Indian Judiciary — Supreme Court, High Courts & Judicial Review

Constitutional Framework

India has an integrated judicial system with the Supreme Court at the apex, High Courts at the state level, and subordinate courts at the district level. Unlike the USA (which has separate federal and state court systems), Indian courts handle both central and state laws.

The judiciary is the guardian of the Constitution and protector of Fundamental Rights.

Supreme Court of India

Composition (Article 124)

Qualifications (Article 124(3))

A person to be appointed as a Supreme Court Judge must:

• Be a citizen of India
• Have been a High Court Judge for at least 5 years, OR
• Have been an Advocate of a High Court for at least 10 years, OR
• Be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President

Appointment of Judges

Collegium System (Current Method)

• Evolved through three Judges Cases (not mentioned in the Constitution)
• First Judges Case (1981) — S.P. Gupta v. Union of India: President's primacy in appointing judges; "consultation" does not mean "concurrence"
• Second Judges Case (1993) — Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association: CJI's opinion has primacy; introduced the Collegium (CJI + 2 senior-most judges)
• Third Judges Case (1998) — Presidential reference: Expanded Collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most judges for Supreme Court appointments

Remember: The Collegium is a judicial creation — the word "Collegium" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It evolved through three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998). The Constitution only says the President shall appoint judges "after consultation" with the CJI. The Collegium effectively converted "consultation" into "concurrence."

NJAC (Struck Down)

• 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 — Created the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) consisting of:
  • CJI (Chairperson)
  • 2 senior-most SC Judges
  • Union Law Minister
  • 2 eminent persons (nominated by PM, CJI, and Leader of Opposition)
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. UOI (16 October 2015) — A 5-judge Constitution Bench (Justices Khehar, Lokur, Goel, Joseph + Chelameswar) by a 4:1 majority (Justice J. Chelameswar dissenting) struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act as unconstitutional, holding that it violated the independence of the judiciary (a Basic Structure feature)
• Justice Chelameswar's dissent argued that the Collegium had become opaque and unaccountable; the dissent gained renewed attention in 2018 when Chelameswar and three other senior judges (Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph) held an unprecedented press conference (12 January 2018) criticising then-CJI Dipak Misra over case allocation as "Master of the Roster"

Removal of Judges (Article 124(4))

• Only by impeachment — an order of the President after an address by each House of Parliament supported by:
  • Special majority in each House (majority of total membership + 2/3rd of members present and voting)
• Grounds: Proved misbehaviour or incapacity
• No SC Judge has ever been successfully impeached
  • Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) — impeachment motion failed in Lok Sabha
  • Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) — Rajya Sabha passed but he resigned before Lok Sabha could vote

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

1. Original Jurisdiction (Article 131)

• Disputes between:
  • Government of India and one or more States
  • Government of India and any State(s) on one side vs. one or more States on the other
  • Two or more States
• Excludes: disputes arising out of pre-Constitutional treaties/agreements

2. Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32)

• Power to issue writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto) for enforcement of Fundamental Rights
• Dr. Ambedkar called Article 32 the "heart and soul" of the Constitution

3. Appellate Jurisdiction

4. Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143)

• President can seek SC's opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance
• SC's advice is not binding on the President
• Examples:
  • Delhi Laws Act case (1951)
  • Berubari Union case (1960)
  • Cauvery Water Dispute (1992)
  • 2G Spectrum case reference

5. Court of Record (Article 129)

• Proceedings are recorded and can be used as evidence
• Power to punish for contempt of court (civil and criminal contempt)

Judicial Review

The power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders. If found violative of the Constitution, they can be declared void.

L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI (1997) — Judicial Review as Basic Structure

A 7-judge Constitution Bench (CJI A.M. Ahmadi) held that judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution — it cannot be ousted even through a constitutional amendment. The Court also held that tribunals (under Articles 323A and 323B) cannot oust the High Courts' Article 226 jurisdiction — appeals from tribunals must lie to a Division Bench of the relevant High Court, not directly to the Supreme Court. This is the foundational case establishing judicial review as a non-derogable feature.

Article 142 — "Complete Justice" Power

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass "such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice." This is a unique power — the SC has used it in:

• Babri Masjid–Ram Janmabhoomi judgment (Nov 2019) — directed allotment of 5-acre alternative site for mosque
• Bhopal Gas Tragedy — additional compensation
• Tamil Nadu Governor case (April 2025) — deemed assent for 10 bills (subsequently overruled by November 2025 Constitution Bench)
• Manipur Speaker case (Padi Kaushik Reddy 2025) — disqualification time-bound directions
• However, in the November 2025 Presidential Reference, the 5-judge Constitution Bench held that Article 142 cannot be used to create "deemed assent" of bills — i.e., the power has constitutional limits and cannot override separation of powers

Judicial Review vs. Judicial Activism

Comparison: Article 32 (SC) vs Article 226 (HC) — the most tested distinction: Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right (can't be suspended except during Emergency), while Article 226 is not. But Article 226 has a wider scope — it can issue writs for "any other purpose", not just for FRs. So the SC's writ jurisdiction is narrower but more protected, while the HC's is broader but less protected.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Introduced in the late 1970s–early 1980s by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer.

Key Features

• Any public-spirited citizen can file a petition on behalf of disadvantaged persons
• Relaxation of locus standi (the petitioner need not be directly affected)
• Can be filed through a simple letter to the Chief Justice
• Filed under Article 32 (SC) or Article 226 (HC)

Landmark PILs

High Courts (Articles 214–231)

Three Chartered High Courts (1862) — Oldest

The earliest High Courts in India were established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861, by Letters Patent issued by Queen Victoria on 26 June 1862:

• Calcutta High Court — oldest (established 2 July 1862; one day older than Bombay & Madras)
• Bombay High Court — 14 August 1862
• Madras High Court — 15 August 1862

These three are collectively called "Chartered High Courts". Allahabad HC followed in 1866. The Gauhati HC (formerly Assam HC, est. 1948) is the youngest among the older HCs.

Article 226 vs. Article 32

Subordinate Courts (Articles 233–237)

• District Courts — highest court at the district level
• Headed by the District Judge (appointed by the Governor in consultation with the HC)
• Below: Civil Courts, Criminal Courts (Sessions Court, Magistrate Courts)
• Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 — village courts for speedy justice in rural areas
• Lok Adalats (Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987) — alternative dispute resolution; decisions are final and binding

Key Articles at a Glance

High-Yield Confusion Pairs (Rule C)

Past UPSC Questions on Judiciary (Verified from BharatNotes' Datasets)

Prelims (verified):

• 2019 — Office of Profit + Article 102 — also touches Art 192 for state legislators (parallel for state-level judges' disqualifications)
• 2024 — L. Chandra Kumar v UOI (1997) — judicial review under Arts 32 + 226 is basic structure

Mains GS2 (with deep-links to BharatNotes PYQ engine):

• 2017 (15M) — "Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy." (Puttaswamy 2017) 📋 Browse 2017 GS2 PYQs →
• 2020 (15M) — "Judicial legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers..." — Art 32 + PIL evolution 📋 Browse 2020 GS2 PYQs →
• 2022 (15M) — "Discuss the procedure of impeachment of the President of India and a Judge of the Supreme Court..." — Articles 124(4), 124(5), 61 📋 Browse 2022 GS2 PYQs →
• 2023 (15M) — "Discuss the role of the Supreme Court in shaping the Centre-State relations through its interpretation of Article 356." — Bommai 1994; Rameshwar Prasad 2006 📋 Browse 2023 GS2 PYQs →

Cross-paper relevance

• GS2 (primary) — Judiciary architecture; Collegium vs NJAC; PIL; judicial review/activism
• GS2 — Centre-State — SC's role in fiscal federalism (Mineral Area 2024), Governor's role (TN Governor 2025), Art 356 (Bommai)
• GS3 — Environment — Environmental jurisprudence (MC Mehta series, M.K. Ranjitsinh 2024)
• GS3 — Internal Security — Tribunals (NIA, AFT); PMLA jurisprudence (Vijay Madanlal 2022)
• GS4 (Ethics) — Judicial integrity (in-house procedure); 4-judges press conference 2018; impeachment process
• Essay — "Judicial independence in a democracy"; "The Collegium debate"

Important for UPSC

Prelims Focus

• SC sanctioned strength: 38 judges (CJI + 37) — raised from 34 via Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance 2026, Cabinet clearance 5 May 2026, Gazette notified 16 May 2026 (under Article 123); working strength as of 31 March 2026: 32 judges; retirement at 65; HC judges at 62
• Collegium: CJI + 4 senior-most judges (Third Judges Case, 1998)
• NJAC struck down in 2015 (99th Amendment); MoP reform stalled as of March 2026
• Article 32 vs. 226 — scope and differences
• Types of jurisdiction — Original (131), Appellate (132–136), Advisory (143)
• Number of High Courts: 25; ~330 HC vacancies against sanctioned strength of ~1,114 (DoJ, 1 February 2026)
• SC pendency: 93,143 cases (NJDG, 31 March 2026) — highest in three decades; total across all courts: over 5.39 crore (MoL&J data, 31 December 2025)

Mains GS-2 Dimensions

• Collegium system vs. NJAC — which better ensures judicial independence?
• Judicial activism: saviour of rights or judicial overreach?
• Pendency crisis — over 5.39 crore cases pending across all courts (Supreme Court + High Courts + district courts, as of 31 December 2025, Ministry of Law & Justice data presented to Lok Sabha); SC alone crossed 93,143 cases (31 March 2026, NJDG); reforms needed
• PIL: democratisation of justice or misuse for publicity?
• Should there be a fixed tenure for CJI instead of seniority-based appointment?

Interview Angles

• "Is the judiciary too powerful in India?"
• "How would you reform the appointment process for judges?"
• "Should there be a time limit for courts to decide cases?"

Recent Developments (2024–2026)

New Chief Justices — CJI Sanjiv Khanna (51st) and CJI B.R. Gavai (52nd)

(Supreme Court strength — 38 judges (CJI + 37), raised from 34 by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance promulgated 16 May 2026 — is in the Key Facts table above. This section covers the CJI transitions and what each tenure prioritised.)

Justice Sanjiv Khanna was sworn in as the 51st Chief Justice of India on 11 November 2024, succeeding Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (who retired on 10 November 2024). CJI Khanna served until 13 May 2025. Key directions issued under CJI Khanna: listing reforms to prioritise miscellaneous matters, push for clearing long-pending constitutional bench matters.

Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai was sworn in as the 52nd Chief Justice of India on 14 May 2025. Justice Gavai is the first Buddhist and second Dalit to serve as Chief Justice (after Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, 2007–2010). He held office until 23 November 2025. A nine-judge bench ruled under CJI Chandrachud in July 2024 on states' mineral taxation powers (Mineral Area Development Authority, 2024).

UPSC angle: Prelims — CJI Sanjiv Khanna (51st, November 2024 – May 2025); CJI B.R. Gavai (52nd, May 2025; first Buddhist CJI). Mains — discuss how CJI transitions affect the judicial reform agenda; evaluate CJI Gavai's priorities for the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Collegium and Judicial Appointments (2024–2025)

(HC sanctioned strength ~1,114 judges across 25 High Courts is in the High Courts section above. This section covers the vacancy-filling dynamic and the unresolved MoP (Memorandum of Procedure) standoff.)

The collegium system continued to function under sustained scrutiny. The Supreme Court and the government collaborated to fill vacancies in High Courts — against the sanctioned strength of ~1,114 judges across 25 High Courts, approximately 330 posts remained vacant as of 1 February 2026 (Department of Justice, Vacancy Position data; exact current figure varies as appointments are made and judges retire). The Law Minister and CJI engaged in correspondence over several collegium recommendations that were returned by the government and reiterated by the collegium.

The constitutional debate over the collegium (post-NJAC judgment, 2015) remains unresolved: the government and judiciary have exchanged drafts of a memorandum of procedure (MoP) since 2016 but disagree on key provisions — particularly the government's demand for a "national security" veto on appointments. As of March 2026, the MoP remains unfinalized.

UPSC angle: Prelims — Collegium composition: CJI + 4 senior SC judges (SC appointments); ~330 HC vacancies as of 1 February 2026 (DoJ vacancy data); MoP (Memorandum of Procedure) remains unfinalized as of March 2026. Mains — assess the collegium-government deadlock on MoP; propose reforms that balance judicial independence and accountability.

Nine-Judge Bench — States' Power to Tax Minerals (July 2024)

In Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/S Steel Authority of India (25 July 2024), an eight-to-one majority of a nine-judge Constitution Bench held that states have the constitutional power to levy tax on mines and mineral-bearing land. The bench overruled India Cements v. State of Tamil Nadu (1989), which had held that royalty is a tax. The Court held royalty is not a tax; it is a contractual payment — and states may additionally levy their own tax on mineral lands under Entry 50 of the State List.

This judgment will benefit mineral-rich states (Jharkhand, Odisha, Chhattisgarh) and has significant fiscal federalism implications.

UPSC angle: Prelims — nine-judge bench; 8:1 majority; July 2024; overruled India Cements (1989); royalty is not a tax. Mains — analyse the fiscal federalism implications of the minerals taxation judgment; connect to Centre-State financial relations.

Supreme Court on Climate Change — Right Against Adverse Effects (2024)

In M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024), a three-judge bench recognised the right against adverse effects of climate change as part of Articles 14 and 21. This expanded the scope of judicial review in environmental matters and directed the government to ensure that the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard is protected from transmission line collision while balancing renewable energy targets.

UPSC angle: Prelims — M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024); right against climate change linked to Articles 14 and 21; Great Indian Bustard. Mains — evaluate the Supreme Court's role in environmental governance; is judicial intervention in climate policy appropriate?

Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 — Supreme Court Challenge and Interim Order

(Supreme Court composition and jurisdiction provisions, including Article 143 advisory powers, are in the static sections above. This section covers the largest religion-law challenge currently before the SC.)

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 — passed by Parliament in April 2025 (Lok Sabha 3 April; Rajya Sabha 4 April; Presidential assent 5 April 2025) — drew over 65 petitions to the Supreme Court challenging its constitutional validity. The case is consolidated as In Re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The petitioners argue the Act violates Articles 25–26 (freedom of religion and religious denomination's right to manage its own affairs), Article 14 (arbitrary non-Muslim membership mandated in Waqf Boards), and Article 300A (property rights of waqf beneficiaries whose established "waqf by user" properties are placed at risk).

On the first hearing (16 April 2025), a two-judge bench (CJI Sanjiv Khanna + Justice Sanjay Kumar) obtained Union's assurances: (1) no waqf-by-user property would be denotified; (2) no appointments to the Central Waqf Council or State Waqf Boards until the next hearing.

Interim order (15 September 2025): The bench (reconstituted as CJI B.R. Gavai + Justice A.G. Masih after CJI Khanna's retirement) granted a limited stay on: (a) Section 3(r) — which required the waqif to prove five years' Islamic practice before creating a waqf (stayed until rules for determining "practicing Muslim" status are framed); and (b) portions of Section 3C — the provision allowing a government officer to adjudicate whether property encroaches on government land (stayed on separation-of-powers grounds). The Court also imposed composition limits pending final disposal: Central Waqf Council (not more than 4 non-Muslim members), State Waqf Boards (not more than 3 non-Muslim members). The Court declined a full stay of the Act. As of May 2026, the case is pending for hearing on final constitutional validity.

UPSC angle: Prelims — Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025; presidential assent 5 April 2025; 65+ petitions; SC interim order 15 September 2025 (partial stay of Sections 3(r) and 3C); final hearing pending. Mains — discuss the constitutional dimensions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: does mandating non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards violate Article 26(b)? Evaluate the tension between legislative reform of minority religious institutions and the freedom of religious denominations.

Justice Surya Kant — 53rd Chief Justice of India (November 2025)

Justice Surya Kant was sworn in as the 53rd Chief Justice of India on 24 November 2025, succeeding CJI B.R. Gavai who retired on 23 November 2025. CJI Surya Kant is expected to serve until 9 February 2027 — a tenure of approximately 14 months. He was recommended by CJI Gavai following established seniority-based convention. President Droupadi Murmu administered the oath at Rashtrapati Bhavan; PM Modi and Union Cabinet attended the ceremony.

CJI Surya Kant's bench has presided over several high-profile constitutional matters, including the nine-judge bench Sabarimala review examining Articles 25–26 versus Articles 14–17. Hearings began on 7 April 2026 and concluded after 16 days of arguments on 14 May 2026 — the verdict has been reserved by the Constitution Bench as of 27 May 2026. The nine-judge bench comprises CJI Surya Kant with Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.

UPSC angle: Prelims — Justice Surya Kant: 53rd CJI, sworn in 24 November 2025, succeeds BR Gavai (52nd); retires 9 February 2027; Justice Vikram Nath in line as 54th CJI (expected February 2027 – September 2027). Mains — how does the seniority convention in CJI appointment ensure judicial independence? Discuss pros and cons versus a merit-based selection process.

Electoral Bonds Struck Down — SC Upholds Voters' Right to Information (February 2024)

In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (15 February 2024), a five-judge Constitution Bench (CJI D.Y. Chandrachud + Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra) unanimously struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme as unconstitutional. This is one of the most significant constitutional law rulings of the decade.

Key holdings:

• The Electoral Bond Scheme violates voters' right to information under Article 19(1)(a) — voters have a fundamental right to know who funds political parties
• The scheme's anonymity was not proportionate to any legitimate aim (the Court applied the proportionality test from Modern Dental College (2016))
• The proportionality test has four prongs: legitimacy, suitability, necessity, and balancing/stricto sensu — the scheme failed on the last two
• SBI was directed to furnish details of all electoral bonds purchased since 12 April 2019 to the Election Commission of India, which published the data on 13 March 2024 — the first compelled disclosure of anonymous political funding in Indian history

Judicial significance: The judgment is the first to explicitly hold that the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) extends to political funding transparency. It delineates a new category of "informational rights" within free speech — the right to receive information that is material to the exercise of political rights. The Court also held that unlimited corporate political donations violated the concept of electoral equality (companies can donate any amount to political parties, creating an inherently unequal playing field).

UPSC angle: Prelims — five-judge bench, 15 February 2024, Electoral Bonds unconstitutional, Article 19(1)(a), SBI disclosed details, ECI published 13 March 2024. Mains — "Electoral Bonds judgment as an expansion of Article 19(1)(a): analyse how the right to information applies to political funding; evaluate the Court's proportionality analysis." GS2 cross-paper: democratic accountability + fundamental rights + electoral reform.

Property Owners Association v. Maharashtra — 9-Judge Bench on Article 39(b) (November 2024)

In Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (5 November 2024), a nine-judge Constitution Bench (CJI D.Y. Chandrachud writing for the bench) delivered a landmark ruling on Article 39(b) — whether "material resources of the community" can include all privately owned resources.

Key holdings (8:1 on headline issue; 7:2 on sub-issue):

• Not all privately owned resources are automatically "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) — only resources whose community ownership/distribution would serve the common good qualify (forests, wetlands, spectrum, groundwater, minerals — YES; individual homes and ordinary private property — NO)
• Overruled Justice Krishna Iyer's 1977 interpretation (by 7:2) which had broadly interpreted "material resources" as encompassing all resources whether private or public
• Article 31C survives in its narrowed 1971 form — laws giving effect to Arts 39(b)/(c) remain immune from challenge under Articles 14 and 19 (reversed the Minerva Mills dictum that Art 31C was entirely struck down — Minerva Mills only struck down the 42nd Amendment's extension to all DPSPs)
• Justice B.V. Nagarathna partially concurred; Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was the sole dissent

Judicial significance: This is the Court's most comprehensive engagement with the relationship between Fundamental Rights (Arts 14, 19) and Directive Principles (Art 39(b)) since Kesavananda Bharati (1973). It clarifies the scope of eminent domain under DPSP laws and reigns in expansive interpretations of "community resources."

UPSC angle: Prelims — nine-judge bench, 5 November 2024, 8:1 majority; Article 39(b); "material resources of community" does not include all private property; Justice Dhulia sole dissent. Mains — "Examine the implications of the Property Owners Association judgment for India's approach to eminent domain and constitutional property rights. Does it strike the right balance between individual rights and community welfare?" GS2 + Essay cross-paper: property rights, DPSP vs FR hierarchy, community welfare.

Supreme Court Constitution Bench Judgments — H2 2025

Three significant five-judge Constitution Bench rulings were delivered between October and November 2025:

Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 struck down (19 November 2025): A Division Bench of CJI B.R. Gavai + Justice K. Vinod Chandran struck down key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 (citation: Madras Bar Association v. UOI, 2025 INSC 1330), holding that it substantially reproduced provisions of the 2021 Tribunal Reforms Ordinance that had been struck down in Madras Bar Association v. UOI (2021). The Court ruled the impugned Act "merely reproduces, in slightly altered form, the very provisions earlier struck down." Additionally, the Court directed the Union Government to establish a National Tribunals Commission within 4 months, holding that the executive is constitutionally bound to create the body as earlier mandated. Provisions on shortened tenure for tribunal members and the 50-year age bar were specifically struck down as violations of separation of powers and judicial independence.

Judicial Officer Seniority Guidelines (November 2025): A five-judge bench laid down uniform national guidelines for determining inter-se seniority within the Higher Judicial Services (HJS), holding that all district judges — whether promoted, directly recruited, or elevated through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination — form a single cadre and cannot be differentiated based on their mode of entry.

Governor/President Assent Powers (November 2025): In In Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India, a five-judge Constitution Bench held that judicially prescribed fixed timelines for Governors and the President to act on State Bills cannot be imposed, as this would violate the separation of powers and intrude into executive functions. The Court set aside the earlier High Court-mandated timelines, while reaffirming that Governors cannot pocket-veto Bills indefinitely.

Bar Quota District Judges (October 2025): A five-judge bench (CJI Gavai + four others) ruled that judicial officers with at least seven years' advocacy experience before joining judicial service are eligible for appointment as District Judges under the Bar quota, overturning the 2020 Dheeraj Mor judgment.

UPSC angle: Prelims — Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 struck down (November 2025); Governor/President assent timelines: cannot be judicially fixed; Bar quota District Judges: 7-year advocacy rule restored. Mains — does the SC's ruling on Governors' assent powers adequately address constitutional deadlocks between Centre and State, or does it leave State Bills in limbo?

Vocabulary

Suo Motu

• Pronunciation: /ˌsuː.əʊ ˈməʊ.tuː/
• Definition: A Latin term meaning "on its own motion," used when a court takes cognizance of a matter and initiates proceedings independently, without a formal petition or complaint from any party.
• Root: Latin suō = of its own (ablative of suus) + mōtū = by motion (ablative of mōtus, from movēre)
• Origin: From Latin suō ("of its own," ablative of suus) + mōtū ("by motion," ablative of mōtus, from movēre, "to move"); widely used in Indian and South Asian legal practice.
• Part of Speech: adverb; also used attributively (adjective), as in "suo motu cognizance"
• Word Family: No standard derived forms
• Usage: When the executive grows complacent in enforcing environmental safeguards, the higher judiciary has often taken suo motu cognizance of press reports on toxic effluents, converting them into public interest litigation to compel administrative accountability.
• Synonyms: sua sponte, on its own motion, of its own accord, on its own initiative, motu proprio, ex officio
• Antonyms: on petition, on application, at a party's instance, on motion of a party
• Mnemonic: Read "suo motu" as "SO he MOved" on his own — the judge "moves" the case himself, with no one having to push him.

Contempt

• Pronunciation: /kənˈtɛmpt/
• Definition: The offence of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law; under Article 129, the Supreme Court (and under Article 215, every High Court) has the power to punish for contempt of itself, covering both civil contempt (wilful disobedience of a court order) and criminal contempt (acts that scandalise or lower the authority of the court).
• Root: Latin con- (intensive) + temnere = to slight, despise → contemnere = to despise → contemptus = scorn
• Origin: From Late Middle English, via Latin contemptus ("scorn"), from contemnere ("to despise"), formed from con- (intensive prefix) + temnere ("to slight, despise").
• Part of Speech: noun
• Word Family: contempt (n), contemptuous (adj), contemptuously (adv), contemptible (adj), contemptibly (adv), contemn (v)
• Usage: When the executive treats judicial directives with open contempt rather than reasoned dissent, it corrodes the constitutional comity on which the separation of powers ultimately depends.
• Synonyms: scorn, disdain, derision, disregard, contumely, opprobrium
• Antonyms: respect, admiration, esteem, reverence
• Mnemonic: CONTEMPT shares its root with "contemn" and "tempt" (Latin temnere, to despise): to hold someone in contempt is to "con-temn" them, to scorn them so thoroughly that they are beneath even temptation.

Certiorari

• Pronunciation: /ˌsɜːr.ʃi.əˈrɛər.aɪ/
• Definition: A writ issued by a superior court to a lower court or tribunal directing it to transmit the record of a case for review, typically to quash an order passed without jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice principles.
• Root: Law Latin certiorārī = to be informed/made certain; Latin certiorāre = to certify; Latin certus = certain; 15th-c. common law
• Origin: From Law Latin certiorārī ("to be informed, to be made certain"), from certiorāre ("to certify, inform"), from certus ("certain, sure"); the full original phrase was certiorārī volumus ("we wish to be informed"), dating to 15th-century English common law.
• Part of Speech: noun
• Word Family: certiorari (n), certiorari petition (n compound), writ of certiorari (n compound)
• Usage: When an administrative tribunal acts beyond its conferred jurisdiction or breaches the principles of natural justice, the High Court, exercising its powers under Article 226, may issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order and uphold the rule of law.
• Synonyms: writ of review, judicial review, supervisory writ, cert, certoration
• Antonyms: mandamus, prohibition
• Mnemonic: Think "CERTAIN to RE-view" — certiorari shares its root with "certain" (Latin certus); the higher court calls up the record to make certain the lower court got it right.

Key Terms

Public Interest Litigation

• Pronunciation: /ˈpʌb.lɪk ˈɪn.trɪst ˌlɪt.ɪˈɡeɪ.ʃən/
• Definition: A judicial innovation developed in India in the late 1970s–early 1980s primarily by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, whereby any public-spirited citizen or organisation can approach the Supreme Court (under Article 32) or a High Court (under Article 226) on behalf of disadvantaged persons or groups whose fundamental or legal rights are being violated — radically relaxing the traditional requirement of locus standi (the petitioner need not be personally aggrieved). A PIL can be initiated even through a simple letter addressed to the Chief Justice, which the court can treat as a writ petition.
• Context: The concept of public interest litigation originated in the United States in the 1960s as part of the civil rights movement; in India, its early seeds were planted in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai (1976) and Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. UOI (1981). The first landmark PIL was Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), filed by advocate Kapila Hingorani before Justice P.N. Bhagwati, highlighting the plight of undertrial prisoners in Bihar who had been detained for periods far exceeding the maximum sentence for their alleged offences — the case led to the release of over 40,000 undertrial prisoners and established the right to speedy trial under Article 21. Subsequent landmark PILs transformed Indian law: Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI (1984, bonded labour), M.C. Mehta v. UOI (1986, environmental protection), Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997, sexual harassment guidelines). To curb misuse — what the SC has termed "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" — the Court has issued guidelines limiting PIL to genuine public interest matters and imposing costs on frivolous petitioners.
• UPSC Relevance: GS2 Polity — Prelims: pioneers (Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer), first major PIL (Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1979), relaxation of locus standi, can be filed under Article 32 (SC) or Article 226 (HC), can be initiated through a letter to the CJI; Mains: PIL as a tool for social justice vs judicial overreach (courts acting as "super-legislatures"), misuse of PIL for private interests and publicity, should PIL be codified with a statutory framework (currently judge-made), evaluate PIL's transformative role in environmental protection (M.C. Mehta), prisoners' rights (Hussainara Khatoon), and women's rights (Vishaka), PIL and the separation of powers — does it blur the line between judicial and executive functions.

Collegium System

• Pronunciation: /kəˈliː.dʒi.əm ˈsɪs.təm/
• Definition: The judicially evolved mechanism for appointing and transferring judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, whereby a collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges (for SC appointments) or the CJI and two senior-most judges (for HC appointments) recommends names to the government. The word "collegium" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution — the system was entirely created through judicial interpretation of the word "consultation" in Article 124(2), converting it into "concurrence" through three landmark Judges Cases.
• Context: The system evolved through three stages: (1) First Judges Case — S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): A 7-judge bench held that "consultation" with the CJI does not mean "concurrence," giving the executive (President) primacy in judicial appointments over the judiciary. (2) Second Judges Case — Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993): A 9-judge bench overruled the First Judges Case, holding that the CJI's opinion has primacy and "consultation" effectively means "concurrence" — thereby creating the Collegium system (CJI + 2 senior-most SC judges for SC appointments). (3) Third Judges Case (1998): In response to a Presidential Reference under Article 143, the SC expanded the Collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most judges for SC appointments and CJI + 2 senior-most judges for HC appointments. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), created by the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act (2014) and the NJAC Act (2014), attempted to replace the Collegium with a 6-member body (CJI + 2 senior SC judges + Law Minister + 2 eminent persons). However, in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (16 October 2015), a 5-judge Constitution Bench struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act by 4:1 majority, holding that the NJAC violated the independence of the judiciary — a basic structure feature. The government retains a "reiteration" power — it can return a Collegium recommendation once, but if the Collegium reiterates its recommendation, the government is bound to accept it.
• UPSC Relevance: GS2 Polity — Prelims: three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998), composition of Collegium (CJI + 4 for SC, CJI + 2 for HC), NJAC struck down on 16 October 2015 (99th Amendment declared unconstitutional, 4:1), "consultation" vs "concurrence" distinction, the word "collegium" does not appear in the Constitution; Mains: Collegium vs NJAC — transparency and accountability (Collegium criticised as opaque) vs judicial independence (NJAC criticised for giving executive a veto through "eminent persons"), government's reiteration power and its limits, should there be a reformed NJAC with judicial majority, comparison with judicial appointment systems in the USA (Presidential nomination + Senate confirmation), UK (Judicial Appointments Commission), and India (Collegium).

Current Affairs Connect

Link these static concepts with live developments:

Exam tip: Maintain a running list of landmark SC judgments from the past year. Read Ujiyari's polity coverage to stay updated — SC rulings are the most asked current affairs in Prelims.

Sources: Supreme Court of India, Constitution of India, PRS India — NJAC, National Portal