcentral-government/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190127000528/http://thenewsinformer.com/national-news/supreme-courtsc-stcentral-gormentsc-st-actcentral-government/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=27 January 2019 |title=The Supreme Court refuses to ban the SC-ST act}}</ref> Post the notice, a judicial committee would be formed to frame charges against the judge, to conduct a fair trial and to submit a report to parliament. When the judicial committee report finds the judge guilty of misbehavior or incapacity, further removal proceedings would be taken up by the parliament if the judge is not resigning himself.<ref>{{cite web |title=Motion for removal of Mr. Justice Soumitra Sen, Judge, Calcutta High Court |url=http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/Soumitra_Sen_Judge.pdf#page=409 |work=Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, October 2011 |pages=414–419 |access-date=4 December 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140826131307/http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/Soumitra_Sen_Judge.pdf#page=409 |archive-date=26 August 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Bhushan |first1=Prashant |title=A historic non-impeachment |url=http://bharatiyas.in/cjarold/files/cover_story_ramaswami.pdf |work=Frontline |date=4 June 1993 |access-date=5 December 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141209164542/http://bharatiyas.in/cjarold/files/cover_story_ramaswami.pdf |archive-date=9 December 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Talks revived to consider impeachment of CJI |work=[[The Hindu]] |date=28 March 2018 |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/talks-revived-to-consider-impeachment-of-cji/article23367815.ece |access-date=31 March 2018 |last1=Phukan |first1=Sandeep |last2=Nair |first2=Sobhana K. |archive-date=9 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109040436/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/talks-revived-to-consider-impeachment-of-cji/article23367815.ece |url-status=live}}</ref> The judge upon proven guilty is also liable for punishment per applicable laws or for contempt of the constitution by breaching the oath under the [[Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971]].<ref>{{cite web |title=The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act of 1971 |url=http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/pdf/Prevention_Insults_National_Honour_Act1971.pdf |access-date=2 July 2017 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170123231821/http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/pdf/Prevention_Insults_National_Honour_Act1971.pdf |archive-date=23 January 2017}}</ref>

;Post-retirement
A person who has retired as a judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practicing in any court of law or before any other authority in India. However, the Supreme Court and High Court judges can be appointed to tribunals and commissions, after their retirement. The appointment of judges to such posts after their retirement has drawn criticism from legal figures including former law minister [[Arun Jaitley]] as it puts into question the judicial independence and imparitiality of the judges.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/post-retirement-prospects-for-constitutional-court-judges-tear-the-fabric-of-judicial-independence-7281471.html |title=Post-retirement prospects for constitutional court judges tear the fabric of judicial independence |date=4 September 2019 |access-date=9 September 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190905130533/https://www.firstpost.com/india/post-retirement-prospects-for-constitutional-court-judges-tear-the-fabric-of-judicial-independence-7281471.html |archive-date=5 September 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/judges-verdicts-are-influenced-by-post-retirement-jobs-arun-jaitley-500640 |title=Judges' verdicts are influenced by post-retirement jobs: Arun Jaitley |work=[[NDTV]] |access-date=9 September 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190923051233/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/judges-verdicts-are-influenced-by-post-retirement-jobs-arun-jaitley-500640 |archive-date=23 September 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref>

;Demographics
{{Blockquote
 |quote = ''I am proud to be an Indian. India is the only country where a member of the minority Parsi community with a population of 1,67,000, like myself, can aspire to attain the post of the Chief Justice of India. These things do not happen in our neighbouring countries.''
 |sign=[[S. H. Kapadia]], former [[Chief Justice of India]] |source = <ref name="Minorities">{{cite web|title=Minorities can rise to top jobs only in India: Chief Justice of India |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Minorities-can-rise-to-top-jobs-only-in-India-Chief-Justice-of-India/articleshow/15510683.cms |access-date=16 August 2012 |date=16 August 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120817083144/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-16/india/33232149_1_justice-kapadia-chief-justice-minority-communities |archive-date=17 August 2012 |work=[[The Times of India]] |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Accountability law must not encroach on judicial independence, cautions CJI">{{cite web |title=Accountability law must not encroach on judicial independence, cautions CJI |url=http://www.indianexpress.com/news/accountability-law-must-not-encroach-on-judicial-independence-cautions-cji/988900/ |access-date=16 August 2012 |work=[[The Indian Express]] |date=16 August 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130317084603/http://www.indianexpress.com/news/accountability-law-must-not-encroach-on-judicial-independence-cautions-cji/988900/ |archive-date=17 March 2013 |url-status=live}}</ref>}}

In practice, the judges of the Supreme Court have been selected so far, mostly from amongst judges of the High Courts. Only nine judges&ndash;[[Sarv Mittra Sikri]], [[Subimal Chandra Roy]], [[Kuldip Singh (judge)|Kuldip Singh]], [[Santosh Hegde]], [[Rohinton Fali Nariman]], [[Uday U. Lalit]], [[L. Nageswara Rao]], [[Indu Malhotra]], [[P. S. Narasimha]] and [[K. V. Viswanathan]]—have been appointed to the Supreme Court directly from the bar.<ref name=age-factor>{{cite web |last=Chandrachud |first=Abhinav |title=The age factor |url=http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2821/stories/20111021282104900.htm |work=Frontline |access-date=26 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140426193740/http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2821/stories/20111021282104900.htm |archive-date=26 April 2014 |year=2011}}</ref><ref name="5th Advo">{{cite news |title=Justices Arun Mishra, Adarsh Goel and lawyer Rohinton Nariman appointed Supreme Court judges |url=http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-06-26/news/50884910_1_rohinton-nariman-supreme-court-apex-court |access-date=30 August 2014 |work=[[The Economic Times]] |agency=Press Trust of India |date=26 June 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140903181021/http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-06-26/news/50884910_1_rohinton-nariman-supreme-court-apex-court |archive-date=3 September 2014 |url-status=dead}}</ref> [[Fathima Beevi]] was the first female judge of the Supreme Court, and was sworn into office in 1989.<ref>{{cite web |title=Supreme Court of India&nbsp;— Former Judges |url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judges/bio/mfbeevi.htm |work=Supreme Court of India |access-date=30 November 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081205061057/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judges/bio/mfbeevi.htm |archive-date=5 December 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/from-trial-court-to-sc-woman-judge-may-go-all-the-way/article1-1239424.aspx |title=From trial court to Supreme Court, woman judge may go all the way |date=11 July 2014 |author=Bhadra Sinha |work=Hindustan Times |access-date=30 November 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140817191223/http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/from-trial-court-to-sc-woman-judge-may-go-all-the-way/article1-1239424.aspx |archive-date=17 August 2014 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Justice-Banumathi-becomes-1st-woman-SC-judge-from-TN/articleshow/40221484.cms |title=Justice Banumathi becomes 1st woman SC judge from TN |date=14 August 2014 |author=A Subramani |work=The Times of India |access-date=30 November 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141013080116/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Justice-Banumathi-becomes-1st-woman-SC-judge-from-TN/articleshow/40221484.cms |archive-date=13 October 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> In 1968, [[Mohammad Hidayatullah]] became the first [[Muslim]] to become the chief justice. In 2007, [[K. G. Balakrishnan]] became the first judge and chief justice from the [[Dalit]] community. In 2010, [[S. H. Kapadia]], from the [[Parsi]] community, became the chief justice. In 2017, [[Jagdish Singh Khehar]] became the first [[Sikh]] to become the chief justice.<ref name="Minorities" /><ref>{{cite news |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Justice-S-H-Kapadia-sworn-in-as-new-Chief-Justice-of-India/articleshow/5920199.cms |title=Justice S H Kapadia sworn in as new Chief Justice of India |date=12 May 2010 |work=[[The Times of India]] |access-date=12 May 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130526140733/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-05-12/india/28294862_1_justice-kapadia-strict-judicial-discipline-ninth-schedule |archive-date=26 May 2013 |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Registry ===
The registry of the Supreme Court is headed by the secretary-general, who is assisted by ten registrars, and several additional and deputy registrars.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://api.sci.gov.in/registry-officers/ |title=Registry Officers |work=Supreme Court of India |access-date=8 August 2020 |archive-date=5 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201105025851/https://main.sci.gov.in/registry-officers |url-status=live}}</ref> The Article 146 of the constitution details the appointments of officers and servants of the Supreme Court registry.<ref>{{cite web |title=Constitution of Supreme Court |url=http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/constitution.htm |work=Supreme Court of India |access-date=31 March 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130330233810/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/constitution.htm |archive-date=30 March 2013}}</ref><ref name=OC-registry>{{cite web |title=Organisational Chart of the Registry of the Supreme Court of India |url=http://sci.nic.in/registry/org_chart.pdf |work=Supreme Court of India |access-date=26 April 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140531212401/http://sci.nic.in/registry/org_chart.pdf |archive-date=31 May 2014}}</ref>

=== Bar ===
{{see|Advocates-on-Record}}
The Supreme Court rules established in 2013 entitle only those [[advocates]] who are registered with the Supreme Court, known as [[Advocate-on-Record|advocates-on-record]] to appear, act and plead for a party in the court. Those advocates who are designated as [[senior counsel]] by the Supreme Court or any of the High Courts can appear for the clients along with an advocate-on-record. Any other advocate can appear for a party along with or under instructions from an advocate-on-record.<ref name="SCRules">{{cite web |url=http://sci.nic.in/Supreme%20Court%20Rules,%202013.pdf |title=Supreme Court Rules, 2013 |date=27 May 2014 |work=Supreme Court of India |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140722120505/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/Supreme%20Court%20Rules%2C%202013.pdf |archive-date=22 July 2014 |url-status=dead |access-date=22 July 2014}}</ref>

== Judicial independence ==
The constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court judges in various ways. Per [[Wikisource: Constitution of India/Part IV|Article 50]] of [[Directive Principles|directive principles of state policy]], the state shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive. Independence of the judiciary, the supremacy of the constitution and rule of law are the features of the [[Basic structure doctrine|basic structure of the Constitution]].  The Court has, over the years, developed a reputation for independence from the executive, a principle now entrenched in the Constitution’s basic structure.<ref>{{cite book |last=Srikrishna |first=B. N. |chapter=Judicial Independence |date=2017 |title=The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution |url=https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198704898.003.0020 |access-date=1 June 2025 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]}}</ref>

One of the main purposes of the Supreme Court is to decide constitutional issues.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.livelaw.in/dr-ambedkar-wouldnt-imagined-sc-hearing-bail-pleas-intended-decide-constitutional-matters-justice-chelameswar/ |title=Dr Ambedkar Wouldn't Have Imagined SC Hearing Bail Pleas, It Was Intended To Decide Only Constitutional Matters: Justice Chelameswar |date=10 April 2018 |access-date=11 April 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180413030531/http://www.livelaw.in/dr-ambedkar-wouldnt-imagined-sc-hearing-bail-pleas-intended-decide-constitutional-matters-justice-chelameswar/ |archive-date=13 April 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> The Supreme Court and High Courts are empowered to frame ''[[Sua sponte|suo moto]]'' cases without receiving formal petitions/complaints on any suspected injustice, including actions/acts indulging in contempt of court and contempt of the constitution by the executive, legislators, citizens, etc.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/calcutta-high-court-judge-cs-karnan-cji-js-khehar-supreme-court-suo-moto-order-971226-2017-04-13 |title=Justice CS Karnan issues suo-moto order against CJI, 6 other Supreme Court judges; orders them to appear before his 'Rosedale Residential Court' |last=Kundu |first=Indrajit |date=13 April 2017 |work=[[India Today]] |location=Kolkata |issn=0254-8399 |access-date=25 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325231956/https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/calcutta-high-court-judge-cs-karnan-cji-js-khehar-supreme-court-suo-moto-order-971226-2017-04-13 |archive-date=25 March 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> It is the duty of the judiciary to frame ''suo moto'' cases or to probe cases/petitions at the earliest against the executive or legislature when laws are implemented which violate the basic foundation and structure of the constitution as stated in Article 38 (1) of the [[Directive Principles in India|Directive Principles]]. As stated, "the state/judiciary shall strive to promote the [[Welfare state|welfare of the people]] by securing a social order in which [[Social justice|social]], [[welfare economics|economic]] and political justice is animated/informed in all institutions of life."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/682692/ |title=Constituent Assembly of India |date=19 November 1948 |access-date=31 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190811155819/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/682692/ |archive-date=11 August 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref>

[[B. R. Ambedkar]] said the below statement during the debate on the [[s:Constitution of India/Part IV|Article 38 (1)]] in the [[Constituent Assembly of India|Constituent Assembly]].

{{Blockquote|text=''... The word 'strive' which occurs in the Draft Constitution, in judgement, is very important. We have used it because our intention is even when there are circumstances which prevent the Government, or which stand in the way of the Government giving effect to these Directive Principles, they shall, even under hard and unpropitious circumstances, always strive in the fulfilment of these Directives. That is why we have used the word 'strive'. Otherwise, it would be open for any Government to say that the circumstances are so bad, that the finances are so inadequate that we cannot even make an effort in the direction in which the Constitution asks us to go.''}}

== Operations ==
The Supreme Court works from 10:30{{nbsp}}am to 4{{nbsp}}pm, and is closed for two weeks each during the summer and the winter. In an interview in June 2018, judge Chelameswar revealed that most Supreme Court judges worked around 14 hours per day, and continue to work for an average of seven hours per day even during vacations. He further said that the [[Supreme Court of United States|Supreme Court of the United States]] delivers judgement on around 120 cases in a year, while each judge in the Supreme Court of India delivers judgements on 1,000{{endash}}1,500 cases.<ref>{{cite web |title=Dont regret going to public, that is why: Interview with Justice Chelameswar |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/on-his-last-day-at-supreme-court-justice-jasti-chelameswar-speaks-to-ndtv-full-transcript-1871856 |access-date=8 November 2018 |work=[[NDTV]] |date=23 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181108184414/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/on-his-last-day-at-supreme-court-justice-jasti-chelameswar-speaks-to-ndtv-full-transcript-1871856 |archive-date=8 November 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref>

As laid down on 5 February 2018, the Supreme Court adopted a roster system for assigning cases to judges. According to this arrangement, the chief justice is designated to preside over all [[Special Leave Petitions in India|special leave petitions]] and cases concerning public interest, social justice, elections, arbitration, criminal matters, and more. Other members of the collegium or senior judges are tasked with hearing cases related to [[Labor dispute|labour disputes]], taxation, compensation, consumer protection, maritime law, mortgage, personal law, [[family law]], [[land acquisition]], service, [[Company law|company matters]], and other relevant areas.<ref>{{cite web |title=After Rift, Chief Justice Dipak Misra Makes Public Supreme Court Judges' Roster |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/chief-justice-dipak-misra-makes-public-supreme-court-judges-roster-1807352 |access-date=1 February 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180201120633/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/chief-justice-dipak-misra-makes-public-supreme-court-judges-roster-1807352 |archive-date=1 February 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref>

== Reporting ==
[[Supreme Court Reports (India)|Supreme Court Reports]] is the official journal that reports the decisions of the Supreme Court. It is published under the authority of the Supreme Court by the controller of publications of the Indian government.<ref>{{cite web |title=Supreme Court Reports |url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scr.htm |work=Supreme Court of India |access-date=30 March 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130423215839/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scr.htm |archive-date=23 April 2013}}</ref> In addition, there are other private journals that report Supreme Court cases. In 2023, the court adopted a [[neutral citation]] system for  identifying and citing cases in a uniform fashion.<ref>{{cite web |last=Sharma |first=Padmakshi |date=6 July 2023 |title=Supreme Court Launches 'Neutral Citation System' In Phased Manner |url=https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-launches-neutral-citation-system-in-phased-manner-232081 |access-date=2025-11-17 |website=www.livelaw.in |language=en}}</ref> The citation is formatted as <YEAR><COURT><SERIAL>, 2023INSC1 for example, referring to judgement 1 of 2023 by the Indian Supreme Court (INSC).<ref>{{cite web |last=Priyanka |date=4 August 2025 |title=Ending Citation Chaos: Neutral Citation simplifies Legal Referencing in Indian Courts |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/ending-citation-chaos-neutral-citation-simplifies-legal-referencing-in-indian-courts |access-date=24 December 2025 |work=Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news}}</ref>

== Landmark judgments ==
{{see|List of landmark court decisions in India}}

=== Fundamental rights ===
The parliament passed the [[First Amendment of the Constitution of India|first amendment]] to the constitution in 1951, and the [[Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India|fourth amendment]] in 1955, which gave it authority to redistribute land owned by [[zamindar]]s. In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Golaknath v. State of Punjab]]'' that the parliament did not have the power to abrogate the [[Fundamental rights in India|fundamental rights]] including the provisions on private property.<ref>{{cite web |title=Golaknath vs. State of Punjab |url=http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=2449 |publisher=Official Supreme Court Judis site |access-date=9 June 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141025085421/http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=2449 |archive-date=25 October 2014}}</ref> In 1971, the [[Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India|25th amendment to the constitution]] curtailed the right of a citizen to property as a fundamental right and permitted the acquisition of private property by the government for public use, on the payment of compensation which would be determined by the parliament and not the courts.<ref>{{cite book|title=Subverting the Constitution|date=1 January 1977|publisher=Abhinav Publications|pages=37–41;183|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Xzx0miLvzfsC|author=G. G. Mirchandani|isbn=978-8-170-17057-0|access-date=8 December 2013}}</ref>

In the ''Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala'' case in 1973, popularly known as fundamental rights case, a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in a 7-6 decision, asserted its right to strike down amendments to the constitution that were in violation of the fundamental architecture of the constitution and formed a [[Basic structure doctrine]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/|title=Kesavananda Bharati ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973|work=Indian Kanoon|access-date=1 June 2012}}</ref> The decision later led to the government enacting the [[Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India|42nd amendment]] of the constitution, which sought to curtail the powers of the Supreme Court and judge [[Ajit Nath Ray|A. N. Ray]], who was among the dissenters, being favored for the post of the chief justice, superseding three senior judges&ndash;[[Jaishanker Manilal Shelat|J. M. Shelat]], A. N. Grover and [[K. S. Hegde]], who were among those who wrote the favorable judgement.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lexsite.com/services/network/scba/history.shtml|title=Long March Supreme Court Bar Association|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091004035407/http://www.lexsite.com/services/network/scba/history.shtml |archive-date=4 October 2009|work=Lexite }}</ref> The Supreme Court later rejected the 42nd amendment and reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine, created in the fundamental rights case, in the ''[[Minerva Mills v. Union of India]]'' case in 1980.<ref>{{cite web|title=Judgement Copy|url=https://article51a.in/wp-content/uploads/Minerva-Mills-Vs-Union-of-India.pdf|work=Article 51A|access-date=1 June 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Personal-law-should-be-subject-to-fundamental-rights-Jaitley/articleshow/49965830.cms |title=Personal law should be subject to fundamental rights: Jaitley |work=[[The Times of India]] |date=29 November 2015 |access-date=25 December 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160106074107/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Personal-law-should-be-subject-to-fundamental-rights-Jaitley/articleshow/49965830.cms |archive-date=6 January 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In the Coelho case (I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu) in January 2007, a bench of nine judges gave a unanimous verdict reaffirming the basic structure doctrine, and held that a constitutional amendment which entails violation of any fundamental rights which the court regards as forming part of the doctrine can be struck down depending upon its impact and consequences. It further asserted the power of the Supreme Court to review amendments that are included in the Ninth schedule of the constitution to escape judicial scrutiny, if it is found to violate the basic doctrine established in 1973.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/ailet-pg/ir-coelho-v-state-of-tamil-nadu/|title=I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu|work=Law Octopus|access-date=1 June 2025}}</ref>

=== The Emergency ===
The independence of the judiciary was severely curtailed during the Emergency period (1975-77) imposed by [[Indira Gandhi]]. The constitutional rights of imprisoned persons were restricted under preventive detention laws passed by the parliament.<ref name=iyer>{{cite web |title=Emergency&nbsp;— Darkest hour in India's judicial history |author=V R Krishna Iyer |work=[[The Indian Express]] |url=http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/20000627/ina27053.html |date=27 June 2000 |access-date=16 September 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070823190651/http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/20000627/ina27053.html |archive-date=23 August 2007 }}</ref> In the case of ''[[ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla|Additional District Magistrate of Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla]]'', popularly known as the ''Habeas Corpus case'', a bench of five judges of the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the state's right to unrestricted powers of detention during the emergency. Judges [[A.N. Ray]], [[P. N. Bhagwati]], [[Y. V. Chandrachud]], and [[Mirza Hameedullah Beg|M.H. Beg]], stated in the majority decision:<ref name="PUCL">{{cite web |title=A.D.M. Jabalpur vs Shukla: When the Supreme Court struck down the Habeas Corpus |author=Jos. Peter D 'Souza |work=PUCL |url=http://www.pucl.org/reports/National/2001/habeascorpus.htm |date=June 2001 |access-date=16 September 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180526191030/http://www.pucl.org/reports/National/2001/habeascorpus.htm |archive-date=26 May 2018 |url-status=dead}}</ref>
:(under the [[The Emergency (India)|declaration of emergency]]) no person has any locus to move any writ petition under Art. 226 before a High Court for [[habeas corpus]] or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of detention.
The only dissenting opinion was from [[H. R. Khanna]], who stated:
:detention without trial is an anathema to all those who love personal liberty... A dissent is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed.<ref name="PUCL"/>

In January 1977, Khanna was superseded for the position of the chief justice despite being the most senior judge at the time as the government broke the convention of appointing the senior most judge to the position of chief justice of India for the second time after the earlier instance in 1973. Khanna is said to have remarked earlier that the judgment in the Habeas Corpus case was likely to cost him the position.<ref>{{cite news |title=Cry Freedom |author=Anil B. Divan |work=[[The Indian Express]] |url=http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=42937 |date=15 March 2004 |access-date=16 September 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050824055555/http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=42937 |archive-date=24 August 2005 |url-status=live |author-link=Anil B. Divan}}</ref> 

During the emergency, the government passed the [[Thirty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of India|39th amendment]] to the constitution, which sought to limit judicial review for the election of the prime minister and only a body constituted by the parliament could review this election.<ref>{{cite book |title=India after Gandhi: The history of the world's largest democracy |year=2008 |url=https://archive.org/details/indiaaftergandhi00guha_300 |url-access=limited |author=Ramachandra Guha |author-link=Ramachandra Guha |publisher=Macmillan/Picador, 2007 |page=[https://archive.org/details/indiaaftergandhi00guha_300/page/n275 500] |isbn=978-0-330-50554-3}}</ref> Subsequently, the parliament, with most opposition members in jail during the emergency, passed the 42nd amendment which prevented any court from reviewing any amendment to the constitution with the exception of procedural issues concerning ratification.<ref>{{cite journal | jstor=2643867| last1=Hart| first1=Henry C.| title=The Indian Constitution: Political Development and Decay| journal=Asian Survey| year=1980| volume=20| issue=4| pages=428–451| doi=10.2307/2643867}}</ref> After the emergency, subsequent amendments made it difficult to declare and sustain an emergency, and reinstated much of the power to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court later rejected the absoluteness of the 42nd amendment and reaffirmed its power of judicial review and the basic structure doctrine.<ref>{{cite web|title=Judgement Copy|url=https://article51a.in/wp-content/uploads/Minerva-Mills-Vs-Union-of-India.pdf|work=Article 51A|access-date=1 June 2025}}</ref>

The Supreme Court's creative and expansive interpretations of [[Article 21 of the Constitution of India|Article 21]] (life and personal liberty) of the constitution, after the emergency period, gave rise to a new [[jurisprudence]] of [[public interest litigation]]s that has promoted economic and social rights.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Shelton |first1=Dinah |last2=Kiss |first2=Alexandre |title=Judicial handbook on Environmental Law |date=2005 |publisher=United Nations Environment Programme |isbn=92-807-2555-6 |page=8 |url=http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/119/publications/Judicial-Handbook-Environmenal-Law.pdf#page=32 |access-date=1 December 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150511022001/http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/119/publications/Judicial-Handbook-Environmenal-Law.pdf#page=32 |archive-date=11 May 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Reservation ===
{{see|Reservation in India}}

Reservation for socially and educationally backward classes in educational institutions and government jobs were introduced in various stages since the Indian independence as per articles 15 and 46 of the constitution.<ref>{{cite constitution |article=[[:s:Constitution of India/Part III|15]]|section=4 |country=India  |ratified=1950 }}</ref><ref>{{cite constitution |article=46 |section=0 |country=India |language=en |ratified=1950 |url=http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/Const.Pock%202Pg.Rom8Fsss(7).pdf|access-date=1 June 2013 }}</ref> Significant changes happened with the implementation of [[Mandal Commission]] recommendations in the 1980s.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.theotherindia.org/caste/who-are-the-obcs.html|title=Who are the OBCs?|access-date=19 April 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060627065912/http://www.theotherindia.org/caste/who-are-the-obcs.html |archive-date=27 June 2006 |last=Bhattacharya |first=Amit |work=[[The Times of India]] |date=8 April 2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Ramaiah |first=A. |date=6 June 1992 |url=http://www.tiss.edu/downloads/ppapers/pp1.pdf |title=Identifying Other Backward Classes |pages=1203–1207 |work=Economic and Political Weekly |access-date=27 May 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051230030051/http://www.tiss.edu/downloads/ppapers/pp1.pdf |archive-date=30 December 2005}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Implementation of Recommendations of Mandal Commission |url=http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/lsdeb/ls10/ses4/0507089201.htm |work=Parliament of India |access-date=4 June 2012}}</ref> In the ''[[Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India]]'' case in 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that reservations in job promotions are "unconstitutional" or not in accordance with the political constitution but allowed its continuation for five years. It also stipulated that reservations could not exceed 50 percent, anything above which it judged would violate equal access as guaranteed by the Constitution.<ref name="Sawhney">{{cite web |url=http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1363234/ |title=Indra Sawhney Etc. vs Union of India And Others, Etc. on 16 November, 1992 |work=Indian Kanoon|access-date=1 June 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/bjps-obc-pitch-how-stronger-new-backward-classes-panel-will-function-4617203/|title=BJP's OBC pitch: How stronger new backward classes panel will function|date=18 April 2017|work=[[The Indian Express]]}}</ref> In 1995, the [[List of amendments of the Constitution of India|77th amendment]] to the constitution was made  before the five-year period expired to continue with caste based reservations in jobs.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend77.htm |title=Seventy Seventh Amendment |work=Indiacode |access-date=1 June 2011}}</ref> In the ''[[Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India]]'' case in 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the introduction of reservations in central educational institutions, subject to the "[[creamy layer]]" criteria.<ref>{{Cite journal |year=2008 |title=2008 ALL SCR 412 – Supreme Court Landmark Judgment [ Constitution of India, Article 245, Article 13, Article 372 ] |url=https://nearlaw.com/PDF/SC/2008/2008_all_scr_412.html |journal=Indian Journal of Supreme Court Reports |volume=1 |pages=412 |via=RNI Approved Legal Reporter |access-date=15 November 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115195104/https://nearlaw.com/PDF/SC/2008/2008_all_scr_412.html |archive-date=15 November 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Over the years, the Supreme Court has often stuck down attempts by various states to introduce additional reservations or create sub-quotas based on casts or religion.
<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3523008.ece?homepage=true |title=Supreme Court upholds AP court order quashing minority sub-quota |date=13 June 2012 |work=[[The Hindu]] |access-date=13 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120616013104/http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3523008.ece?homepage=true |archive-date=16 June 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/Supreme-Court-upholds-High-courts-decision-to-quash-quota-in-promotion/articleshow/12903017.cms |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130510200921/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-28/lucknow/31451487_1_consequential-seniority-due-promotions-reservation |archive-date=10 May 2013 |title=Supreme Court upholds High court's decision to quash quota in promotion |date=28 April 2012 |work=[[The Times of India]] |url-status=live |access-date=1 June 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=6 May 2021 |title=Supreme Court throws out Maratha quota law, cites 50% reservation cap |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-quashes-maharashtra-law-granting-reservation-to-maratha-community-7302656/ |access-date=17 July 2024 |work=[[The Indian Express]]}}</ref> However, there have been exceptions, such as in the state of [[Tamil Nadu]], where the Court has allowed caste-based reservation up to 69 percent as 89% of the population were eligible for reservations.<ref>{{cite web |last=Dharmadhikari |first=Sanyukta |date=29 March 2021 |title=How Tamil Nadu's reservation stands at 69% despite the 50% quota cap |url=https://www.thenewsminute.com/tamil-nadu/how-tamil-nadu-s-reservation-stands-69-despite-50-quota-cap-146116 |access-date=26 January 2025 |work=The News Minute}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=S |first=Mohamed Imranullah |date=3 April 2024 |title=89% of Tamil Nadu's population already eligible for reservation, State tells Madras High Court |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/89-of-tamil-nadus-population-already-eligible-for-reservation-state-govt-tells-madras-high-court/article68024416.ece |access-date=26 January 2025 |work=[[The Hindu]] |language=en-IN |issn=0971-751X}}</ref> On 7 November 2022,the Supreme Court by a 3:2 verdict in the ''Janhit Abhiyan vs Union Of India'' case, upheld the validity of the 103rd constitutional amendment carried out to provide ten percent reservation for the economically weaker sections from unreserved classes for admission in educational institutions and government jobs.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/quotas-poor-forward-castes-supreme-court-rule-8254179/|title=Quotas for poor among 'forward castes' upheld: Here's the case and what the SC has ruled|date=7 November 2022|work=[[The Indian Express]] }}</ref> It held that the 50% cap on quota is not inviolable and affirmative action on economic basis may go a long way in eradicating caste-based reservation.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/supreme-court-upholds-ews-quota-in-3-2-split-verdict-cji-in-minority/articleshow/95365168.cms|title=Supreme Court upholds EWS quota in 3-2 split verdict, CJI in minority|work=[[The Times of India]] |date=8 November 2022 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/reservation-policy-cannot-stay-for-indefinite-period-says-supreme-court/article66108033.ece?homepage=true|title=Reservation policy cannot stay for indefinite period, says Supreme Court|work=[[The Hindu]] |date=7 November 2022 }}</ref> On 1 August 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 6:1 in favor of permitting states to create sub-quotas for based on caste within their reservation schemes.<ref>{{cite web |title=Validity of Sub-Classification Within Reserved Categories |url=https://www.scobserver.in/cases/punjab-davinder-singh-validity-of-sub-classification-within-reserved-categories-case-background/ |access-date=25 September 2024 |work=Supreme Court Observer }}</ref>

=== Elections ===
In the 1980s, [[Electronic Voting Machines]] (EVM) were developed for voting in the Indian elections and was introduced in a phased manner by the [[Election Commission of India]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.news18.com/news/education-career/from-paper-ballots-to-switch-to-evm-and-the-introduction-of-nota-in-elections-learn-all-voting-system-in-classeswithnews18-6395737.html|title=From Paper Ballots Then to EVMs & NOTA Now|work=[[News18]]|date=21 November 2022|access-date=1 June 2024|archive-date=6 August 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240806043456/https://www.news18.com/news/education-career/from-paper-ballots-to-switch-to-evm-and-the-introduction-of-nota-in-elections-learn-all-voting-system-in-classeswithnews18-6395737.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The EVMs were first trialed in May 1982 in the by-election to [[Paravur (State Assembly constituency)|Paravur]] assembly constituency in [[Kerala]] in a limited number of polling stations.<ref name="Shukla">{{cite book|first=Alok|last=Shukla|title=EVM Electronic Voting Machines|year=2018|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gs91DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT70|publisher=Leadstart|isbn=978-9-35201-122-3|pages=70–73|access-date=22 May 2019|archive-date=6 August 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240806043520/https://books.google.com/books?id=gs91DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT70#v=onepage&q&f=false|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/history-of-electronic-voting-machine-evms-in-india/article68015562.ece|title=A brief history of EVMs in India|newspaper=[[The Hindu]]|date=|access-date=1 September 2023|archive-date=8 April 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240408072413/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/history-of-electronic-voting-machine-evms-in-india/article68015562.ece|url-status=live}}</ref> In a ruling on a case filed against the usage of EVMs in the by-election, the Supreme Court ruled that the [[Representation of People Act, 1951]] and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 specified the usage of [[paper ballot]] and forbade the use of any new methods including electronic voting. It further stated the manner in which the orders were issued for the use of EVMs was unconstitutional and the usage of any alternate means would require to be specified under the law.<ref name="Shukla"/> An amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which allowed the usage of EVMs, came into force in March 1989.<ref>{{cite report|url=https://www.eci.gov.in/eci-backend/public/uploads/monthly_2022_11/10386732_LegalHistoryofEVMsandVVPATs_pdf.a942a6ed2e36892f92adecb5e88f6d3d|title=Legal history of EVMs|work=[[Election Commission of India]]|date=November 2022|access-date=1 June 2024}}</ref>

After a consultation with the political parties, the Election Commission studied the feasibility of a [[voter-verified paper audit trail]] (VVPAT) in EVMs as a measure of transparency,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/evm-vvpat-case-supreme-court-lok-sabha-elections-13763213.html|title=EVM-VVPAT case: Why were VVPATs introduced? What is the controversy?|date=24 April 2024|access-date=1 July 2024|work=[[First Post]]|archive-date=3 June 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240603163708/https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/evm-vvpat-case-supreme-court-lok-sabha-elections-13763213.html|url-status=live}}</ref> and trialed it in some elections.<ref>{{cite web|title=New voting machines found perfect: Election Commission|url=http://www.kolkatanews.net/story/817207|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130413205244/http://www.kolkatanews.net/story/817207|url-status=dead|archive-date=13 April 2013|access-date=28 July 2012|work=Kolkata News|date=28 July 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=New Voting Machines Found Perfect: EC|url=http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=109901|access-date=28 July 2012|work=[[Daijiworld Media]]|date=28 July 2011|archive-date=6 November 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121106133222/http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=109901|url-status=live}}</ref> A public-interest litigation was filed in the Supreme Court in 2011 for directing the Election Commission to modify the EVMs to give a slip printed with the symbol of the party in whose favor the voter cast.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wc%2031211p.txt|title=SC order on EVM|work=Supreme Court of India|date=25 July 2011|access-date=15 February 2012|archive-date=20 December 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131220032341/http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wc%2031211p.txt|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp?id=jul2611/at092|title=SC seeks EC reply on EVM modification|date=25 July 2011|work=[[The Assam Tribune]]|access-date=15 February 2012|archive-date=19 December 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131219142425/http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp?id=jul2611/at092|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.indianexpress.com/news/do-evms-need-modification-sc-asks-ec-to-decide-in-3-weeks/822122/0|title=Do EVMs need modification? SC asks EC to decide in 3 weeks|date=25 July 2011|work=[[Indian Express]]|access-date=15 February 2012}}</ref> On 8 October 2013, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to introduce VVPATs along with EVMs in a phased manner.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40874|title=Civil Appeal No.9093 of 2013|work=Supreme Court of India|access-date=10 January 2019|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140502062650/http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40874|archive-date=2 May 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Supreme Court asks Election Commission to introduce paper trail in EVMs|url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/supreme-court-asks-election-commission-to-introduce-paper-trail-in-evms-213615-2013-10-07|work=[[India Today]]|date=8 October 2013|access-date=1 December 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/elections-2014-sc-directive-to-ec-for-paper-trail-in-evms/article5213604.ece|title=Elections 2014: SC directive to EC for paper trail in EVMs|date=8 October 2013|work=[[The Hindu]]|access-date=10 January 2019|archive-date=30 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200530081148/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/elections-2014-sc-directive-to-ec-for-paper-trail-in-evms/article5213604.ece|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2019, it further directed that two percent of the VVPATs shall be verified to ensure the reliability before the final results were certified.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.firstpost.com/politics/ec-announces-lok-sabha-election-dates-vvpats-to-be-used-in-all-polling-stations-help-bring-more-accuracy-in-voting-6232831.html|title=EC announces Lok Sabha election dates: VVPATs, to be used in all polling stations, help bring more accuracy in voting|date=10 March 2019|work=[[Firstpost]]|access-date=2 April 2019|archive-date=2 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190402174127/https://www.firstpost.com/politics/ec-announces-lok-sabha-election-dates-vvpats-to-be-used-in-all-polling-stations-help-bring-more-accuracy-in-voting-6232831.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabha/india/evm-vvpat-pass-test-in-lok-sabha-polls/articleshow/69469579.cms|title=EVM-VVPAT pass test in Lok Sabha polls|date=23 May 2019|work=[[The Economic Times]]|access-date=29 October 2019|archive-date=16 June 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190616143716/https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabha/india/evm-vvpat-pass-test-in-lok-sabha-polls/articleshow/69469579.cms|url-status=live}}</ref> Various opposition parties alleged faulty EVMs and the raised the possibility of tampering of the machines.<ref>{{cite news|title=Swamy for expert panel on secure EVMs|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article106271.ece|newspaper=[[The Hindu]]|access-date=22 June 2012|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130203213930/http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article106271.ece|archive-date=3 February 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/electronic-voting-machine-stolen-this-man-blamed-428563|title=Electronic voting machine stolen, this man blamed|date=23 August 2010|access-date=1 June 2024|work=[[NDTV]]|archive-date=4 August 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240804144918/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/electronic-voting-machine-stolen-this-man-blamed-428563|url-status=live}}</ref> There have been multiple cases against the usage of EVMs in which the Supreme Court had ruled in the favor of the Election Commission and has declared that the use of EVMs is constitutionally valid.<ref name="Shukla" /><ref>{{cite book|author=Nandan Nilekani|title=Imagining India: Ideas for the New Century|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mTAOHFrwRNsC&pg=PA115|year=2012|publisher=Penguin|isbn=978-0-14-341799-6|pages=115–117|access-date=22 May 2019|archive-date=21 May 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240521152907/https://books.google.com/books?id=mTAOHFrwRNsC&pg=PA115#v=onepage&q&f=false|url-status=live}}</ref>

In a writ petition filed in 2001 by the Association of Democratic reforms, the Supreme Court ordered the mandatory disclosure of criminal records, assets, and education by election candidates, by the Election Commission.<ref>{{cite web |title=Writ petition in the issue of black money |url=https://www.right2info.org/resources/publications/case-pdfs/india_union-of-india-uoi-v.-respondent-association-for-democratic-reforms-and-another-with-peoples-union-for-civil-liberties-pucl-and-another-v.-union-of-india-uoi-and-another |work=Supreme court of India |access-date=13 June 2018 |archive-date=14 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180314050919/http://www.right2info.org/resources/publications/case-pdfs/india_union-of-india-uoi-v.-respondent-association-for-democratic-reforms-and-another-with-peoples-union-for-civil-liberties-pucl-and-another-v.-union-of-india-uoi-and-another |url-status=dead }}</ref> In a related case, a three judge bench presided by the then chief justice [[Altamas Kabir]] issued notice to the Union government and the Election Commission on a public-interest litigation filed by a group of [[Non resident Indian]]s for the possibility of providing online or postal ballot for Indian citizens living abroad.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.deccanherald.com/content/314238/sc-notice-centre-ec-online.html |title=SC notice to Centre, EC on online voting for NRIs |work=[[Deccan Herald]] |date=22 February 2013 |access-date=16 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140416181717/http://www.deccanherald.com/content/314238/sc-notice-centre-ec-online.html |archive-date=16 April 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wc%208013p.txt |title=Nagendar Chindam vs Union of India |work=Supreme Court of India |date=21 February 2013 |access-date=9 June 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140416184021/http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wc%208013p.txt |archive-date=16 April 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> In 2024, the Supreme Court struck down an [[Electoral bonds]] scheme that allowed individuals and companies to anonymously donate to political parties, stating it was a violation of a voter's right to information about political funding. It also pointed out that it would lead to specific arrangements between corporations and politicians. The [[State Bank of India]] and the Election Commission were directed to publish all donor data available, including the names and the amount of donors they had collected.<ref>{{cite web |last=Kashyap |first=Gauri |date=15 February 2024 |title=Electoral Bonds Constitution Bench: Judgement Summary |url=https://www.scobserver.in/reports/electoral-bonds-constitution-bench-judgement-summary/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240215154720/https://www.scobserver.in/reports/electoral-bonds-constitution-bench-judgement-summary/ |archive-date=15 February 2024 |access-date=28 April 2024 |work=Supreme Court Observer }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=India's Supreme Court scraps electoral bonds, calls them 'unconstitutional' |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/15/indias-supreme-court-scraps-electoral-bonds-calls-it-unconstitutional |access-date=15 February 2024 |work=[[Al Jazeera]]|archive-date=29 April 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240429025154/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/15/indias-supreme-court-scraps-electoral-bonds-calls-it-unconstitutional |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=15 February 2024 |title=Why did the Supreme Court strike down the electoral bonds scheme? Explained |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/why-did-the-supreme-court-strike-down-the-electoral-bonds-scheme-explained/article67848657.ece |access-date=15 March 2024 |work=[[The Hindu]] |archive-date=28 April 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240428203708/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/why-did-the-supreme-court-strike-down-the-electoral-bonds-scheme-explained/article67848657.ece |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== LGBT rights ===
In April 2014, in the ''[[National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India]]'' case, judge [[K. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan]] recognised transgender to be the '[[third gender]]' officially as per Indian law.<ref>{{cite news |title=India recognises transgender people as third gender |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/15/india-recognises-transgender-people-third-gender |access-date=15 April 2014 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=15 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140415221112/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/15/india-recognises-transgender-people-third-gender |archive-date=15 April 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=McCoy |first=Terrence |title=India now recognizes transgender citizens as 'third gender' |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/15/india-now-recognizes-transgender-citizens-as-third-gender/?tid=hp_mm |access-date=15 April 2014 |work=[[The Washington Post]] |date=15 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140415141006/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/15/india-now-recognizes-transgender-citizens-as-third-gender/?tid=hp_mm |archive-date=15 April 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> In the ruling, the judge highlighted the ridicule and trauma faced by the community, and it is a moral responsibility of the society to embrace them.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=National Legal Services Authority ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents |court=Supreme Court of India |date=15 April 2014 |url=http://pastebin.com/9a5g8Qmr |access-date=15 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140416183032/http://pastebin.com/9a5g8Qmr |url-status=live}}</ref> He also said that transgender people should be treated consistently with other minorities under the law, enabling them to access jobs, healthcare and education.<ref>{{cite news |title=India court recognises transgender people as third gender |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-27031180 |access-date=15 April 2014 |newspaper=BBC News |date=15 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140415130906/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-27031180 |archive-date=15 April 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> This resulted in [[Hijra (South Asia)|hijras]], and [[Eunuch|eunuchs]], apart from [[Gender binary|binary gender]], being treated as the third gender, and also affirmed the individual right for self-identification of gender.<ref>{{cite news |title=Supreme Court recognizes transgenders as 'third gender' |url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Supreme-Court-recognizes-transgenders-as-third-gender/articleshow/33767900.cms |access-date=15 April 2014 |work=[[The Times of India]] |date=15 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140415112611/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Supreme-Court-recognizes-transgenders-as-third-gender/articleshow/33767900.cms |archive-date=15 April 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref>

On 6 September 2018, a five-member constitutional bench decriminalised [[homosexuality]] by partially striking down [[Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code]] in the ''[[Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India]]'' case. The bench led by chief justice [[Dipak Misra]] unanimously declared that criminalisation of private consensual sex between adult persons of the [[same sex]] as unconstitutional. The court, however, held that the section 377 would still apply to [[bestiality]], sex with [[Minor child|minors]] and non consensual sexual acts.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/sc-decriminalises-homosexuality/article24887363.ece |title=Supreme Court decriminalises homosexuality |date=7 September 2018 |work=[[The Hindu]] |access-date=2 June 2019 |first=Krishnadas |last=Rajagopal |archive-date=30 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200730035426/https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/sc-decriminalises-homosexuality/article24887363.ece |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Other cases ===
==== 2G spectrum case ====
{{see|2G spectrum case}}

The 2G spectrum case involved politicians and officials of the telecom ministry including then telecom minister [[A. Raja]], who were accused of allotting 122 [[spectrum license]]s in 2008 on conditions that provided an advantage to specific telecom operators that resulted in the loss of {{INRconvert|1760|b}} in government revenue.<ref>{{cite web|title=2G Scam Explained|url=https://www.news18.com/news/immersive/2g-scam-explained.html|access-date=18 September 2021|work=[[News18]]}}</ref> On 2 February 2012, the Supreme Court declared the allotment of spectrum as unconstitutional and arbitrary and quashed all the 122 licenses issued in 2008 during the time.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/2G-scam-SC-scraps-122-licences-granted-under-Rajas-tenure-trial-court-to-decide-on-Chidambarams-role/articleshow/11725097.cms|title=2G scam: SC scraps 122 licences granted under Raja's tenure, trial court to decide on Chidambaram's role|work=[[The Times of India]]|date=2 February 2012|access-date=18 July 2013}}</ref>

==== Right to Information ====
{{see|Right to Information Act}}

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is an act of the parliament which set the rules and procedures regarding citizens' right to access information. In 2010, the Supreme Court filed an appeal before itself challenging the judgement of the [[Delhi High Court]] which held that the office of the chief justice of India came under the ambit of the RTI act and was liable to reveal information under it.<ref>{{cite news |title=Supreme Court challenges verdict bringing CJI under RTI |work=[[The Hindu]] |date=8 March 2010 |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Supreme-Court-challenges-verdict-bringing-CJI-under-RTI/article16548421.ece |access-date=2 April 2018 |archive-date=11 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200811231132/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Supreme-Court-challenges-verdict-bringing-CJI-under-RTI/article16548421.ece |url-status=live}}</ref> On 13 November 2019, in a majority judgement of the Supreme Court, the office of the chief justice and governors of the states were brought under the purview of the act.<ref>{{cite news |title=CJI, governors should come under RTI: SC |work=[[The Times of India]] |date=7 July 2017 |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-for-bringing-office-of-cji-within-rti-ambit/articleshow/59481996.cms |access-date=2 April 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180801022155/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-for-bringing-office-of-cji-within-rti-ambit/articleshow/59481996.cms |archive-date=1 August 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title='Democratize the position of CJI and High Court Chief Justices', says Justice AP Shah |work=[[The Hindu]] |date=11 March 2018 |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/democratize-the-position-of-cji-and-high-court-chief-justices-justice-ap-shah/article23039259.ece |access-date=2 April 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180313050001/http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/democratize-the-position-of-cji-and-high-court-chief-justices-justice-ap-shah/article23039259.ece |archive-date=13 March 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Black money ====
{{see|Indian black money}}
In 2009, a writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court seeking its directions to help bring back the [[black money]] stashed abroad by Indians.<ref>{{cite web |title=SC ordering formation of SIT – 4 July 2011 |url=http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/17620093472011p.txt |work=Supreme Court of India |access-date=15 September 2013 |archive-date=9 February 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150209120331/http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/17620093472011p.txt |url-status=dead }}</ref> When the government refused to disclose details of about Indians holding accounts in an overseas bank in 2011, a two judge bench of the Supreme Court ordered the disclosure of the same and the formation of a [[Special Investigation Team (India)|Special investigation team]] to probe the matter.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Dont-let-Hasan-Ali-leave-country-SC/articleshow/7472495.cms |title=Don't let Hasan Ali leave country: SC |date=11 February 2011 |access-date=9 May 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120531074303/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-02-11/india/28541511_1_names-of-foreign-bank-lgt-bank-black-money |archive-date=31 May 2012 |work=[[The Times of India]] |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-01-26/news/28425995_1_black-money-liechtenstein-s-lgt-bank-accounts-in-tax-havens |work=[[The Times of India]] |title=Pranab Mukherjee refuses to spill names of LGT Bank account-holders |date=26 January 2011 |access-date=9 May 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120313192016/http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-01-26/news/28425995_1_black-money-liechtenstein-s-lgt-bank-accounts-in-tax-havens |archive-date=13 March 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/09011809/Supreme-Court-the-balancing-a.html |title=Supreme Court: the balancing act |date=8 December 2011 |access-date=25 April 2012 |archive-date=13 April 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120413085005/http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/09011809/Supreme-Court-the-balancing-a.html? |url-status=live}}</ref> Later in 2014, the central government disclosed the names of the people in separate affidavits to the Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite web |title=Govt discloses names of 26 Liechtenstein Bank Account Holders |url=http://news.biharprabha.com/2014/04/govt-discloses-names-of-26-liechtenstein-bank-account-holders/ |agency=Indo-Asian News Service |work=Bihar Prabha |access-date=29 April 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Dabur's Pradip Burman among 3 named for holding black money accounts abroad |url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Centre-names-3-black-money-account-holders-in-affidavit-to-SC/articleshow/44945687.cms |work=[[The Times of India]] |date=27 October 2014 |access-date=27 October 2014}}</ref>

==== Administrative reforms ====
In 2013, in the ''[[T.S.R. Subramanian vs Union of India]]'' case, a division bench of the Supreme Court ruled that officers of the [[Indian Administrative Service]] and other [[All India Services]], and other civil servants were not required to follow oral instructions, as they "undermine credibility".<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/oral-instructions-undermine-accountability-supreme-court/article5302069.ece |title=Oral instructions undermine accountability: Supreme Court |last=Venkatesan |first=J. |date=1 November 2013 |work=[[The Hindu]] |access-date=21 February 2018 |location=New Delhi |issn=0971-751X |oclc=13119119 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140428095022/http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/oral-instructions-undermine-accountability-supreme-court/article5302069.ece |archive-date=28 April 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite news |url=https://www.telegraphindia.com/1131101/jsp/frontpage/story_17519176.jsp |title=Chance to say 'No, minister' |last=Balaji |first=R. |date=31 October 2013 |work=[[The Telegraph (Kolkata)|The Telegraph]] |access-date=21 February 2018 |location=New Delhi |oclc=271717941 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221101158/https://www.telegraphindia.com/1131101/jsp/frontpage/story_17519176.jsp |archive-date=21 February 2018 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/ias-officers-will-no-more-act-on-oral-orders-supreme-court_887175.html |title=IAS officers will no more act on oral orders: Supreme Court |last=Nagpal |first=Deepak |date=31 October 2013 |work=[[Zee News]] |access-date=21 February 2018 |location=New Delhi |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221101141/http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/ias-officers-will-no-more-act-on-oral-orders-supreme-court_887175.html |archive-date=21 February 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> The judgement also recommended several reforms to the appointment, transfer, and promotions of civil service personnel. A Civil Services Board, headed by the [[Cabinet Secretary of India|cabinet secretary]] at national level, and [[Chief Secretary (India)|chief secretary]] at state level, was to be set up to recommend transfer/postings all Group A officers.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/in-major-reform-sc-orders-fixed-tenure-for-bureaucrats/article5299939.ece |title=In major reform, SC orders fixed tenure for bureaucrats |last=Venkatesan |first=J. |date=31 October 2018 |work=[[The Hindu]] |access-date=21 February 2018 |location=New Delhi |issn=0971-751X |oclc=13119119 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171020205043/http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/in-major-reform-sc-orders-fixed-tenure-for-bureaucrats/article5299939.ece |archive-date=20 October 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/2-year-fixed-postings-for-IAS-IPS-and-forest-service/articleshow/29623556.cms |title=2-year fixed postings for IAS, IPS and forest service |last=Jain |first=Bharti |date=31 January 2014 |website=[[The Times of India]] |location=New Delhi |oclc=23379369 |access-date=3 September 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170312033320/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/2-year-fixed-postings-for-IAS-IPS-and-forest-service/articleshow/29623556.cms |archive-date=12 March 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/centre-notifies-2-yr-tenure-for-ias-ips-forest-service-officers/ |title=Centre notifies 2-yr tenure for IAS, IPS, Forest Service officers |last=Chhibber |first=Maneesh |date=31 January 2014 |work=[[The Indian Express]] |location=New Delhi |oclc=70274541 |access-date=3 September 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170903033447/http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/centre-notifies-2-yr-tenure-for-ias-ips-forest-service-officers/ |archive-date=3 September 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref> Transfers of Group B officers were to be done by the respective heads of departments.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jonew/judis/40943.pdf |title=T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. … Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors.|last=Panicker Radhakrishnan |first=K. S. |author-link=K. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan |date=31 October 2018 |website=Supreme Court of India |location=New Delhi |access-date=21 February 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221110743/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jonew/judis/40943.pdf |archive-date=21 February 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/the-civil-servants-cannot-function-on-the-basis-of-verbal-or-oral-instructions/288426 |title='The Civil Servants Cannot Function On The Basis Of Verbal Or Oral Instructions. |date=1 November 2018 |work=[[Outlook (Indian magazine)|Outlook]] |access-date=21 February 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221100246/https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/the-civil-servants-cannot-function-on-the-basis-of-verbal-or-oral-instructions/288426 |archive-date=21 February 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> It further ordered that there was to be no interference of any ministers in the transfers/postings of civil servants.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/sc-seeks-to-protect-civil-servants-from-their-political-bosses-113110100038_1.html |title=SC seeks to protect civil servants from their political bosses |date=1 November 2013 |work=[[Business Standard]] |access-date=21 February 2018 |agency=B. S. Reporter |location=New Delhi |oclc=496280002 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221100449/http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/sc-seeks-to-protect-civil-servants-from-their-political-bosses-113110100038_1.html |archive-date=21 February 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-year-end-special-10-landmark-judgments-of-2013/20131220.htm#11 |title=Year-end Special: 10 landmark judgments of 2013 |date=20 December 2013 |work=[[Rediff.com]] |access-date=21 February 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221100748/http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-year-end-special-10-landmark-judgments-of-2013/20131220.htm#11 |archive-date=21 February 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Right to privacy ====
{{see|Right to Privacy verdict}}

In the ''[[Puttaswamy v. Union of India]]'' case in 2017, the Supreme Court upheld that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bhandari |first1=Vrinda |last2=Kak |first2=Amba |last3=Parsheera |first3=Smriti |last4=Rahman |first4=Faiza |title=An Analysis of Puttaswamy: The Supreme Court's Privacy Verdict |url=http://www.indrastra.com/2017/11/An-Analysis-of-Puttaswamy-Supreme-Court-s-Privacy-Verdict-003-11-2017-0004.html |journal=IndraStra Global |volume=003 |pages=004 |issn=2381-3652 |access-date=28 April 2024 |archive-date=21 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240221005609/https://www.indrastra.com/2017/11/An-Analysis-of-Puttaswamy-Supreme-Court-s-Privacy-Verdict-003-11-2017-0004.html |url-status=live}}</ref> It clarified that the rights could be infringed upon only when there was a compelling state interest for doing so, and overruled three previous judgements of the Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite news |date=29 August 2017 |title=Supreme Court rights old judicial wrongs in landmark Right to Privacy verdict, shows State its rightful place |url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/supreme-court-rights-old-judicial-wrongs-in-landmark-right-to-privacy-verdict-shows-state-its-rightful-place-3984011.html |access-date=31 December 2021 |work=Firstpost |archive-date=6 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211206222233/https://www.firstpost.com/india/supreme-court-rights-old-judicial-wrongs-in-landmark-right-to-privacy-verdict-shows-state-its-rightful-place-3984011.html |url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Ayodhya dispute ====
{{Main|2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute}}

The [[Ayodhya dispute]] is centered around a plot of land in the city of [[Ayodhya]] in Uttar Pradesh, which had been a contentious issue between the Hindus and the Muslims since the 18th century. The Supreme Court has heard several litigations since the first case was filed before it in 1961. On 9 November 2019, a bench of the Supreme Court, led by chief justice [[Ranjan Gogoi]], declared that the disputed land will be given to Hindus for the construction of the [[Ram Temple, Ayodhya|temple]], and the Muslim community shall be given an alternative piece of land for the construction of a mosque.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/ayodhya-case-verdict-live-updates-ram-janmabhoomi-babri-masjid-ayodhya-mandir-news-samachar-supreme-court-uttar-pradesh-2379563.html |title=Entire Disputed Land Goes to Hindus for Ram Mandir, Muslims to Get 5 Acres of Alternate Land |date=9 November 2019 |work=[[News18]] |access-date=9 November 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191109055244/https://www.news18.com/news/india/ayodhya-case-verdict-live-updates-ram-janmabhoomi-babri-masjid-ayodhya-mandir-news-samachar-supreme-court-uttar-pradesh-2379563.html |archive-date=9 November 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/supreme-court-hearing-ends-in-ayodhya-dispute-orders-reserved/article29710840.ece |title=Supreme Court hearing ends in Ayodhya dispute; orders reserved |agency=[[Press Trust of India]] |work=[[Business Line]] |date=16 October 2019 |access-date=28 October 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191023101322/https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/supreme-court-hearing-ends-in-ayodhya-dispute-orders-reserved/article29710840.ece |archive-date=23 October 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ayodhya-verdict-live-updates-ram-mandir-babri-masjid-land-dispute-case-supreme-court-verdict-at-10-3-2129704 |title=Ayodhya Verdict Live Updates: Disputed Land To Be Given For Temple Construction, Muslims To Get 5-Acre Plot In Ayodhya, Says Top Court |work=[[NDTV]] |access-date=9 November 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191109060357/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ayodhya-verdict-live-updates-ram-mandir-babri-masjid-land-dispute-case-supreme-court-verdict-at-10-3-2129704 |archive-date=9 November 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref>

== Critical assessment ==
=== Corruption ===
In 2008, the Supreme Court was embroiled in several allegations including that of [[corruption]].<ref>{{cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090802122841/http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=3a1e5636-0e74-45da-a271-326c51d2fb23&&Headline=Ex-chief+justice+under+corruption+panel+scanner |title=Ex-chief justice under corruption panel scanner |url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=3a1e5636-0e74-45da-a271-326c51d2fb23&&Headline=Ex-chief+justice+under+corruption+panel+scanner |work=[[The Hindustan Times]] |date=9 June 2008 |archive-date=2 August 2009}}</ref> These included expensive private holidays for judges at government expenses,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ibnlive.in.com/news/judges-junk-rules-for-junkets-with-wives/65630-3.html?xml |title=Are judges holidaying at public expense?|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019182030/http://ibnlive.in.com/news/judges-junk-rules-for-junkets-with-wives/65630-3.html |archive-date=19 October 2013|date=May 2008|work=[[IBN Live]]}}</ref> refusal to divulge details of judges' assets to the public,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indianexpress.com/news/judges-asset-declaration-before-cji-not.../381980/|title= Judges' asset declaration before CJI not for public eye: SC to CIC|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181021111608/http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/judges-asset-declaration-before-cji-not.../381980/ |archive-date=21 October 2018 |work=[[The Indian Express]] |date=6 November 2008}}</ref> secrecy in the appointments of judges,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19990331/iex31074.html|title=The case of judicial injustice|work=[[The Indian Express]]|date=31 March 1999|access-date=1 June 2002}}</ref> and the refusal to make information public under the [[Right to Information Act]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/RTI-Act-does-not-apply-to-my-office-CJI/articleshow/2964678.cms |title=RTI Act does not apply to my office: CJI |work=[[The Times of India]] |date=20 April 2008 |access-date=1 June 2009}}</ref> The chief justice K. G. Balakrishnan invited a lot of criticism for his comments on his post not being that of a public servant, but that of a constitutional authority,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Is-the-CJI-a-public-servant/articleshow/2969521.cms |title=Is the CJI a public servant? |work=[[The Times of India]] |date=22 April 2008 |access-date=1 June 2009}}</ref> which he recanted it later.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/I-am-a-public-servant-CJI/articleshow/3013416.cms |title=I am a public servant: CJI |work=[[The Times of India]] |date=6 May 2008 |access-date=1 June 2009}}</ref> The judiciary came under criticism from president [[Pratibha Patil]] for its failure in handling its duties.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Delayed-justice-leading-to-lynch-mobs-Pratibha/articleshow/2808523.cms|title=Delayed justice leading to lynching mobs: Pratibha|work=[[The Times of India]]|date=24 February 2008|access-date=1 June 2009}}</ref> Then prime minsiter [[Manmohan Singh]] stated that corruption is one of the major challenges facing the judiciary, and suggested that there is an urgent need to eradicate this menace.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/manmohan-singh-calls-for-check-on-corruption-in-the-judiciary_10039700.html|title= Manmohan Singh calls for check on corruption in judiciary|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180820162458/http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/manmohan-singh-calls-for-check-on-corruption-in-the-judiciary_10039700.html |archive-date=20 August 2018 |work=Thaindian News |date=19 April 2008}}</ref>

The judges Inquiry (Amendment) Bill was introduced in October 2008 for setting up of the National Judicial Council, headed by the chief justice, to probe into allegations of corruption and misconduct by High Court and Supreme Court judges.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=473145&sid=NAT |title=Pass Judges (Inquiry) Bill in next session, panel tells Govt |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201215174921/http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=473145&sid=NAT |archive-date=15 December 2020 |work=[[Zee News]] |date=30 September 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.igovernment.in/site/Bill-for-probe-panel-against-errant-judges-cleared/ |title=Bill for probe panel against errant judges cleared |work=iGovernment |date=10 October 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721163011/http://www.igovernment.in/site/Bill-for-probe-panel-against-errant-judges-cleared/ |archive-date=21 July 2011 }}</ref>

=== Pending cases ===
{{see|Pendency of court cases in India}}

As per the Supreme Court newsletter, there were 58,519 cases pending in the Supreme Court, out of which 37,385 were pending for more than a year, at the end of 2011. Excluding connected cases, there were 33,892 pending cases before the court.<ref>{{cite web |title=Supreme Court Quarterly Newsletter&nbsp;— Oct&nbsp;— Dec 2011 |url=http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/courtnews/2011_issue_4.pdf |work=Supreme Court of India |access-date=18 September 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130219212236/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/courtnews/2011_issue_4.pdf |archive-date=19 February 2013}}</ref> The number of pending cases slightly dropped to 55,259 by 2014.<ref>{{cite web |title=Number of pending matters in Supreme Court as on 1st April 2014 |url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/statistics |access-date=18 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180125080921/http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/statistics |archive-date=25 January 2018 |url-status=live |work=Supreme Court of India}}</ref> In May 2014, chief justice [[R.M. Lodha]], proposed to make the [[Judiciary of India|Indian judiciary]] work throughout the year (instead of the present system of vacations) in order to reduce pendency of cases in Indian courts. As per the proposal, the working days and hours would remain the same, and different judges would be going on vacation during different periods of the year per their choice. However, the [[Bar Council of India]] rejected this proposal because it would have inconvenienced the advocates who would have to work throughout the year and possibly with different judges.<ref>{{cite web |title=Proposal to make judiciary work throughout the year |url=http://www.tilakmarg.com/2014/06/proposal-to-make-judiciary-work.html |access-date=9 June 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714203911/http://www.tilakmarg.com/2014/06/proposal-to-make-judiciary-work.html |archive-date=14 July 2014 |url-status=live |work=Tilak marg}}</ref> The [[Code of Civil Procedure (India)|Code of Civil Procedure]] have been diluted by Supreme Court judgements over time to give the courts right to endlessly adjourn the cases.<ref>{{cite web |title=What causes judicial delay? Judgments diluting time frames in Code of Civil Procedure worsen the problem of adjournments |work=[[The Times of India]] |date=25 August 2016 |url=https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/what-causes-judicial-delay-judgments-diluting-timeframes-in-code-of-civil-procedure-worsen-the-problem-of-adjournments/ |access-date=5 May 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170904045743/http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/what-causes-judicial-delay-judgments-diluting-timeframes-in-code-of-civil-procedure-worsen-the-problem-of-adjournments/ |archive-date=4 September 2017 |url-status=live |last1=Ranjan |first1=Brajesh}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Don't need 70,000 judges. Just fill vacancies to cut backlog |url=http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tracking-indian-communities/dont-need-70000-judges-just-fill-vacancies-to-cut-backlog/ |author=Shailesh Gandhi, Ex Central Information Commissioner |work=[[The Times of India]] |date=29 May 2016 |access-date=3 May 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180711034158/https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tracking-indian-communities/dont-need-70000-judges-just-fill-vacancies-to-cut-backlog/ |archive-date=11 July 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> As per the [[International Bar Association]], this resulted in a serious crisis to access to speedy justice.<ref>{{cite web |title=Access to justice: Indian Supreme Court's backlog is 'serious issue' |url=https://www.ibanet.org/Access-to%20justice-Indian-Supreme-Courts-backlog-is-serious-issue |access-date=30 August 2024 |work=[[International Bar Association]]}}</ref>

=== External interference and selection of cases ===
The Supreme Court has been accused of choosing and prioritising cases selectively. For example, the trial to examine the validity of the ninety-ninth [[constitutional amendment]], dated 31 December 2014, to form the National Judicial Appointments Commission for the purpose of appointing the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, was conducted on utmost priority and the Supreme Court delivered its judgement on 16 October 2015, quashing the constitutional amendment as [[unconstitutional]] and [[ultra vires]], stating that the said amendment interferes with the independence of the judiciary.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-verdict-on-njac-and-collegium-system/article7769266.ece?homepage=true |title=SC declares NJAC unconstitutional, upholds Collegium |work=[[The Hindu]] |date=16 October 2015 |access-date=23 January 2018 |archive-date=8 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201108102918/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-verdict-on-njac-and-collegium-system/article7769266.ece?homepage=true |url-status=live}}</ref> 

The pending cases have included cases such as the [[Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014]], which was enacted by the parliament and later challenged as against the stipulated procedure and [[Basic structure doctrine|basic structure of the constitution]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-admits-petition-against-formation-of-telangana/article5940913.ece |title=Supreme Court admits petition against formation Telangana |work=[[The Hindu]] |date=23 April 2014 |access-date=3 August 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180703232407/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-admits-petition-against-formation-of-telangana/article5940913.ece |archive-date=3 July 2018 |url-status=live |last1=Venkatesan |first1=J.}}</ref> Under [[checks and balances]] as provided in the constitution, it is the duty of the judiciary to establish the [[rule of law]] at the earliest by rectifying any misuse of the constitution by the parliament.<ref>{{cite web |title=Rule of law: Justice in the dock |date=10 March 2018 |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/rule-of-law-justice-in-the-dock-1186254-2018-03-10 |access-date=11 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180310182230/https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/rule-of-law-justice-in-the-dock-1186254-2018-03-10 |archive-date=10 March 2018 |url-status=live |work=[[India Today]]}}</ref> However, the case was pending to be taken up for more than six years, with judge Chelameswar making reference to government interference on the same.<ref>{{cite web |title=Govt meddling in Supreme Court: Justice Chelameswar says CJI Dipak Misra has to take it forward |date=31 March 2018 |url=http://indianexpress.com/article/india/govt-meddling-in-sc-justice-chelameswar-says-cji-dipak-misra-has-to-take-it-forward-5117863/ |access-date=31 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180331023441/http://indianexpress.com/article/india/govt-meddling-in-sc-justice-chelameswar-says-cji-dipak-misra-has-to-take-it-forward-5117863/ |archive-date=31 March 2018 |url-status=live |work=[[The Indian Express]]}}</ref> While the original case was pending, the Supreme Court delivered judgements to dispose of petitions related to the apportionment of assets between the newly formed states of [[Telangana]] and [[Andhra Pradesh]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wbja.nic.in/wbja_adm/files/A%20ststute%20is%20best%20interpreted%20when%20we%20know%20why%20it%20was%20enacted.%20With%20this%20knowledge,%20the%20ststute%20must%20be%20read,%20first%20as%20a%20whole%20and%20then%20section%20by%20section,%20clause%20by%20clause,%20phrase%20by%20phrase%20and%20word%20by%20word..pdf |date=March 2016 |title=Assets division between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh of Erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Education Council of Higher Education |access-date=3 August 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180124010819/http://www.wbja.nic.in/wbja_adm/files/A%20ststute%20is%20best%20interpreted%20when%20we%20know%20why%20it%20was%20enacted.%20With%20this%20knowledge,%20the%20ststute%20must%20be%20read,%20first%20as%20a%20whole%20and%20then%20section%20by%20section,%20clause%20by%20clause,%20phrase%20by%20phrase%20and%20word%20by%20word..pdf |archive-date=24 January 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> water sharing between the states,<ref>{{cite news |title=Issue of Telangana's share in Krishna water may be referred to Tribunal: Centre to Supreme Court |work=[[The Economic Times]] |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/issue-of-telanganas-share-in-krishna-water-may-be-referred-to-tribunal-centre-to-supreme-court/articleshow/50094386.cms |access-date=13 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180127085314/https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/issue-of-telanganas-share-in-krishna-water-may-be-referred-to-tribunal-centre-to-supreme-court/articleshow/50094386.cms |archive-date=27 January 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> and other cases related to it.<ref>{{cite news |title=Hyderabad High Court bifurcation: Centre approves judges' proposal |date=26 October 2017 |url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/2017/oct/26/hyderabad-high-court-bifurcation-centre-approves-judges-proposal-1683366.html |access-date=13 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171230065528/http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/2017/oct/26/hyderabad-high-court-bifurcation-centre-approves-judges-proposal-1683366.html |archive-date=30 December 2017 |url-status=live |work=[[The Indian Express]]}}</ref>

=== Four judges vs. the chief justice ===
{{Main|2018 Supreme Court of India crisis}}

On 12 January 2018, four senior judges of the Supreme Court&ndash; Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, [[Madan Lokur]] and [[Kurian Joseph]] addressed a press conference criticizing the chief justice [[Dipak Misra]]'s style of administration and the manner in which he allocated cases among judges of the Supreme Court. However, people close to Misra denied the allegations that the allocation of cases was unfair.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Bagriya |first1=Ashok |last2=Sinha |first2=Bhadra |url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/4-senior-supreme-court-judges-speak-out-against-cji-dipak-misra-say-need-to-preserve-institution-for-survival-of-democracy/story-UqaLGhs4iCbyk4zckVmMbM.html |title=Turmoil in Supreme Court as four judges speak out against Chief Justice Dipak Misra |date=12 January 2018 |work=[[Hindustan Times]] |access-date=13 January 2018 |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180112173338/http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/4-senior-supreme-court-judges-speak-out-against-cji-dipak-misra-say-need-to-preserve-institution-for-survival-of-democracy/story-UqaLGhs4iCbyk4zckVmMbM.html |archive-date=12 January 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> On 20 April 2018, seven opposition parties submitted a petition seeking the impeachment of Misra to the [[Vice President of India|vice president]] [[Venkaiah Naidu]], with signatures from 71 parliamentarians.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/opposition-parties-submit-petition-to-rajya-sabha-chairman-for-chief-justices-impeachment-1840245 |title=Chief Justice Dipak Misra Faces Impeachment Motion, 71 Have Signed: 10 Facts |work=[[NDTV]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180420152255/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/opposition-parties-submit-petition-to-rajya-sabha-chairman-for-chief-justices-impeachment-1840245 |archive-date=20 April 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> On 23 April 2018, the petition was rejected by Naidu, primarily on the basis that the complaints were about administration and not misbehaviour, and that thus impeachment would seriously interfere with the constitutionally protected [[independence of the judiciary]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Phukan |first=Sandeep |date=23 April 2018 |title=Venkaiah Naidu rejects impeachment motion against CJI |language=en-IN |work=[[The Hindu]] |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/venkaiah-naidu-rejects-impeachment-motion-against-cji/article23643125.ece |access-date=8 May 2018 |archive-date=15 December 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201215174843/http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/venkaiah-naidu-rejects-impeachment-motion-against-cji/article23643125.ece |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |agency=Press Trust of India |title=Decision to reject impeachment motion against CJI was not hasty: Venkaiah Naidu |date=23 April 2018 |work=[[The Times of India]] |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/decision-to-reject-impeachment-motion-against-cji-was-not-hasty-venkaiah-naidu/articleshow/63895986.cms |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180425002616/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/decision-to-reject-impeachment-motion-against-cji-was-not-hasty-venkaiah-naidu/articleshow/63895986.cms |archive-date=25 April 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=10 reasons why Venkaiah Naidu rejected the impeachment notice against CJI Dipak Misra |date=23 April 2018 |work=[[The Times of India]] |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/10-reasons-why-venkaiah-naidu-rejected-the-impeachment-notice-against-cji-dipak-misra/articleshow/63881915.cms |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180423214619/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/10-reasons-why-venkaiah-naidu-rejected-the-impeachment-notice-against-cji-dipak-misra/articleshow/63881915.cms |archive-date=23 April 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Allegations of harrasement ===
On 18 April 2019, an unnamed woman employee of the Supreme Court filed an affidavit stating that chief justice Ranjan Gogoi had [[Sexual harassment|sexually harassed]] her on 10–11 October 2018 by pressing his body against hers against her will. An in-house committee of the Supreme Court cleared Gogoi of the charges, although the report of the committee was not provided to the complainant.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48177737 |title=Indian Chief Justice Cleared of Sexual Harassment |work=[[BBC News]] |date=6 May 2019 |access-date=20 August 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190820162954/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48177737 |archive-date=20 August 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref> There was a protest by a section of lawyers against the manner in which the woman's complaint was dealt with by the Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/women-lawyers-activists-protest-against-clean-chit-to-cji-ranjan-gogoi/videoshow/69214922.cms |title=Lawyers, Activists Protest against Clean Chit to CJI Ranjan Gogoi |work=[[The Economic Times]] |date=7 May 2019 |access-date=20 August 2019 |archive-date=23 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201023001500/https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/women-lawyers-activists-protest-against-clean-chit-to-cji-ranjan-gogoi/videoshow/69214922.cms |url-status=live}}</ref> Later, a petition was filed before the [[National Human Rights Commission]] to obtain the report of the in-house committee.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/complaint-in-nhrc-seeks-sexual-harassment-report-which-gave-clean-chit-to-cji-ranjan-gogoi-1536015-2019-05-27 |title=Complaint in NHRC Seeking Sexual Harassment Report on CJI Ranjan Gogoi |work=[[India Today]] |date=27 May 2019 |language=en |access-date=20 August 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190530101346/https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/complaint-in-nhrc-seeks-sexual-harassment-report-which-gave-clean-chit-to-cji-ranjan-gogoi-1536015-2019-05-27 |archive-date=30 May 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref> The woman complainant later stated that she and her family were systematically victimised as they were all dismissed from service following her protest against Gogoi.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/cji-ranjan-gogoi-clean-chit-sexual-harassment-case-my-worst-fears-came-true-1518609-2019-05-06 |title=Dejected and Terrified – Woman Complainant against CJI Ranjan Gogoi |work=[[India Today]] |date=6 May 2019 |access-date=29 December 2019 |archive-date=8 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201108005525/https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/cji-ranjan-gogoi-clean-chit-sexual-harassment-case-my-worst-fears-came-true-1518609-2019-05-06 |url-status=live}}</ref>

== See also ==
{{Portal|Law}}
* [[Attorney General of India]]
* [[Solicitor General of India]]
* [[Constitutional body (India)]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{Commons category}}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20140625110033/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scr.htm Supreme Court reports]
* [https://legaldata.in/court/judgements/supreme-court-of-india Supreme Court judgments] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221101112032/https://legaldata.in/court/judgements/supreme-court-of-india |date=1 November 2022 }}
* [https://www.api.sci.gov.in/chief-justice-judges Chief Justice & Judges] 
* [https://www.leadindia.law/blog/role-and-powers-of-the-supreme-court-in-the-indian-constitution-a-complete-guide/ Role And powers of the Supreme Court in the Indian Constitution]

{{Navboxes|list=
{{Judiciary of India}}
{{Asia topic|Supreme Court of|title=Supreme Courts of Asia|countries_only=yes}}
{{India topics}}
}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Supreme Court of India| ]]
[[Category:National supreme courts|India]]
[[Category:Constitutional courts|India]]
[[Category:1950 establishments in India]]