THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: HISTORIC ESTABLISHMENT AND JURISPRUDENTIAL MANDATE BY - SANIGHDHA
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: HISTORIC ESTABLISHMENT
AND JURISPRUDENTIAL MANDATE
AUTHORED BY - SANIGHDHA,
Junior Research Fellow, Department Of
Laws, Panjab University, Chandigarh
Abstract
Since
time immemorial, India has been a land of judicial propriety and legal ethics,
followed to the core by one and all. The very basis of Indian
politico-sovereign state is the establishment of the principle of rule of law
and the foundation strengthening of justice, equity, and good conscience. One
must understand that the judicial system of India, as well its procedural trial
systemic apparatus, is not something anew, it is as old as time and as
organised as a perfect lime. The establishment of the Supreme Court of India is
regarded as the watershed moment for justice delivery mechanisms in India. The
foundation of the honorable Apex Court of India was laid down in the year 1950
and its functioning has increased, with the passing of time. One of the busiest
apex courts of the world, has one of the richest historical pasts associated
with it. The present manuscript strives to establish the link between the
ancient, medieval, modern, post-independence and present-day justice delivery
system in India, while also acknowledging the deep scriptural and spiritual, as
well as ethno-linguistic values that drive the whole system in a mechanized and
organised way. From talking and researching about the texts of Arth-shastra and
medieval India theologists, the present research manuscript aims at delving
into the glorious past and the creatively harmonious balance that the Apex
Court has now created in its functioning, while balancing the fundamental
rights of the people, as well as connecting the lives and liberties with the
principles of living constitutionalism.
Keywords
Supreme
Court; Constitution of India; Apex Court; Arth-Shastra; Scriptural and
Spiritual values.
I.
Introduction:
The Philosophical and Jurisprudential
Aspect of Indian Judicial System
Justice
is the first promise of law. Law is the essentiality of any civilized society.
Every society and every societal norm are directed and played by the forces of
legal players and has been, the basic vehicle and push-force of all the good
actions and good deeds of the societal public. Initially, in the ancient times
in India and in the world, generally, the elders of a particular village used
to solve all kinds of disputes arising in the society. They tried to avoid any
confrontation and thereby sorted out the issues with utmost grace and
contentment for both the parties. The ancient judicial system of India, was
much more grown and intricate in its functioning than the modern systems. It
aimed at delivering speedy, yet thoughtful justice. The understanding of law
and justice that we possess in our modern contemporary world, is derived from
these systems and older mechanisms only. They help us introduce and recognise
what we truly stand for and understand the foundation of our legal systems.
Many digests and manuscripts as well as the scriptural texts of India, have
time and again exhibited the need of relooking into them and truly
understanding what Indian judicial system actually stands for. The various
negative opinions that have been stated by foreign scholars must be discarded
over here and the very need to understanding the basics of the legal and
judicial system that we possess, is essential and quintessential to really
interpret and comprehend why we need the courts, in today’s world and why is
there a need to revisit the historical concept of law and justice, as well the
very genesis of the honorable Supreme Court of India.
India
has the oldest judiciary in the world. No other judicial system has a more
ancient or exalted pedigree. The present concept of Rule of Law has its origins
in the older civilisations of the world, especially the Indian cultural and
traditional civilisation, which has always aimed at integrating the whole
society and interpreting the law of the land, for benefit of all, without any
kind of discrimination and distinctions. The ancient history of the Indian
judicial system has been more of a revolutionary and progressively
accommodating aspect rather than being a tough shift of transformations. The
concept of rule of law states that no person is above law and the rules and
regulations of our legal system are the supreme most. The very history of the
legal system of India is based upon the concept of jurisprudential philosophy
and the need to integrated friction points for betterment of the society. The
examples of establishing ‘rule of law’ in India can be taken from the
scriptures of ancient India, which have now become the pathways of enlightening
our roads to development. In the Mahabharata, it was laid down "a King
who after having sworn that he shall protect his subjects fails to protect them
should be executed like a mad dog."
"The people should execute a king who does not protect them, but
deprives them of their property and assets and who takes no advice or guidance
from anyone. Such a king is not a king but misfortune."
These provisions indicate that
sovereignty was based on an implied social compact and if the King violated the
traditional pact, he forfeited his kingship. Coming to the historical times of
Mauryan Empire, Kautilya describes the duties of a king in the Arth-shastra
thus: "In the happiness of his subjects lies the King’s happiness; in
their welfare his welfare; whatever pleases him he shall not consider as good,
but whether pleases his people he shall consider to be good."
It
is further stated that, “the principle enunciated by Kautilya was based on a
very ancient tradition which was already established in the age of the
Ramayana. Rama, the King of Ayodhya, was compelled to banish his queen, whom he
loved and, in whose chastity, he had complete faith, simply because his
subjects disapproved of his having taken back a wife who had spent a year in
the house of her abductor. The king submitted to the will of people though it
broke his heart. In the Mahabharata it is related that a common fisherman
refused to give his daughter in marriage to the King of Hastinapur unless he
accepted the condition that his daughter’s sons and not the heir apparent from
a former queen would succeed to the throne. The renunciation of the throne and
the vow of life-long celibacy (Bhishma Pratgyan) by Prince Deva Vrata is one of
the most moving episodes in the Mahabharata. But its significance for jurists is that even
the sovereign was not above the law. The great King of Hastinapur could not
compel the humblest of his subjects to give his daughter in marriage to him
without accepting his terms.”
It must be thus understood that the concept of law, legal system and judicially
vigilant kings and kingdoms has gone through the phase of huge development,
even in ancient India, whereby the benevolent kings had the benefit and the
welfare of the people and their subjects in minds; without even a single
unwanted causality and illegal transgressions. Our ancient scriptures and the
sayings, teachings as well as learnings of the rishis, sages and the learned
men from all walks of life- have contributed to the understanding of the
concept of justice, and justice without a doubt, must be universal and must
speak to the minds of the forthcoming generations as well.
Justice
in India was not just some written letter of the officer of the court; it was
the spirit of the solution that was needed to justify the reasoning behind any
order or direction, thus passed. It was righteous yet rational; it was
contenting yet left a room for improvement; it was punishing at times but was
the need of the hour, always and it was the just as well as the justified
reasoned statement of the courts, at all times. According to various reports
and texts that state the condition of justice and courts during the ancient
India, it is understood that, “administration of justice is one of the most
essential functions of the state. Being human, disputes are bound to arise amongst
us. For the settlement of those disputes, we need guidelines in the form of
laws and forums to redress the wrongs in the form of courts. Laws and courts
have always gone together. There is a close nexus between them; neither court
can exist without the laws or laws without the courts. Judicial system of
ancient India was basically derived from Manu – Brihaspati's Dharam Shastras,
Narada's Smritis, and Kautilya's Arthshastra. Description of the area of Godda,
which was part of Anga Pradesh of ancient India has come from the travel
accounts of foreign travellers Megasthanese and Hiuen Tsang and was ruled by
Pal dynasty for some time. A civil judicial proceeding in ancient times, as at
present, commenced ordinarily with the filing of a plaint or what was known as
Purva Paksha before a competent authority. A plaint, it was required, must be
brief in words, unambiguous and free from confusion. In case of disputes about
property, elaborate rules laid down the requirement about giving detailed and
full description of the property. Written statements known as Uttara Paksha
were required to be filed by the defendants and the rules enjoined that they
must not be vague and must meet all the points of the plaint. Normally, parties
were required to produce their witnesses. The presence of the witnesses who
were far away or would not stir out was secured by the orders of the judge.
Different modes of proof for substantiating allegations were prescribed. On the
conclusion of the trial, judgment known as Nirnaya was pronounced and the
successful party became entitled to Jayapatra or a document of success,
Execution of the decrees could entail imprisonment, sale, fine and demand for
additional security. The doctrine of res judicata known as Pran Nyaya was
well-known. In criminal law there was an elaborate classification of offences.
Apart from offences like rape, dacoity and the like, there were other offence
like not running to the rescue of another person in distress. Punishment was
prescribed for causing damage to trees in city parks, to trees providing
shades, to trees bearing flowers and fruits and to trees in holy places. It was
an offence for a judge to give a wrong decision out of corrupt motive. Perjury
by a witness attracted severe penalty. There were six types of punishment,
namely, fine, reprimand, torture, imprisonment, death, and banishment. Theft
was classified into three kinds according to the value of the thing stolen.
There was also a classification of thieves. Some were considered open or patent
thieves and others secret thieves. Open or patent thieves included traders who
employed false weights and measures, gamblers, quacks, and persons who
manufactured counterfeit articles. Secret thieves were those who moved about
clandestinely.”
From
the above information that is reproduced and the various understandings that
are attached to the concept of law, justice, and legal systems; one must be
understanding enough to grasp the fact that the various principles of natural
justice, legal and theoretical systemic apparatus, as well as the issues of
positive law, combined with the crux of law and judicial principles- India is
the birthmother of all that is law and justice. In the ancient Indian society,
the concept of adversarial system of justice, punitive as well as reformatory
punishments, the trial system for the purpose of obtaining factual and legally
admissible evidences, as well as the basic foundational humane values that
govern the apparatus of arbitration, conciliation, and mediation; all were possessed
and practiced in the territory of ancient India. These were the systems that
upheld the foundational values of humanity and justice; these were the
mechanisms those were carried forward by the medieval Indian rulers and the
further, the British Raj as well as the independent Indian leaders.
II.
The
Honorable Supreme Court of India: A Historical Glance into the Glorious Past
from Ancient to the Medieval Phase
Before
delving into the historical past of the Indian Supreme Court, one must be aware
of the history of the courts of India, right from the ancient ages to the
medieval ages. But before that, one must know from where did the ancient law
originate and what were the sources of law, because ultimately, it was the law
which was made applicable and it was this law, which was followed by the
Courts, as well. According to various writings on the ancient Indian law
jurisprudence, “the Hindu law really emanated from books called the Smritis
e.g. Manusmriti, Yajnavalkya Smiriti and the Smritis of Vishnu,
Narad, Parashar, Apastamba, Vashisht, Gautam, etc. These Smirits were not
laws made by parliament or some legislature. They were books written by certain
Sanskrit Scholars in ancient times who had specialized in law. Later,
commentaries (called Nibandhas or Tikas) were written on these Smritis, e.g.
the commentary of Vijnaneshwar (who wrote a commentary called Mitakshara
on the Yajnavalkya Smiriti), the commentary of Jimutvahan who wrote a book
called the Dayabhaga (which is not a commentary on any particular Smriti but is
a digest of several Smritis), Nanda Pandit (whose commentary Dattak Mimansa
deals specifically with the Law of Adoption), etc. Commentaries were then
written on these commentaries, e.g. Viramitrodaya, which is a commentary on the
Mitakshara (which founded the Banaras School of Mitakshara).”
However, there were times when there was clash between the customs and the
written laws- and for this purpose books of varied nature and in simplistic
language were written, to basically make the customs comprehensible and
comprehendible by the general masses, in toto. However, one must understand the
initially all law was customary law only and no other kind of law existed. The
ancient Indian law was customary and accommodating and did not emphasize or
restrict itself too much on the practice of the sacred texts only. It
rejuvenated and rehabilitated itself as and when the dynamics of the society
changed. The various texts further go on to say, “all law was originally
customary law, and there was no statutory law in ancient India, for the simple
reason that there was no parliament or legislature in those times. The problem
with custom, however, was that it was often vague and uncertain, and did not go
into details. Customary rules could of course tell us that when a man dies his
property should go to his son. But what would happen if there is no son and the
deceased only leaves behind him several relations who are distantly related to
him e.g. second cousins, grand nephews, aunts, etc. Who will then inherit his
property? This could obviously not be answered by custom. Hence text books were
required to deal with this subject, and this requirement was fulfilled by the Smritis
and commentaries in ancient India, just as it was done in ancient Rome. Custom
no doubt prevailed over these written texts but for that clear proof was
required by the person asserting its existence, which was not easy.”
Similar trends were also followed in the world in ancient civilisations, for
example, it is highly reported that, “In ancient Rome most of the law was not
made by the legislature but by the writings of eminent Jurists e.g. Gauis,
Ulpian, Papinian, and ultimately the great Justinian Code. This trend was
followed in the civil law system which prevailed in Continental Europe where
the commentaries of eminent Jurists are cited in the law courts, unlike in the
common law system (which prevails in England and the former English Colonies
including India, USA, Australia, etc.) in which court decisions are cited as
precedents.”
Coming
back to the court and justice system in India, according to various manuscripts
and historical details, “in the Artha-shastra of Kautilya, who is generally
recognised as the Prime Minister of the first Maurya Emperor (322-298 B.C.),
the realm was divided into administrative units called Sthaniya, Dronamukha,
Khrvatika and Sangrahana (the ancient equivalents of the modern districts,
tehsils and Parganas). Sthaniya was a fortress established in the center of
eight hundred villages, a dronamukha in the midst of 400 villages, a kharvatika
in the midst of 200 villages and a sangrahana in the center of ten villages,
Law courts were established in each sangrahana, and also at the meeting places
of districts (Janapadasandhishu). The Court consisted of three jurists
(dhramastha) and three ministers (amatya). This suggests the existence of
circuit courts, for it is hardly likely that three ministers were permanently
posted in each district of the realm. The great jurists, Manu, Yajn-valkya,
Katyayana, Brihaspati and others, and in later times commentators like
Vachaspati Misra and others, described in detail the judicial system and legal
procedure which prevailed in India from ancient times till the close of the
Middle Ages.”
Thus, one may understand that the sages of ancient India were in the know of
writing legislations and interpreting them, for the betterment of the society
and for the purpose of making the justice delivery mechanism, easy and
affordable.
There
was also proper hierarchy of courts in ancient India, and almost the same
hierarchy was followed into the ages of medieval India, as well, albeit with
slight differences. It is stated that, “according to Brihaspati Smiriti, there
was a hierarchy of courts in Ancient India beginning with the family Courts and
ending with the King. The lowest was the family arbitrator. The next higher
court was that of the judge; the next of the Chief Justice who was
called Praadivivaka, or adhyaksha; and at the top was the King’s
court. The jurisdiction of each was determined by the importance of the
dispute, the minor disputes being decided by the lowest court and the most
important by the king. The decision of each higher Court superseded that of the
court below. According to Vachaspati Misra, the binding effect of the
decisions of these tribunals, ending with that of the king, is in the ascending
order, and each following decision shall prevail against the preceding one
because of the higher degree of learning and knowledge. It is noteworthy that
the Indian judiciary today also consists of a hierarchy of courts
organized on a similar principle-the village courts, the Munsif, the Civil
Judge, the District Judge, the High Court, and finally the Supreme
Court which takes the place of the King’s Court. We are following an ancient
tradition without being conscious of it. The institution of family judges
is noteworthy. The unit of society was the joint family which might
consist of four generations. Consequently, the number of the member of a joint
family at any given time could be very large and it was necessary to settle
their disputes with firmness combined with sympathy and tact. It was also
desirable that disputes should be decided in the first instance by an
arbitrator within the family. Modern Japan has a somewhat similar system
of family Courts. The significance of the family courts is that the judicial
system had its roots in the social system which explains its success. The
fountain source of justice was the sovereign. In Indian jurisprudence
dispensing justice and awarding punishment was one of the primary attributes of
sovereignty. Being the fountain source of justice, in the beginning the king
was expected to administer justice in person, but strictly according to law,
and under the guidance of judges learned in law. A very strict code of judicial
conduct was prescribed for the king. He was required to decide cases in open
trial and in the court-room, and his dress and demeanour were to be such as not
to overawe the litigants. He was required to take the oath of impartiality, and
decide cases without bias or attachment. Says Katyayana: The king should
enter the court-room modestly dressed, take his seat facing east, and with an
attentive mind hear the suits of his litigants. He should act under the guidance
of his Chief Justice (Praadvivaka), judges, ministers and the Brahmana members
of his council. A king who dispenses justice in this manner and according to
law resides in heaven. These provisions are significant. The king was required
to be modestly dressed (vineeta-vesha) so that the litigants were not
intimidated. The code of conduct prescribed for the king when acting as a judge
was very strict and he was required to be free from all attachment or
prejudice Says Narada: If a king disposes of law suits
(vyavaharan) in accordance with law and is self-restrained (in court), in him
the seven virtues meet like seven flames in the fire. Narada enjoins that
when the king occupies the judgment seat (dharmasanam), he must be impartial to
all beings, having taken the oath of the son of Vivasvan. (The oath of Vivasvan
is the oath of impartiality: the son of Vivasvan is Yama, the god of death, who
is impartial to all living beings).”
Thus,
one may notice that the whole hierarchy of courts in ancient India, is
resplendent with the vast awareness of the needs of the society, the etiquettes
that need to be followed by the presiding officers and other officers of the
court, the mentality and attitude which a judge must possess as the highest
authority of justice in this material world, the understanding that litigants
and the prosecutors must have as important components of the justice system,
the expectations that general public and masses have from the judges and other
officers of the court, the basic foundational values that have been ingrained
in our justice system since time immemorial, the importance of mediation via
the mechanism of family courts, the actions and the behaviour of the sovereign
as well as the learnings of the ancient civilisations. Everything, right from
the issue of commission of an offence to the culmination of the same in a
judgment, by a righteous justice, is mentioned and explained in detail in the
ancient scriptures.
Apart
from this, there are written laws for the interpretation of statutes, the
qualities of judges, criminal trials, mode of proof, administrative courts,
evolutionary concept of law, discovery of truth, dynamics of customs and sacred
laws, criminal trials, jurors, corruption, delegation of judicial powers,
administrative codes, etc. On discovery of truth and imparting of justice as
the real test and responsibility of the established courts, it is stated that,
“the real test of any judicial system is that it should enable the law courts
to discover the truth, and that of ancient India stands high under this test.
In disputes the Court has to ascertain what is true and what is false from the
witnesses, enjoins Gautam. All available evidence indicates that in
ancient India bearing false witness was viewed with great abhorrence. All
the foreign travelers from Megasthanese in the 3rd century B. C. to Huan Tsiang
in the 7th century A. D. testified that truthfulness was practiced by Indians
in their worldly relations. Truth, they hold in high esteem,
wrote Megasthanese. Fa Hien and Huan Tsiang (who visited India during the
reign of Harsha) recorded similar observations. A virtue practiced for a
thousand year became a tradition.”
Further, it is stated that, “the procedure and atmosphere of the Courts
discouraged falsehood. The oath was administered by the judge himself, and
not by a peon as today. While giving the oath the judges were required to
address the witness extolling truthfulness as a virtue and condemning perjury
as a horrible sin. Brihaspati says, judges who are well-versed in the
dharmashastra should address the witness in words praising truth and driving
away falsehood (from his mind). The judges’ address to the witness did not
consist of set words but a moral exhortation intended to put the fear of God in
him. All the texts are unanimous on this point. According to Narada, the
judges should inspire awe in the witness by citing moral precepts which should
uphold the majesty of truth and condemn falsehood. All the Smirits were
unanimous in holding that perjury before a law court was a heinous sin as well
as a serious crime. There were other provisions, calculated to reduce
the changes of false evidence being given. Katyayana enjoined, with much common
sense that there should be no delay in examining witnesses- obviously
because delay dims the memory and stimulates imagination.
The
Sovereign should not grant any delay in the deposition of witnesses; for delay
leads to great evil and results in witnesses turning away from the law.”
For
better understanding of medieval India courts, one must know that, it was
Prophet Mohammad, in Islam, who upheld the ideals of the justice and just
decision-making. It is stated that, “the ideal of justice under Islam was
one of the highest in the Middle Ages. The Prophet himself set the standards.
He said in the Quran, that justice is the balance of God upon earth in which
things when weighed are not by a particle less or more. And He appointed the
balance that he should not transgress in respect to the balance; wherefore
observe a just weight and diminish not the balance. He is further reported to
have said that to God a moment spent in the dispensation of justice is better
than the devotion of the man who keeps fast every day and says prayer every night
for 60 years. Thus, the administration of justice was regarded by the Muslim
kings as a religious duty.”
This high tradition reached its zenith under the first four Caliphs. The first
Qadi was appointed by the Caliph Umar who enunciated the principle that the law
was supreme and that the judge must never be subservient to the ruler. It is
reported of him that he had once a personal law suit against a Jewish subject,
and both of them appeared before the Qadi who, on seeing the Caliph, rose in
his seat out of deference. Umar considered this to be such an unpardonable
weakness on his part that he dismissed him from office. The Muslim kings
in India bought with them these high ideals. It is reported by Badoni that
during the reign of Sultan Muhammad Tughlaq the Qadi dismissed a libel suit
filed by the King himself against Shaikhzada Jami, but no harm was done to him.
(This however did not prevent the Sultan from executing the defendant without a
trial). Individual Sultans had very high ideals of justice. According
to Barani, Balban regarded justice as the keystone of sovereignty wherein lay
the strength of the sovereign to wipe out the oppression. But unfortunately,
the administration of justice under the Sultans worked fitfully. The reason was
that the outstanding feature of the entire Sultanate period was confusion and
chaos. No Sultan felt secure for a long time. One dynasty was replaced by
another within a comparatively short period, and the manner of replacement was
violent.” Consequently,
the quality of justice depended very much on the perpetuity of a particular
ruler.
Thus,
the ancient and medieval time periods were heavily set in the backdrop of
justice, law and equity, coupled and juxtaposed with the principles of natural
justice and good conscience.
III.
The
Establishment of the Supreme Court of India: From the British Raj to Upholding
the Constitutional Mandate
The
present-day judicial system is highly and heavily based upon the ancient and
medieval systems of justice delivery, changing itself and metamorphosizing
itself according to the dynamic societal paradigms. The Supreme Court of India,
has a rich history of its origin, steeped deep into the ancient origins of
justice and legal systems as well as the growth and development that has been
achieved in the medieval ages.
The promulgation of Regulating Act of 1773
by the King of England paved the way for establishment of the Supreme Court of
Judicature at Calcutta. The Letters of Patent was issued on 26 March 1774 to
establish the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta, as a Court of Record,
with full power & authority to hear and determine all complaints for any
crimes and also to entertain, hear and determine any suits or actions against
any of His Majesty’s subjects in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. The Supreme Courts
at Madras and Bombay was established by King George – III on 26 December 1800
and on 8 December 1823 respectively. The India High Courts Act 1861 was enacted
to create High Courts for various provinces and abolished Supreme Courts at
Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and also the Sadar Adalats in Presidency towns.
These High Courts had the distinction of being the highest Courts for all cases
till the creation of Federal Court of India under the Government of India Act
1935. The Federal Court had jurisdiction to solve disputes between provinces
and federal states and hear appeal against Judgements from High Courts. After
India attained independence in 1947, the Constitution of India came into being
on 26 January 1950. The Supreme Court of India also came into existence and its
first sitting was held on 28 January 1950. The law declared by the Supreme Court
is binding on all Courts within the territory of India. It has power of
judicial review – to strike down the legislative and executive action contrary
to the provisions and the scheme of the constitution, the distribution of power
between Union and States or inimical to the fundamental rights guaranteed by
the Constitution. ” Apart from this, a
briefer history of the Supreme Courts is stated in the following words, “under
British rule, the highest court of appeal was the Privy Council (officially,
the Judicial Committee of Privy Council after 1833). At its height, the
Privy Council heard appeals from the courts of over 150 colonies and dominions
– the equivalent of 1/5th of the human race. The subcontinent first fell within
its jurisdiction in the early 18th century, during the rule of the British East
India Company (EIC). The 1726 Royal Charter gave the apex courts (known as
Mayor’s Courts) of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras the right to appeal to the Privy
Council (then known as King-in-Council). The power transfer from the EIC
to the Crown in 1857 brought with it certain reforms. Shortly after the
transfer of power, the Crown introduced the Indian High Courts Act of 1861. The
Act created High Courts in Allahabad, Lahore, Nagpur, and Patna. Further, it
replaced the Supreme Courts of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay with High Courts.
All judgments of the High Courts could be appealed to the Privy Council. The
Privy Council made a significant contribution to stabilizing the Indian legal system,
primarily by consolidating precedents under principles of common law. This was
perhaps best exemplified when one considers that several members of the Indian Constituent
Assembly paid
homage to the Privy Council. The Constituent Assembly drafted the
Constitution of India. Veteran lawyer-statesman K.M. Munshi observed, [The
Privy Council] has been a great unifying force and for us Indians it became the
instrument and embodiment of the rule of law. Similarly, lawyer Alladi
Krishnaswami Ayyar said, whatever might be said about the executive government
under the regime which has come to an end…there can be no doubt that…the
record of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has been a splendid one. Of
course, the Privy Council had its shortcomings. It was often criticised as
being inaccessible, both in terms of cost and location (it sat in London).
Further, the judges who sat on the Council generally had no familiarity with
the specific socio-cultural contexts that disputes from the subcontinent were
rooted in. Ultimately this led to calls for a Federal Court of India in the
first-half of the 20th century. Due to the inaccessibility of the Privy
Council, the independence movement demanded a Federal Court of India.
Eventually this demand was fulfilled with the enactment of the Government of India Act, 1935 (came into force in 1937). Part IX of
the Act established the Federal Court of India, which served as the court of
appeal for the various High Courts. Its judgments were binding on all courts in
India.”
Adding on to this, “the Government of India
Act (GoI Act) also empowered the Federal Legislature to introduce amendments,
so as to confer upon the Federal Court supplemental powers (see Section 215).
In many ways, this paved the way for the creation of the Supreme Court. In 1948,
the Federal Legislature passed the Federal Court (Enlargement of
Jurisdiction) Act I that abolished direct appeals from High Courts to the
Privy Council. Shortly thereafter, on
September 24th 1949, India’s connection to the Privy Council came to an end
with the passing of the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act. With its
enactment, even judgments of the Federal Court could no longer be appealed to
the Privy Council. When the Privy Council disposed of N.S. Krishnaswami
Ayyangar v Perumal Goundman, the last Indian appeal,
the two centuries long connection to the Council was finally severed. Subsequently,
the Constitution of India replaced the Federal Court with the Supreme Court of
India. The Constitution was ratified on 26 November 1949 and came into force
on January 26th 1950. Two days after the Constitution became effective, the
Supreme Court was inaugurated on January 28th. Justice H.J. Kania became the
first Chief Justice of India.” Further it is stated that, “the role of the
Indian judiciary cannot be isolated from the social objectives of the nation.
Today the words economic planning and political democracy are accepted on both
sides of the so-called iron curtain. Our Constitution attempts to achieve a
synthesis of the two. It reflects the spirit of non-alignment in the field of
constitutional law. The Indian
Constitution has set before our people a very ambitious and difficult goal. A
Constitution is not a collection of abstract theories, nor does it operate in a
vacuum. It reflects a way of life which enables a particular people to realize
its objectives and ambitions. If it fails to do this, it will be amended or
discarded by agreement or otherwise. The Compulsive forces of social life are
irresistible in the end.” This is, in short the
history of the establishment of the Supreme Court of India, which is filled
with the achievements of ancient scholars, medieval theorists, modern
protagonists and the common masses who have reshaped and rebuilt the whole
structure and philosophical aura of the Supreme Court of India, which has made
the whole difference in the functioning-especially in speedy justice delivery as well as thorough
progression of legal paradigm of India.
IV. Conclusion
and Way Forward
It is stated that the Supreme Court of India
is the apex body of decision-making and justice delivery. It is at the summit
of the constitutional and philosophical transformation of the nation. It is
resplendent and replete with landmark case laws (like the case law of Kesavananda
Bharati v State of Kerala 1973 INSC 91) which have not only aided in the
progressive and transformative metamorphosis and comprehension of the ideal
constitutional values that have been enshrined in the sacred document of India-
the grundnorm,
the Constitution of India; but have also tried to balance the different
approaches of constitutional interpretation-such as the originalist and the
living constitutionalist approach, which have also been sourced from the
‘Living Tree Doctrine’ of the Canadian Federal
system. It is no doubt that the ancient values of the Indian civilisation have
been a great aid in establishing this process, as well pushing us beyond the
limits of our abilities, as common masses, and leaders of the nation. This is
indeed, the most important task of a judiciary. A judicial system, which is
proactive and understands the issues of the nation, the ideas of grievance
redressal and the administrative work of the justice delivery system- is
something which will always help in establishing rule of law, principles of
natural justice and also the components of justice, equity as well as good
conscience. The Supreme Court of India, is the most renowned and the most
hard-working apex court of the world, carrying further the values that have
been ingrained in the Indian blood from so long, a glimpse of which has been
noticed in this research paper. Conclusively, the values of the ancient, medieval,
and even the worldly structures and civilisations must be protected, preserved,
and conserved in such a way that they continue to inspire the coming
generations, while upholding the fundamentals of governance, constitutionalism,
and constitutional morality of the land.