Overview
Supreme Court jurisdiction is the set of cases the Court can decide and the powers it uses in them, namely original jurisdiction over federal disputes under Article 131, writ jurisdiction to enforce Fundamental Rights under Article 32, appellate jurisdiction by certificate and special leave, and advisory jurisdiction on presidential references under Article 143, backed by its status as a court of record.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: An Overview
Kinds of Jurisdiction and Powers at a Glance
The Constitution gives the Supreme Court original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction, and adds the power to enforce Fundamental Rights, the status of a court of record and a set of supporting powers. It is at once a federal court like the American Supreme Court and a final court of appeal like the British House of Lords.
That combination led Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar, a member of the Drafting Committee, to remark that the Supreme Court of India has more powers than any other Supreme Court in any part of the world. Its decisions bind the Union, the States and every other court.
Original Jurisdiction Under Article 131: Federal Disputes
Disputes Between the Centre and the States
Under Article 131 the Supreme Court decides disputes between the units of the federation, to the exclusion of every other court. "Exclusive" means no other court can hear them; "original" means the Court hears them in the first instance, not on appeal. The article covers three kinds of dispute.
- A dispute between the Government of India and one or more States.
- A dispute between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more States on the other.
- A dispute between two or more States.
The dispute must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends, so purely political questions are excluded. A private citizen cannot use Article 131 to sue the Centre or a State. The first suit came in 1961, when West Bengal challenged Parliament's Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957; the Court dismissed it and upheld the Act.
What Falls Outside Article 131
Several disputes between governments do not reach the Court under Article 131. The article's own proviso excludes disputes arising out of pre-Constitution treaties and instruments, and Article 262(2) lets Parliament bar every court from inter-State river water disputes, which go to tribunals instead.
- Disputes arising out of any pre-Constitution treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement or sanad that continues in operation.
- Disputes under any such instrument that itself excludes the Court's jurisdiction.
- Inter-State water disputes, where Parliament has barred the courts under Article 262.
- Matters referred to the Finance Commission, and the adjustment of certain expenses and pensions between the Centre and the States.
- Ordinary disputes of a commercial nature between the Centre and the States, and recovery of damages by a State from the Centre.
A dispute over a pre-Constitution instrument can still reach the Court by another door, because under Article 143(2) the President may refer it for an opinion, and the Court must then give one. Disputes about the election of the President or Vice-President also go straight to the Court, but under Article 71, not Article 131.
Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 32
Article 32: The Right to Constitutional Remedies
The right to move the Supreme Court for enforcing Fundamental Rights is itself a Fundamental Right under Article 32. Dr B.R. Ambedkar called it the most important article of the Constitution, "the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it", and the Court has held Article 32 to be a basic feature that no amendment can abridge.
- Clause (1): The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings is guaranteed.
- Clause (2): The Court may issue directions, orders or writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari.
- Clause (3): Parliament may empower any other court to exercise these powers within its local limits.
- Clause (4): The right cannot be suspended except as the Constitution provides, as during an emergency under Article 359.
Only Fundamental Rights can be enforced under Article 32, not ordinary legal rights. The jurisdiction is original but not exclusive, so a person may go straight to the Supreme Court or to a High Court under Article 226. Because the remedy is itself a Fundamental Right, an alternative remedy is no bar, though the Court has said that where a High Court can give relief, the person should normally go there first.
Types of Writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto
The five writs are borrowed from English law, where they were called prerogative writs. Before 1950 only the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras could issue them; today the Supreme Court under Article 32 and every High Court under Article 226 can.
| Writ | What it does | Key limit |
|---|---|---|
| Habeas corpus: 'to have the body of' | Orders anyone who has detained another, a public authority or a private person, to produce the detainee so the court can test the detention | Not where the detention is lawful, is for contempt of a legislature or a court, or was ordered by a competent court |
| Mandamus: 'we command' | Commands a public official or body to perform a duty it has failed or refused to perform | Not against a private person or body, a discretionary duty, a contract, or the President or Governors |
| Prohibition: 'to forbid' | Stops a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction | Only against judicial and quasi-judicial bodies |
| Certiorari: 'to be certified' | Transfers a case from a lower court or tribunal, or quashes its order; both preventive and curative | Only against judicial and quasi-judicial bodies and, since 1991, administrative authorities affecting rights; never against legislatures or private bodies |
| Quo warranto: 'by what authority' | Inquires into a person's legal claim to a public office | Only for a substantive public office created by statute or the Constitution |
Article 32 and Article 226 Compared
The writ powers of the Supreme Court and the High Courts overlap but are not the same. The Supreme Court's writ power is narrower in purpose but wider in territory, and because it enforces a Fundamental Right, the Court may not refuse to exercise it.
| Point | Article 32 (Supreme Court) | Article 226 (High Courts) |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Fundamental Rights only | Fundamental Rights and any other legal right |
| Territory | Anywhere in India | Within the court's territory, or where the cause arises |
| Nature | A Fundamental Right; the Court may not refuse | Discretionary; the court may refuse |
Parliament can widen the Supreme Court's writ power. Article 139 lets it give the Court the power to issue writs for purposes other than enforcing Fundamental Rights, and Article 32(3) lets it empower any other court to issue writs within its local limits. No law has been made under Article 32(3), so only the Supreme Court and the High Courts issue writs, and only the High Courts can issue them to enforce ordinary legal rights.
Public Interest Litigation and the Relaxation of Locus Standi
Public interest litigation (PIL) relaxed the old rule of locus standi, under which only a person directly affected could come to court. A writ petition can now be moved by a public-spirited person or group where the interest of the public at large is involved, even by a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India. The Court has treated letters, telegrams, postcards and news reports as writ petitions. After the Emergency, the courts reached out to people who could not approach them on their own.
The practice was pioneered by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, filed in December 1979 about prisoners held in Bihar's jails while their cases were pending, the Court ordered free legal aid and speedy hearings, and 40,000 prisoners were released. The S.P. Gupta case later defined public interest litigation for India, and PIL suits the ideal of equal justice and free legal aid in Article 39A.
PIL has limits. The Court has warned that litigation filed for private gain or rival business interests is an abuse, and Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia said substantial costs would be imposed on frivolous petitions. Critics argue that guidelines issued in PILs take the Court into the field of the executive, the concern at the heart of the judicial activism debate.
Appellate Jurisdiction: Constitutional, Civil and Criminal Appeals
Appeals Under Articles 132 to 134A
The Supreme Court is primarily a court of appeal. It succeeded the Federal Court and replaced the British Privy Council as the highest court of appeal. An appeal reaches it in one of two ways, on a certificate that the High Court grants under Article 134A or by the Court's own special leave under Article 136.
- Constitutional matters (Article 132): An appeal lies if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.
- Civil matters (Article 133): The High Court must certify a substantial question of law of general importance that needs decision by the Supreme Court. The 30th Amendment of 1972 removed the old requirement of a sum of ₹20,000.
- Criminal matters (Article 134): An appeal lies as of right where the High Court reversed an acquittal and sentenced the accused to death, or tried a case itself and passed a death sentence; otherwise it needs a certificate. A 1970 law extended the appeal as of right to cases in which a High Court, reversing an acquittal, sentences the accused to imprisonment for life or for ten years or more.
There is no appeal as of right where a High Court reverses a conviction and acquits the accused. The Court's appellate jurisdiction also covers cases in which the Federal Court could hear appeals and which the three articles do not cover, and Parliament may add further criminal appeals by law.
Special Leave Petition Under Article 136
The Court's widest appellate power is special leave to appeal under Article 136. In its discretion it may grant special leave from any judgment, decree, sentence or order of any court or tribunal in India, except a military tribunal or court martial. A petition asking for it is a special leave petition.
- It is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
- It can be granted against a final or an interlocutory order.
- It covers any kind of matter, whether constitutional, civil, criminal, tax, labour or revenue.
- It lies against any court or tribunal, not only a High Court.
Because the power is so wide, the Court has said it is an exceptional and overriding power to be used sparingly and with caution, only in special and extraordinary situations. Beyond that, it has held, the power cannot be fettered by any set formula or rule.
Advisory Jurisdiction Under Article 143
Presidential References and Whether the Court Must Answer
Article 143 lets the President seek the Court's opinion; the Court never advises on its own initiative. There are two kinds of reference, and the difference is whether the Court must answer.
| Clause | What may be referred | Must the Court answer? |
|---|---|---|
| 143(1) | Any question of law or fact of public importance that has arisen or is likely to arise | No; the Court may decline |
| 143(2) | A dispute over a pre-Constitution treaty or instrument, excluded from Article 131 | Yes; it must give its opinion |
In both cases the opinion is advisory, not a judicial pronouncement, so it does not bind the President, though it gives the government an authoritative legal view. A reference must be heard by a bench of at least five judges under Article 145(3). Fifteen references were made up to 2012, including the 1998 reference on appointing judges and the 2002 reference on deferring the Gujarat Assembly elections.
The most recent reference, made under Article 143(1), shows that the Court may answer some questions and decline others. On 13 May 2025 the President referred fourteen questions under Article 143(1) on the powers of Governors and the President over Bills under Articles 200 and 201. In its opinion of 20 November 2025, a five-judge bench held that courts cannot prescribe timelines for assent and that Article 142 does not allow "deemed assent", though prolonged, unexplained inaction by a Governor can be met with a limited direction to act. It returned two of the questions unanswered as irrelevant to the reference.
Other Powers: Court of Record, Review, Curative Petition and Complete Justice
Court of Record and the Power to Punish for Contempt (Article 129)
The Supreme Court is a court of record under Article 129, and Article 215 makes the High Courts courts of record too. A court of record has two powers. Its judgments and proceedings are recorded for perpetual memory and are accepted as evidence and precedent, and it can punish for contempt of itself. In 1991 the Court held that this power also covers contempt of the High Courts, subordinate courts and tribunals.
- Civil contempt: Wilful disobedience of a judgment, order or writ, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
- Criminal contempt: Publishing or doing anything that scandalises or lowers the authority of a court, prejudices judicial proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice.
- Not contempt: Fair and accurate reporting of proceedings and fair criticism of judicial acts.
The Constitution does not define these terms; the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, does. It followed the recommendations of a committee chaired by H.N. Sanyal, allows up to six months' imprisonment and a fine of up to ₹2,000, and since 2006 has allowed truth as a defence when it is in the public interest. Parliament's power to legislate comes from the Seventh Schedule, where contempt of the Supreme Court is in the Union List, and contempt of other courts in the Concurrent List.
Review Petition (Article 137) and Curative Petition
Under Article 137 the Court may review any judgment or order it has made, subject to laws of Parliament and its own rules. A review petition in a civil case lies only on the grounds in the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal case only for an error apparent on the face of the record.
After a review petition is dismissed, one more remedy remains, the curative petition. The Court devised it in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) to prevent abuse of its process and cure a gross miscarriage of justice, and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, now provide for it on limited grounds.
- The petitioner must show a genuine violation of natural justice or a real fear of bias.
- The petition must say that the same grounds were raised in the review petition, which was dismissed by circulation.
- A senior advocate must certify that these conditions are met.
- It goes to the three senior-most judges and, if available, the judges who gave the judgment; the Court may impose costs if it lacks merit.
Articles 141, 142 and 144: Binding Law, Complete Justice and Other Powers
Three articles make the Court's word effective across the country. Under Article 141 the law declared by the Supreme Court binds all courts in India. Under Article 142 it may pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in a case before it, enforceable throughout India. Under Article 144 all civil and judicial authorities must act in aid of the Court.
The Court is not bound by its own earlier decisions and can depart from them, which makes it a self-correcting body. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) it departed from Golak Nath (1967). Under Article 139A it may withdraw cases raising the same substantial question of law from High Courts and decide them itself, and it may transfer a case from one High Court to another. It is also the final interpreter of the Constitution.
On a reference by the President, the Court inquires into the conduct of the chairman or members of the Union Public Service Commission, and its advice on their removal binds the President. Each Chief Justice appoints the court's own officers, and the administrative expenses of the Supreme Court are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India (Article 146), while those of a High Court are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State (Article 229).
Election Disputes of the President and Vice-President (Article 71)
Under Article 71 all doubts and disputes arising out of the election of a President or Vice-President are decided by the Supreme Court, whose decision is final. Election petitions under the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, are filed directly in the Court, so its jurisdiction here is original, exclusive and final.
- If the Court declares an election void, acts done by the President or Vice-President before its decision are not invalidated.
- An election cannot be challenged on the ground that the electoral college was incomplete, that is, that some of its seats were vacant.
Enlarging the Court's Jurisdiction: Articles 138 and 139
Parliament's Power to Enlarge the Jurisdiction
Parliament cannot curtail the jurisdiction the Constitution guarantees to the Supreme Court, but it can enlarge it. Article 138(1) lets it confer further jurisdiction on any matter in the Union List, and Article 138(2) lets the Centre and a State confer jurisdiction on other matters by special agreement, if Parliament provides for it by law. Under Article 139 it can also widen the Court's writ power beyond Fundamental Rights.
Beyond these heads, the Supreme Court exercises judicial review, so it can examine laws and executive orders of the Centre and the States and declare them void if they violate the Constitution. The phrase is used nowhere in the Constitution, yet several articles confer the power, and its reach over constitutional amendments rests on the Doctrine of Basic Structure.
Previous Year UPSC‑CSE Questions
Each Prelims question is explained option by option, and each Mains question comes with an answer outline.
- UPSC Prelims 2024A Writ of Prohibition is an order issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts to:
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: A writ of prohibition lies only against judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, since a higher court orders a lower court or tribunal to stop proceedings beyond its jurisdiction. It does not run against officers, legislatures or governments.
Trap to watch: Options about officers and governments describe mandamus-like orders.
Why each option is right or wrong:
- (a) a government officer prohibiting him from taking a particular action: Wrong. Prohibition lies only against judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.
- (b) the Parliament/Legislative Assembly to pass a law on Prohibition: Wrong. Prohibition does not run against legislatures.
- (c) the lower court prohibiting continuation of proceedings in a case: Correct. This is the writ of prohibition.
- (d) the Government prohibiting it from following an unconstitutional policy: Wrong. Prohibition does not run against the executive.
Answer: (c) the lower court prohibiting continuation of proceedings in a case. Prohibition stops a lower court's proceedings.
- UPSC Prelims 2023Consider the following statements:
- If the election of the President of India is declared void by the Supreme Court of India, all acts done by him/her in the performance of duties of his/her office of President before the date of decision become invalid.
- Election for the post of the President of India can be postponed on the ground that some Legislative Assemblies have been dissolved and elections are yet to take place.
- When a Bill is presented to the President of India, the Constitution prescribes time limits within which he/she has to declare his/her assent.
How many of the above statements are correct?
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: The question turns on three rules about the President's office, covering acts done in office, the timing of the election and assent to Bills. Under Article 71(2) acts done before the election is set aside remain valid (1 is wrong); an incomplete electoral college, such as a dissolved Assembly, is no ground to hold back the election (2 is wrong); and the Constitution sets no time limit for the President's assent (3 is wrong).
Trap to watch: Statement 1 sounds logical if the election itself was void.
Why each option is right or wrong:
- (a) Only one: Wrong. None of the three statements is correct.
- (b) Only two: Wrong. None of the three statements is correct.
- (c) All three: Wrong. All three statements are wrong.
- (d) None: Correct. Each statement contradicts the Constitution.
Answer: (d) None. Acts done before an election is set aside stay valid, an incomplete electoral college is no ground to postpone the election, and the Constitution sets no time limit for assent.
- UPSC Prelims 2022Consider the following statements:
- Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.
- The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
- The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.
- In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: The question turns on which rules of contempt come from the Constitution and which from the 1971 Act. The Act followed the H.N. Sanyal Committee (1); Articles 129 and 215 empower the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish contempt (2); Parliament can legislate on contempt under Entry 77 of the Union List and Entry 14 of the Concurrent List (4). The Constitution does not define civil or criminal contempt (3); the 1971 Act does.
Trap to watch: Statement 3 attributes the Act's definitions to the Constitution.
Why each option is right or wrong:
- (a) 1 and 2 only: Wrong. Statement 4 is also correct.
- (b) 1, 2 and 4: Correct. Only statement 3 is wrong.
- (c) 3 and 4 only: Wrong. Statement 3 is wrong, and 1 and 2 are left out.
- (d) 3 only: Wrong. Statement 3 is the one wrong statement.
Answer: (b) 1, 2 and 4. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, not the Constitution, defines civil and criminal contempt.
- UPSC Prelims 2014The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the Centre and the States falls under its
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: The question turns on which Article brings Centre-State disputes to the Court. Disputes between the Union and the States, and between States, come straight to the Supreme Court under Article 131; that is its original jurisdiction.
Trap to watch: Writ jurisdiction also starts in the Supreme Court, but it concerns Fundamental Rights.
Why each option is right or wrong:
- (a) advisory jurisdiction: Wrong. That is Article 143, on a reference by the President.
- (b) appellate jurisdiction: Wrong. Such disputes start in the Supreme Court, not on appeal.
- (c) original jurisdiction: Correct. Article 131 gives the Court exclusive original jurisdiction over them.
- (d) writ jurisdiction: Wrong. Writs under Article 32 enforce Fundamental Rights.
Answer: (c) original jurisdiction. Centre-State disputes fall under the original jurisdiction.
- UPSC Prelims 2012Which of the following are included in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
- A dispute between the Government of India and one or more States
- A dispute regarding elections to either House of the Parliament or that of Legislature of a State
- A dispute between the Government of India and a Union Territory
- A dispute between two or more States
Select the correct answer using the codes given below :
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: Article 131 names only the Government of India and the States as parties. Disputes between them (1) and between States (4) are covered; election disputes go to election petitions, and a Union Territory is not a State.
Trap to watch: Elections sound constitutional but are not federal disputes.
Why each option is right or wrong:
- (a) 1 and 2: Wrong. Election disputes are outside Article 131.
- (b) 2 and 3: Wrong. Neither election disputes nor Union Territory disputes are covered.
- (c) 1 and 4: Correct. Article 131 covers the Government of India and States, and States among themselves.
- (d) 3 and 4: Wrong. A Union Territory is not a State under Article 131.
Answer: (c) 1 and 4. Article 131 names only the Government of India and the States as parties, so disputes 1 and 4 are covered.
- UPSC Prelims 2010Consider the following statements:The Supreme Court of India tenders advice to the President of India on matters of law or fact
- On its own initiative (on any matter of larger public interest).
- If he seeks such an advice.
- Only if the matters relate to the Fundamental Rights of the citizens.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: Article 143 lets the President refer a question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court. The Court does not advise on its own initiative, and the question need not concern Fundamental Rights.
Trap to watch: "On its own initiative" sounds plausible for a guardian court.
Why each option is right or wrong:
- (a) 1 only: Wrong. The Court does not advise on its own initiative.
- (b) 2 only: Correct. The Court advises only when the President seeks it.
- (c) 3: Wrong. The question can be any question of law or fact of public importance.
- (d) 1 and 2: Wrong. Statement 1 is wrong.
Answer: (b) 2 only. The Court advises the President only when the President refers a question under Article 143.
- UPSC Prelims 2003Under which Article of the Indian Constitution did the President make a reference to the Supreme Court to seek the Court's opinion on the constitutional validity of the Election Commission's decision on deferring the Gujarat Assembly elections (in the year 2002)?
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: The question turns on the Article under which the President consults the Court. The President consults the Supreme Court under Article 143, as in the 2002 reference on deferring the Gujarat Assembly elections.
Trap to watch: Students pick Article 142 because it is the best-known source of the Court's wide powers, but the President's reference was made under Article 143.
Why each option is right or wrong:
- (a) Article 142: Wrong. It concerns the Court's power to do complete justice.
- (b) Article 143: Correct. It is the President's power to consult the Supreme Court.
- (c) Article 144: Wrong. It requires all authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court.
- (d) Article 145: Wrong. It concerns the Court's rules of procedure.
Answer: (b) Article 143. The reference was made under Article 143.
- UPSC Mains 2024 GS‑IIExplain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world's most powerful judiciary?
Answer outline
The outline sets out what the question asks, the main arguments, relevant examples and the direction of the conclusion; it is not a full model answer.
Introduction: Public interest litigation relaxed the rule that only an aggrieved person may approach the court.
Body (sub-themes to develop):
- Reasons: Access for the poor and prisoners; letters treated as petitions; judicial response after the Emergency years; Article 39A.
- Effect: PIL added to the Court's wide original, writ, appellate and advisory powers and to its Article 142 power to do complete justice.
- Limits: Frivolous and business-motivated petitions; guidelines that enter the executive's field; costs imposed by the Court.
Conclusion: PIL made the Court uniquely accessible and powerful, which calls for restraint in its use.
Sources
- Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice: The Constitution of India
- Supreme Court of India: Jurisdiction
- Supreme Court of India: History
- NCERT: Indian Constitution at Work, Class 11, Chapter 6, Judiciary
- Wikipedia: Supreme Court of India
- Wikipedia: Writ
- Wikipedia: Public interest litigation in India
- Wikipedia: Curative petition
- Wikipedia: Contempt of court in India
- Supreme Court of India: Opinion in Special Reference No. 1 of 2025, Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills (20 November 2025)
- Press Information Bureau: Power of President to consult Supreme Court (21 August 2002)
Editorial Disclaimer
This article explains the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court from the text of the Constitution, the Court's own published account and the other sources listed. It is not legal advice.
