Supreme Court (SC) of India

 Supreme Court of India is the apex court of India

 It is also known as

o Federal Court
o Highest court of appeal in India
o Guarantor of Fundamental Rights
o Guardian of the Constitution of India
o Final interpreter of the Constitution of India.

Indian Judiciary
Inspired by Government of India Act of 1935, the Indian Constitution has
established an integrated judicial system with a three-tier structure:

 Supreme Court
 High Courts
 The Subordinate Courts (District Courts, and other Lower Courts)

This single system of courts enforces both Central and State Laws across
the country.

Constitutional Provisions Related to Supreme Court of

India
 Articles 124 to 147 in Part V of the Indian Constitution deal with
the provisions related to the Supreme Court of India.

 Parliament is also authorized to regulate these provisions.

Composition of Judges
 Originally, the strength of the Supreme Court was fixed at 8 (1
Chief Justice and 7 other judges).
 Constitution empowers Parliament to increase or
decrease number of judges of SC.
o Accordingly, the Parliament passes several Acts subsequently to
increase the number of other judges of the SC.
 At present, the SC consists of 34 judges (1 Chief Justice and 33
other judges).
Appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court
Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by
President

Appointment of the Chief Justice

 Chief Justice is appointed by the President after consultation
with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as he
deems necessary.

 As per the Second Judges Case (1993), the senior-most judge of

the Supreme Court should alone be appointed as the Chief
Justice of India.

Appointment of Other Judges

 Other judges are appointed by the President after consultation
with the Chief Justice and such other judges of the Supreme Court
and the High Courts as he deems necessary.
 Consultation with the Chief Justice is compulsory in the appointment of
a judge other than Chief Justice.
 As per the Second Judges Case (1993), opinions and suggestions
given by the Chief Justice must be followed by the President.
 As per the Third Judges Case (1998), the Chief Justice should
consult a collegium of 4 senior-most judges of the Supreme
Court before recommending the name to the President.
o Recommendations made by the Chief Justice, without
consulting the collegium, are not binding on the
President.

Qualifications of Judges of the Supreme Court

 He should be a citizen of India.
 He should:
o have been a judge of a High Court (or High Courts in
succession) for 5 years; OR
o have been an advocate of a High Court (or High Courts in
succession) for 10 years, OR
o be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President of
India.

Note: The Constitution has not prescribed a minimum age for

appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court.
Oath and Affirmations of Judges of Supreme Court
 The Chief Justice of India and the Judges make and subscribe to an
oath or affirmation before the President or some person appointed
by him for this purpose.

Salaries & Allowances of Judges of Supreme Court

The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave, and pension of the judges of the
Supreme Court are determined by the Parliament.

 They cannot be varied to their disadvantage after their

appointment except during a Financial Emergency.

Tenure of Judges of Supreme Court

The Constitution has not fixed the tenure of a judge of the Supreme
Court. However, the Constitution contains the following three
provisions in this regard:

 He/she holds office until he attains the age of 65 years.

o Any question regarding his/her age is to be determined by such
authority and in such manner as provided by Parliament.
 He/she can resign from his office by writing to the President.
 He/she can be removed from his office by the President
on the recommendation of the Parliament.

Removal of Judges of Supreme Court

 A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed from his/her office by
an order of the President.
 They can be removed on the following two grounds:
o proved misbehaviour
o incapacity
 The procedure relating to the removal of a judge of the SC is regulated
by the Judges Enquiry Act (1968).
 As per the Act, the process of removal goes as follows:
o A removal motion signed by 100 members in the case of Lok
Sabha or 50 members in the case of Rajya Sabha is to be
given to the Speaker/Chairman.
 The Speaker/Chairman may admit the motion or refuse to
admit it.
o If the motion is admitted, then the Speaker/Chairman
constitutes a three-member committee to investigate the
charges. The Committee consists of:
  the Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the SC,
 a Chief Justice of a High Court, and
 a distinguished jurist.
o If the committee finds the judge guilty of the charges, then both
the Houses of Parliament can take up the motion for
consideration.
 The motion must be passed by both Houses of Parliament
with a Special Majority (50% of the total membership of
the House + two-thirds of the members present and
voting).
o Once passed by both Houses of Parliament, an address is
presented to the President.
o Finally, the President passes an order, removing the judge.

Note: No judge of the Supreme Court has been impeached so far.

Acting, Adhoc and Retired Judges of Supreme Court
Acting Chief Justice
The President of India can appoint a judge of the Supreme Court
as acting Chief Justice of India when:

 the office of Chief Justice of India is vacant, or

 the Chief Justice of India is temporarily absent, or
 the Chief Justice of India is unable to perform the duties of his office.

Ad Hoc Judge

 When there is a lack of quorum of permanent judges to hold or

continue any session of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India
can appoint a judge of the High Court (who is duly qualified for
appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court) as an Ad Hoc judge of
the SC for a temporary period.

Retired Judges

 The Chief Justice of India can request a retired judge of the

Supreme Court or a retired judge of a High Court (who is duly
qualified for appointment as a judge of the SC) to act as a judge of
the SC for a temporary period.
Jurisdiction and Powers of Supreme Court
Original Jurisdiction

 As a federal court, the Supreme Court decides disputes between

different units of the Indian Federation, including any dispute:
o Between the Center and one or more states; or
o Between the Center and one or more states on one side and one
or more other states on the other side; or
o Between two or more states
 This jurisdiction of the SC is exclusive and original:
o Exclusive: means no other court can decide such disputes.
o Original: means the SC has the power to hear such disputes in
the first instance, not by way of appeal.

Writ Jurisdiction

 The Supreme Court is empowered to issue writs for the

enforcement of Fundamental Rights of an aggrieved citizen.
 This jurisdiction of the SC is original but not exclusive:
o Original: because an aggrieved citizen can directly go to the
SC, not necessarily by way of appeal.
o Not Exclusive: because the High Courts are also
empowered to issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental
Rights.

Read our Detailed article on Writ Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Appellate Jurisdiction

 The Supreme Court is primarily a court of appeal and hears appeals

against the judgments of High Courts.
 The Appellate Jurisdiction of the SC can be classified under the
following four heads:

Appeals in Constitutional Matters

An appeal can be made to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the
High Court if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial
question of law that requires interpretation of the Constitution.

Appeals in Civil Matters

 An appeal can be made to the Supreme Court from any decision made
by a High Court if the High Court certifies that
 o the case raises an important legal question that is significant to
the public
o if the Supreme Court needs to address the issue.

Appeals in Criminal Matters

 An appeal can be made to the Supreme Court against the judgment of

the High Court in the following three situations:
o If the High Court has changed a decision from a lower court
that found someone not guilty and gave that person a life
sentence or a 10-year prison term
o If the High Court has taken a case from one of its lower courts to
try it itself, and during that trial, it finds the accused guilty and
gives them a death sentence, life imprisonment, or a prison term
of at least ten years
o if the High Court certifies that the case is fit for appeal to
the SC.
 The following two points are to be noted w.r.t. the above provisions:
o In the first two cases, an appeal can be made to the
Supreme Court as a right, meaning you don’t need a
certificate from the High Court
o If the High Court has changed the decision about the
conviction and has decided to clear the charges of the
accused, there is no right to appeal to the SC.

Appeal by Special Leave

 The Supreme Court is authorized to grant in its discretion Special

Leave to Appeal from any judgment in any matter passed by any
court or tribunal in the country, except the military tribunal or
the martial court.
 This provision contains 4 aspects:
o It is a discretionary power and hence cannot be claimed
as a matter of right.
o It can be granted in any
judgment whether final or interlocutory.
o It may be related to any matter – constitutional, civil, criminal,
income-tax, labor, revenue, advocates, etc.
o It can be granted against any court or tribunal (except a
military court) and not necessarily against a High Court.
 Thus, the scope of this provision is very wide and
it vests the Supreme Court with a plenary jurisdiction to hear
appeals.
Advisory Jurisdiction

 Article 143 authorizes the President of India to seek the opinion of

the Supreme Court in the following 2 categories of matters:
o On any question of law or fact of public importance that has
arisen or is likely to arise.
 In this case, the SC may accept or may refuse to give
its opinion to the President.
o On any dispute arising out of any pre-Constitution treaty,
agreements, etc.
 In this case, the SC must will give its opinion to the
President.
 In both cases, the opinion given by the SC is only advisory and not
a judicial judgement.
o Hence, They don’t have to be followed by the President.

A Court of Record
As a Court of Record, the Supreme Court

 Judgments, proceedings, and acts of the Supreme Court

are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony.
o Thus, these judgments are recognized as legal
precedents and legal references.
 It can punish people for showing disrespect not just to itself, but also to
High Courts, Subordinate Courts, and Tribunals all over the country.

Power of Judicial Review

 It refers to the power of the Supreme Court to examine the

constitutionality of legislative acts and executive orders of both
the Central and the State Governments.
o If, on examination, they are found to be violative of the
Constitution, they will be declared illegal, unconstitutional, null,
and void by the Supreme Court.

Review Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court has the power to review any judgment pronounced
or order made by it.

Constitutional Interpretation
The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution of
India.
Other Powers
The numerous other powers of the Supreme Court can be seen as follows:

 It decides the disputes regarding the election of

President and Vice-President.
o In this regard, it has the original, exclusive, and final
authority.
 It enquires into the conduct and behavior of
the Chairman and members of UPSC, SPSC, or JSPSC on a
reference made by the President.
 It is authorized to withdraw the cases pending before the High
Courts and dispose them by itself.
 It can transfer a case or appeal pending before one High
Court to another High Court.
 Its law is binding on all courts in India
 Its decree or order is enforceable throughout the country.
 It has the power of judicial superintendence and control over all
the courts and tribunals functioning in the entire country.

High Court
 High Court is apex court in the judicial administration of a
State
 The High Courts have been envisaged as:
o Highest court of appeal in the state
o guarantor of Fundamental Rights
o guardian of the Constitution of India, and
o Interpreter of the Constitution of India.

Constitutional Provisions Related to High Courts

 Articles 214 to 231 in Part VI of the Indian Constitution deal with
the provisions related to the High Courts.
 The Parliament and State Legislature both are authorized to regulate
these provisions.

Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court

 Constitution of India provides for a High Court for each State.
 However 7th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1956 authorized
the Parliament to establish a common High Court for two or more
States or for two or more States and a Union Territory
o For example- The Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and
Ladakh have a common High Court.
  The territorial jurisdiction of a High Court is co-terminus with the
territory of a State.
 The territorial jurisdiction of a common High Court is co-terminus with
the territory of a State as well as a Union Territory.
 The Parliament can extend the jurisdiction of a High Court to
any Union Territory or exclude the jurisdiction of a High Court from any
Union Territory.

Composition of Judges of High Court

 The Constitution does not specify the strength of a High Court and
leaves it to the discretion of the President.
o Thus, every High Court consists of a Chief Justice and such other
Judges as determined by the President.
 The President determines the strength of a High Court from time to
time depending upon the workload of the High Court.

Appointment of Judges of High Court

The Chief Justice and other judges of the High Court are appointed by the
President of India as can be seen in the following sections.

Appointment of Chief Justice of High Court

The Chief Justice is appointed by the President after consultation
with the Governor of the concerned State and the Chief Justice of India.

Appointment of Other Judges of High Court

 Other judges of the High Court are appointed by the President

after consultation with the Governor of the State, the Chief Justice
of India, and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.
 In the case of a common High Court for two or more States, the
Governors of all the States concerned are consulted by the President of
India.
 As per the Second Judges Case (1993), consultation with the Chief
Justice of India means opinions and suggestions given by the
Chief Justice must be followed by the President.
 As per the Third Judges Case (1998), the Chief Justice of India
should consult a collegium of 2 senior-most judges of the
Supreme Court before recommending the name to the President.
o The recommendations made by the Chief Justice of
India, without consulting the collegium, are not binding on
the President.
Qualifications of Judges of High Court
A person to be appointed as a judge of a High Court should have the
following qualifications:

 He/she should be a citizen of India, and

 He/she should have
o Held a judicial office in the territory of India for ten years.
OR
o Been an advocate of a High Court (or High Courts in
succession) for ten years.

It is to be noted that:

 Unlike in the case of the Supreme Court, the Constitution makes no

provision for the appointment of a distinguished jurist as a
judge of a High Court.
 There is no minimum age for appointment as a judge of a High
Court prescribed by the Constitution.

Oath and Affirmations of Judges of High Court

 The Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court make and subscribe
to an oath or affirmation before the Governor of the State or some
person appointed by him

Salaries & Allowances of Judges of High Court

 The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave, and pension of the judges of
the High Court are determined by the Parliament from time to
time.
o They cannot be varied to their disadvantage after their
appointment except during a Financial Emergency.

Tenure of Judges of High Court

The Constitution has not fixed the tenure of a judge of the High Court.
However, the Constitution contains the following four provisions in this
regard:

 He/she holds office until he attains the age of 62 years.

 o Any question regarding his/her age is to be decided by the
President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the
decision of the President is final.
 He/she can resign from his/her office by writing to the President.
 He/she can be removed from his/her office by the President
on the recommendation of the Parliament.
 He/she vacates his/her office when he/she is appointed as a judge of
the Supreme Court or when he/she is transferred to another High
Court.

Removal of Judges of High Court

 A judge of the High Court can be removed from his/her office by an
order of the President.
 They can be removed on the following two grounds:
o proved misbehaviour
o incapacity
 The procedure relating to the removal of a judge of the High Court is
regulated by the Judges Enquiry Act (1968) and is the same as that for
a judge of the Supreme Court.
 As per the Act, the process of removal goes as follows:
o A removal motion signed by 100 members in the case of Lok
Sabha or 50 members in the case of Rajya Sabha is to be given
to the Speaker/Chairman.
 The Speaker/Chairman may admit the motion or refuse to
admit it.
o If the motion is admitted, then the Speaker/Chairman constitutes
a three-member committee to investigate the charges
o Committee consists of:
 the Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court,
 a Chief Justice of a High Court, and
 a distinguished jurist.
o If the committee finds the judge guilty of the charges, then both
the Houses of Parliament can take up the motion for
consideration.
 The motion must be passed by both Houses of Parliament
with a Special Majority (50% of the total membership of the
House + two-thirds of the members present and voting).
o Once passed by both Houses of Parliament, an address is
presented to the President for the removal of the judge.
o Finally, the President passes an order, removing the judge.

Note: No judge of the High Court has been impeached so far.

Transfer of Judges of High Court
 The President of India can transfer a judge of one High Court to
another High Court after consulting the Chief Justice of India.
 As per Third Judges Case (1998), in case of transfer of a judge of the
High Court, the Chief Justice of India should consult, in addition to
a collegium of 4 senior most judges of the Supreme
Court, the Chief Justices of the two High Courts concerned.
o The sole opinion of the Chief Justice of India does not constitute
the consultation process.

Acting, Additional and Retired Judges of High Court

Acting Chief Justice

 The President of India can appoint a judge of the High Court

as acting Chief Justice of the High Court when:
o the office of Chief Justice of the High Court is vacant, or
o the Chief Justice of the High Court is temporarily absent, or
o the Chief Justice of the High Court is unable to perform the
duties of his/her office.

Acting Judge

 The President can also appoint a duly qualified person as an acting

judge of a High Court when a judge of that High Court is:
o unable to perform the duties of his/her office due to absence
or any other person
o appointed to act temporarily as Chief Justice of that High
Court.
 An acting judge holds office until the permanent judge resumes his/her
office. However, he/she cannot hold office after attaining the age
of 62 years.

Additional Judge

 The President can appoint duly qualified persons as additional

judges of a High court for a temporary period not exceeding two
years when:
o there is a temporary increase in the business of the High Court,
o there are arrears of work in the High Court.
o An additional judge cannot hold office after attaining the
age of 62 years.
Retired Judges

 The Chief Justice of a High Court of a State can request a retired

judge of that High Court or any other High Court to act as a judge of
the High Court of that State for a temporary period.
 The Chief Justice of a High Court of a State can do so only with the
previous consent of the President and also of the person to be
so appointed.
 Allowances of such a judge are determined by the President of India.
 He/she enjoys all the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a judge of
that High Court. But, he/ she will not otherwise be deemed to be a
judge of that high court.

Jurisdiction and Powers of High Court

The Constitution does not contain detailed provisions w.r.t. the
jurisdiction and powers of a High Court. It only lays down that the jurisdiction
and powers of a High Court are to be the same as immediately before the
commencement of the Constitution, with some additions such as revenue
matters, writ jurisdiction, power of superintendence, consultative power, etc.

The present jurisdiction and powers of a High Court are governed

by multiple sources, including:

 the constitutional provisions,

 the Letters Patent,
 the Acts of Parliament,
 the Acts of State Legislature,
 the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
 the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and
 the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

The extensive jurisdiction and powers of the High Court can be classified into
the following categories:

Original Jurisdiction
The original jurisdiction of the High Court i.e. its power to hear disputes in
the first instance, not by way of appeal, includes the following:

 Disputes relating to the election of members of Parliament and State

Legislatures.
 Regarding revenue matters or an act ordered or done in revenue
collection.
 Enforcement of fundamental rights of citizens.
  Cases ordered to be transferred from a subordinate court involving the
interpretation of the Constitution to its own file.
 The four High Courts (i.e., Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and Delhi High
Courts) have original civil jurisdiction in classes of higher value.

Writ Jurisdiction

 As per Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court is

empowered to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental
Rights and any ordinary legal right.
 The writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not exclusive but
concurrent with the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
o It means, when the fundamental rights of a citizen are violated,
the aggrieved party has the option of moving either the High
Court or the Supreme Court directly.
 However, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is wider than that
of the Supreme Court.
o While the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the
enforcement of fundamental rights, the High Court can issue
writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well
as any ordinary legal right

Appellate Jurisdiction

 The High Court is primarily a court of appeal and hears appeals

against the judgments of Subordinate Courts functioning
within the territorial jurisdiction of the State.
 The Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be classified
under the following two heads:

Appeals in Civil Matters

 The civil appellate jurisdiction of a High Court is as follows:

o First appeals from the orders and judgments of the district
courts, additional district courts, and other subordinate courts lie
directly to the high court, on both questions of law and fact.
o Second appeals from the orders and judgments of the district
court or other subordinate courts lie to the high court in the
cases involving questions of law only, and not questions of
fact.
o Some High Courts have provision for intra-court appeals.
 Under this, when a single judge of the High Court has
decided a case, an appeal from such a decision lies to the
division bench of the same High Court.
 o Appeals from the decisions of the administrative and other
tribunals lie to the division bench of the State High Court.

Appeals in Criminal Matters

 Appeals from the judgments of Sessions Court and Additional Sessions

Court lie to the High Court if the sentence is one of imprisonment
for more than seven years.
o A death sentence or capital punishment awarded by a
Sessions Court or an Additional Sessions Court should be
confirmed by the High Court before it can be
executed, whether there is an appeal by the convicted
person or not.

Supervisory Jurisdiction

 A High Court has the power of superintendence over all courts and
tribunals functioning in its territorial jurisdiction, except military courts
or tribunals.
 This power of superintendence of a High Court extends to all courts
and tribunals whether they are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of
the High Court or not.
 The following points are to be noted w.r.t. the Supervisory Jurisdiction
of High Courts:
o It covers not only administrative superintendence but also
judicial superintendence,
o it is a revisional jurisdiction,
o it can be suo-motu (on its own) and not necessarily on the
application of a party.

Control over Subordinate Courts

A High Court has administrative control and other powers over the
Subordinate Courts, which include the following:

 It is consulted by the Governor in the matters of appointment, posting

and promotion of district judges and in the appointments of persons to
the judicial service of the state (other than district judges).
 It deals with the matters of posting, promotion, grant of leave,
transfers, and discipline of the members of the judicial service of the
state (other than district judges).
 It can withdraw a case pending in a subordinate court if it involves a
substantial question of law that requires the interpretation of the
Constitution. It can then either dispose of the case itself or determine
the question of law and return the case to the subordinate court with
its judgment.
  Its law is binding on all subordinate courts functioning within its
territorial jurisdiction in the same sense as the law declared by the
Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India.

A Court of Record
As a Court of Record, the High Court has the following powers:

 The judgments, proceedings, and acts of the Supreme Court

are recorded for perpetual memory and
testimony. These records are admitted to be of
evidentiary value and cannot be questioned when produced before
any court.
o Thus, these judgments are recognized as legal
precedents and legal references.
 It has the power to punish for contempt of not only itself but also
contempt of subordinate courts.
o However, a High Court shall NOT take cognizance of a contempt
alleged to have been committed in respect of a subordinate
court, where such contempt is an offense punishable under the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 The power to review and correct its own judgment, order, or
decision.
o It is to be noted that while the Constitution specifically confers
the power of review on the Supreme, such specific power of
review has not been conferred on the High Courts by the
Constitution.

Power of Judicial Review

 It refers to the power of the High Court to examine the

constitutionality of legislative acts and executive orders of both
the Central and the State Governments.
o If, on examination, they are found to be violative of the
Constitution, they will be declared illegal, unconstitutional, null,
and void by the High Court

Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Court

The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court differs from that of the High Courts
in three respects:

Paramete
Supreme Court High Court
rs
 The High Court can issue
The Supreme Court writs not only for the
can issue writs only enforcement of Fundamental
for the Rights but also for any other
Scope
enforcement of purposes. Thus, the writ
Fundamental jurisdiction of the High Court
Rights. is broader than that of the
Supreme Court.

The High Court can issue writs

against a person residing
or against a government or
The Supreme Court
authority located within its
can issue
territorial jurisdiction only or
Territorial writs against a
outside its territorial jurisdiction
Jurisdicti person or
only if the cause of action arises
on government
within its territorial jurisdiction.
throughout the
Thus, the territorial jurisdiction of
territory of India.
the Supreme Court to issue writs
is wider than that of a High
Court.

A remedy under
Article 32 is in itself a
A remedy under Article 226 is
Fundamental Right
Discretio discretionary, and hence a High
and hence Supreme
n Court may refuse to exercise
Court cannot
its writ jurisdiction.
refuse to exercise
its writ jurisdiction.

Sub Ordinate Courts

 Subordinate Courts are situated below the high court,
 these courts handle a wide range of civil and criminal cases, providing access to justice
for citizens across various jurisdictions.
 LTheir role includes adjudicating disputes, interpreting laws, and upholding the rule of
law at the local level. Understanding the structure and functions of subordinate courts
is crucial for comprehending the overall framework of the legal system and
ensuring equitable access to justice for all.
Constitutional Provisions
 Articles 233 to 237 in Part VI of the Constitution make the following provisions to
regulate the organization of subordinate courts and to ensure their independence from the
executive
 Qualifications:
o Not already in service of the Centre or state government;
o Have been an advocate/pleader for seven years;
o Recommended by HC for appointment.
 Appointment of Persons
o District Judges : By Article 233, District Judges is appointed by Governor in
consultation with High Courts
o Other Judges: By the Governor in consultation with the State Public Service
Commission and HC.
 Article 235 deals with Control over the subordinate court by the
High Court.
 District judges serves as the highest judicial authority in the
district, possessing original and appellate jurisdiction in both
civil and criminal matters.
 Session Judge: The district judge functions as
o Sessions judge when presiding over criminal cases
o District judge when handling civil cases.
 Role of District Judge: The district judge exercises judicial and
administrative powers and supervises all subordinate courts
within the district.
 Appellate Jurisdiction to the High Court: Appeals against the
district judge’s orders and judgments are directed to the High
Court.
 Capital Punishment: The session judge holds the authority to
impose any sentence, including life imprisonment and capital
punishment.
o However, capital punishment decisions are subject to
confirmation by the High Court, regardless of whether there
is an appeal.
 Subordinate Courts District and Sessions Court: Below the
District and Sessions Court are the Court of Subordinate Judges
for civil matters and the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for
criminal matters.
o Unlimited Pecuniary Jurisdiction: The subordinate judge
has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction over civil suits.
 o Criminal Cases up to Seven Years of Imprisonment: The
chief judicial magistrate adjudicates criminal cases
punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to seven years.
 Court of Munsif: The Munsiff has limited jurisdiction and
adjudicates civil cases with small pecuniary stakes.
o This is the lowest-level court in Civil Jurisdiction.
 Court of Judicial Magistrate: The Judicial Magistrate hears
criminal cases punishable with imprisonment for a term up to
three years.
 City Civil Courts: There are City Civil Courts presided over by
Chief Judges for civil matters in Metropolitan cities.
o Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates for criminal matters.
 Small Causes Courts: Some states and Presidency towns have
established Small Causes Courts.
o These courts handle civil cases of small value in a
summary manner, with their decisions being final.
o The High Court holds the power of revision over their
decisions.
 Other Grassroots-level Courts: These are known by different
names such as Nyaya Panchayat, Gram Kutchery, and Adalati
Panchayat, handle minor civil and criminal cases are present in
some states.