BPSE - 212

5th Part

Q. Describe the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
A. The different categories into which the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is divided as follows:
1) Original Jurisdiction, 2) Appellate Jurisdiction,
3) Advisory Jurisdiction, 4) and Review Jurisdiction.

Original Jurisdiction -

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction firstly as a federal court. In a federal system of India, both the Union and the State governments derive their powers from and are limited by the same constitution. Sometimes differences emerge due to the interpretation of powers between the Union and States, or conflicts between States governments. Under Article 131, the Supreme Court is given exclusive power to settle disputes between the Union and a State or between one State and another, or between a group of States and others. The Supreme Court is also the protector or custodian of Fundamental Rights. 

          Article 32 of the Constitution gives citizens the right to move the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights enumerated in Part III of the Constitution. As the guardian of Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has the

power to issue writs such as Habeas Corpus, Quo Warranto, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Mandamus. By using the Writ of Mandamus, the court may order the public officials to perform their legal duties. Prohibition is a writ to prevent a court or tribunal from doing something over its authority. By the writ of Certiorari, the

court may strike off an order passed by any official of the government, local body or a statutory body. Quo warranto is a writ issued to a person who is not authorized to occupy a public office. (Habeus Corpus also explain) In addition to issuing these writs,

the Supreme Court is empowered to issue appropriate directions and orders to the executive.

Appellate Jurisdiction

             The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal among all courts in the territory of India. It has comprehensive appellant jurisdiction in cases involving constitutional issues; civil and criminal cases; and wide-ranging powers of special appeals. Article 132 of the Constitution provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court from any judgement or final order of a court in civil, criminal or other proceedings of a High Court if it involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. The appeal again depends upon whether the High Court certifies, and if

does not, the Supreme Court may grant special leave to appeal.

Article 133 of the Constitution provides for an appeal to the SC from any judgement or final order in civil proceedings of a High Court.

Article 134 of the Constitution provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court from any judgement or final order in criminal proceedings of a High Court. This jurisdiction can be invoked only in three different categories of cases:-

a) if the High Court on appeal reverses an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentence him to death.

b) if the High Court has withdrawn for the trail before itself in any case from any court which is subordinate to its authority and in such a trial the convicted or the accused the person is sentenced to death, and

c) if the High Court certifies that the case is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Advisory Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court is vested with the power to render advisory opinions on any legal, constitutional, judicial issue that may be referred to it by the President. The advisory role of the Supreme Court is different from the ordinary judgement in three senses: 

first, there is no litigation between two parties; second, the advisory opinion of the Court is not binding on the government to adhere; finally, it is not executable as a judgement of the court. The practice of seeking an advisory opinion of the Supreme Court helps the executive to arrive at a sound decision on important issues. In 1977 President sought to advise of SC on setting up of special courts to the trial of excesses during the emergency period.

Review Jurisdiction -

The Supreme Court has the power to review any judgement pronounced or order made by it. This means that the Supreme Court may review its own judgement order. The Indian Supreme Court apart from interpreting the Constitution, functions as the court of appeal in the country in matters of civil and criminal cases.

It can entertain appeals without any limitation, not only of any court but also of any tribunal within the territory of India. Despite these powers, the Indian Supreme Court is a creature of the Constitution and depends for the continuation of these powers on the Union a legislature which can impose limitations on them by amending the Constitution.

           Moreover, all these powers can also be suspended or superseded whenever there is a declaration of emergency in the country.

Notes on - UPSC, Special Provisions for Deprived Sections, Controversy over the Policy of Reservation

UPSC - UPSC is an autonomous body created by the Constitution to recruit – personnel (officer and other ranks) for the various Central Government services. Its charter is available in Part XIV of the Constitution of India. It conducts the annual civil services examination (for the IAS, IFS, IPS Allied Services Group A and B) and also other Central Government services such as the Indian Forest Service, the Indian Economic Service and the Indian Engineering Service. In fact, the UPSC conducts the recruitment of not only the civilian bureaucracy but also of the defence services of

the country. Thus, it conducts the examinations for the National Defence Academy (NDA) and the Indian Military Academy (IMA). The UPSC has been conducting the various examinations since 1947. It is, in fact, not only responsible for recruitment but also acts as an advisory body regarding all career matters of the recruited personnel. Being a constitutional authority, UPSC is amongst the few institutions which function with both autonomy and freedom, along with the country’s higher judiciary and lately the Election Commission. 

Special Provisions for Deprived Sections -

                It is important to note that as regards to the recruitment to bureaucratic positions in India, there is provision for reservation of a certain percentage of posts for deprived sections of society. Thus, from the onset of independence, 22.5% of the post has been

reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Also, since the implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations, an additional 27% of posts have been reserved for the Other Backward Castes (OBCs). 

           As mentioned in the DPSP, Article 46 urges the states to work for the economic upliftment of SC, ST and other vulnerable weaker sections of society. Various state governments have their own state-wise quotas for government jobs. Some of the Southern Indian States like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu for instance – have always had very high quotas for which there have been historical

and socio-political reasons.

Controversy over the Policy of Reservation -

             The policy of reservation which is based on the principle of affirmative action has been controversial from the beginning. While it has always found favour with the sections for whom it is meant, the others have not been too well disposed towards it. While this section somehow reconciled itself towards reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it found it difficult to accept a similar treatment to the OBCs after the announcement of the Mandal Commission recommendations. This is because it was felt that the OBCs really do not have a history of religion-sanctioned social oppression the way SCs and STs and especially, the SCs have.

             There is merit in this argument, but as of today the recommendations have come to stay and the possibility of a change in the status quo in extremely remote, if not impossible. In fact, since government jobs are increasingly being reduced in the

wake of globalization, there has been no talking of reserving jobs in the private/corporate sector for the marginalized sections of society. This demand, though not concretized as yet, has further widened the split between those benefited by reservation and those outside the reserved slot.

Q. Committed Bureaucracy

A. By Committed Bureaucracy it is expected that a bureaucrat should be hundred per cent committed to the policies and programmes of the political party in power. By extension, this also implied a full commitment to the individual politicians holding

power. A bureaucrat was not to be guided by any other consideration. This development was, essentially, a consequence of the belief in the Congress circles that the electoral debacle the party had suffered in 1967 was because the civil bureaucracy had not faithfully delivered on the party’s programmes, thus alienating the voters from the party.

                 This Congress defeat had very far-reaching and basically negative consequences. Once the idea gained legitimacy, bureaucrats began running for favours from their political masters. 1. Plum postings were offered to those who show loyalty to their political bosses, while those who insisted on following an independent line based on professional opinion were punished. 2. The punishment took the form of arbitrary transfers, postings to insignificant departments and in some cases, even suspension from service. 

3. A system of rewards and punishments got institutionalised in due course of time with civil servants being rewarded and punished on the basis of their loyalty and commitment to politicians or parties and not on the basis of their professional performance.

4. Over a period of time, the politician-bureaucrat nexus grew into a powerful force immensely benefiting both the parties giving a decisive blow to the concept of development and citizen-friendly

administration. 

5. This was the period of ‘politicization of the bureaucracy’ now the Bureaucrats of proven competence and integrity found it comfortable to toe the footsteps of the political leaders who are in power. The officers were not expected to be as loyal to the Constitution, as they had to be to their ministers. Officers were supposed to be the servicemen to carry out the orders of political bosses. Political patronage gave encouragement to corrupt and led to stagnation of the economy. Shrewd officers, who could get away with any wrongdoing, were given more importance. As a consequence, officers became a tool in the hands of politicians to benefit and further their carrier. Upright officers with some mission

and neutral approach had been sidelined.