How the Supreme Court Shapes Governance
The Supreme Court of India has been described by legal scholar Manoj Mate as "the most powerful constitutional court in the contemporary world." This claim reflects not the formal text of the Constitution — which places the court within a standard separation of powers architecture — but the accumulation of doctrinal and institutional developments since 1950 that have progressively expanded the court's role from a relatively restrained appellate body into an institution that has assumed a central role in shaping Indian governance across domains as varied as environmental regulation, educational policy, appointment of judges, investigation of corruption, and definition of fundamental rights.
 |
| Representational Image: How the Supreme Court Shapes Governance |
This expansion was not linear. In the first two decades after independence, the Supreme Court played a limited governance role, largely deferring to the executive and Parliament on socio-economic policy. The turning point was the period following the Emergency (1975–77), during which the court's majority had acquiesced in the suspension of fundamental rights.
The
post-Emergency court used Public Interest Litigation — a procedural innovation
that dispensed with strict locus standi requirements, allowing any public-spirited
person to petition the court on behalf of disadvantaged groups — to reposition
itself as a champion of constitutional values and a check on governmental
abuse. Through PIL, the court moved from reactive adjudication of disputes to
proactive oversight of executive performance in specific sectors, appointing
commissioners, monitoring compliance, and maintaining continuing jurisdiction
over governance failures.
The Ground Reality
- The
Supreme Court hears constitutional, civil, and criminal appeals from all
courts and tribunals in India; its judgments are binding on all courts and
tribunals under Article 141 of the Constitution; it is the final
interpreter of the Constitution and its decisions on constitutional
questions cannot be overturned except by constitutional amendment that
does not violate the basic structure.
- The
collegium system — under which the Supreme Court collegium, headed by the
Chief Justice of India, effectively controls appointment and transfer of
judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts — was established through
judicial interpretation in the Second Judges Case (1993) and the Third
Judges Case (1998), without any constitutional amendment; the collegium
system has been described as a court-created institutional arrangement
with no parallel in major democracies.
- The
NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) established by the 99th
Constitutional Amendment to replace the collegium was struck down by the
Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of
India (2015) — the Court held that judicial independence, a basic
structure feature, required continued judicial dominance in appointments.
- The
continuing mandamus jurisdiction — under which the Supreme Court retains
and exercises ongoing oversight over specific governance areas through a
series of interim orders rather than a single final judgment — was
developed primarily through the right-to-food case (PUCL v. Union of
India, 2001), which has produced over 50 interim orders since April 2001,
transforming government food security schemes.
- PRS
Legal Policy Centre and academic scholarship consistently identify the
Supreme Court as having produced landmark binding directions in
environmental regulation (M.C. Mehta cases), bonded labour, prisoners'
rights, elections (Model Code of Conduct, declaration of criminal
antecedents by candidates), forest conservation (Godavarman case), and
slum resettlement.
How It Works in Practice
1. Original jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has
exclusive original jurisdiction under Article 131 over disputes between the
Union and one or more states, or between two or more states. This jurisdiction
makes it the constitutional arbiter of federal disputes. It also has original
writ jurisdiction under Article 32 for enforcement of fundamental rights.
2. Appellate jurisdiction and special leave: The
court exercises appellate jurisdiction under Articles 132, 133, and 134 over
constitutional, civil, and criminal matters from High Courts. Under Article
136, it has discretionary "special leave to appeal" from any judgment
of any court or tribunal in India — a power used extensively to bring matters
to the Supreme Court that would otherwise terminate at High Court level.
3. Constitutional interpretation and basic structure:
The court's power to invalidate legislation under Articles 13 and 32, and its
application of the basic structure doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati (1973),
makes it the final guardian of constitutional limits. Every constitutional
amendment since 1973 has been enacted in the shadow of the basic structure
doctrine; the court has invalidated several amendments as violating it.
4. Continuing mandamus and institutional oversight:
The court's innovation of retaining jurisdiction over complex governance
problems — maintaining cases as pending, issuing successive interim orders,
monitoring compliance through commissioners — has created a distinctive mode of
judicial governance that operates in parallel with executive administration in
specific domains. Critics describe this as judicial overreach; proponents
describe it as accountability without alternatives.
5. Judicial appointments through the collegium: The
collegium system, by which the five most senior judges of the Supreme Court
collectively decide appointments to the Supreme Court and all High Courts,
places judicial appointment power entirely within the judiciary. This
arrangement has been criticised for opacity, geographical concentration, and
absence of formal criteria, while its defenders argue it protects judicial
independence from political influence.
What People Often Misunderstand
- The
Supreme Court's power is not unlimited: Even the Supreme Court is
bound by the Constitution; its decisions are subject to review by larger
benches; the basic structure doctrine constrains the court as much as it
constrains Parliament — though since the court defines the basic
structure, this constraint is primarily self-applied.
- The
collegium is not a formal constitutional institution: Nothing in the
Constitution's text creates the collegium; it emerged from judicial
interpretation; attempts to replace it through formal constitutional
architecture — as the NJAC sought to do — have been struck down.
- PIL
transformed the court's role in ways not anticipated by the Constitution:
The Constitution's framers designed a relatively conservative court model;
PIL was entirely a judicial creation, not a constitutional provision; it
fundamentally altered the court's relationship with governance and civil
society.
- The
Supreme Court cannot initiate cases suo motu: It takes up matters
through petitions; even in suo motu proceedings — where it converts a
newspaper report or letter into a PIL — a petition is formally registered;
it does not act without a matter being placed before it.
- Court
orders alone don't guarantee governance outcomes: The Supreme Court's
experience with police reforms (Prakash Singh case, 2006), right to food
(PUCL case, 2001), and other governance PILs demonstrates that judicial
directions do not automatically produce compliance without political will
and administrative capacity.
What Changes Over Time
The Supreme Court's role has continued to expand in domains
including privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017), electoral bonds (Association for
Democratic Reforms, 2024), and climate rights (2024 right against climate
change impacts judgment). The 2024 electoral bonds judgment — striking down the
Electoral Bonds Scheme introduced in 2018 — illustrated the court's willingness
to invalidate executive-initiated fiscal instruments with direct implications
for political party financing. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's tenure
(2022–24) was characterised by live streaming of Constitution Bench hearings, which have made the court's most
significant proceedings publicly accessible for the first time.
Sources and Further Reading
- Cambridge
University Press — Public Interest Litigation and the Transformation of
the Supreme Court: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/book_sections/465/
- Fair
Observer — From Subordination to Supremacy: The Indian Supreme Court's
Rise in Governance: https://www.fairobserver.com/region/central_south_asia/from-subordination-to-supremacy-the-indian-supreme-courts-rise-in-governance/
- Supreme
Court Observer — Annual Review: https://www.scobserver.in
- Supreme Court of India — Official: https://main.sci.gov.in
- Vajiramandravi — Kesavananda Bharati Case: https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/kesavananda-bharati-case/