• Between the Government of India and one or more states
• Between the Government of India and any state or states or one side and one or more other states on the other
• Between two or more states
This Jurisdiction does not extend to treaties signed before the commencement of the constitution and its scope does not extend to
•Complaints as to interference with interstate water supplies referred to statutory tribunal mentioned in Article 262 with Inter-state water (1) disputes Act. 1956, S. 11 (xxxxiii);
• Matters referred to the finance commission (Art. 280);
• Adjustment of finances between the union and states (Art. 290); and
• A reference to the Supreme Court under Article 131 read with Article 363 (1).
Appellate Jurisdiction (Art 132)
As a court of appeal, the Supreme Court is a final appellate tribunal of the land. The power of reviewing and revising the orders of lower courts and tribunals by the Supreme Court is called the appellate Jurisdiction.
An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in the territory of India whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding (if the High Court certifies under Article 134 ‘1\) that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this constitution. Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the SC on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided.
In fact, the Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court is three folds:
Constitutional: In the constitutional matters, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution.
If the High Court refuses to give the certificate, the Supreme Court may grant special 1 for appeal if it is satisfied that the case does involve such a question.
Civil Matters (Art. 133): In civil cases, an appeal lies to the Supreme court if a High Court that the value of the subject matter of the dispute is not less than Rs. 20,000 or that the is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.
The appellate jurisdiction of the court in civil cases can be enlarged if the Parliament passes a law to that effect.
The appellate jurisdiction of the court in civil cases can be enlarged if the Parliament passes a law to that effect.
Criminal Matters (Art. 134): In the criminal cases, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court has, on appeal, reversed the order of acquittal of an accused and sentenced him to death Has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any subordinate and has in such trial convicted the accused and sentenced him to death Certifies that the case is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court
The Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in criminal matters can be extended by the Parliament, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified there in.
The Supreme Court under Article 136 enjoys the power of granting special leave to appeal from any judgment, decrees order or sentence in any case or matter passed by any court or tribunal except court martials.
Advisory Jurisdiction (Art. 143): One of the salient features of the Supreme Court of India is its consultative role:
The President can refer to the court either a question of law or a question of fact, provided that it is of public importance.
However, it is not compulsory for the court to give its advice.
The President is empowered to refer to the Supreme Court for its opinion (under Art. 138), disputes arising out of any treaty, agreement, etc., which has been entered into or executed before the commencement of the constitution.
In such cases, it is obligatory for the courts, under the Indian Constitution, to give its opinion to the President.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has writ and revisory jurisdiction, i.e., as follows:
Moreover, the Supreme Court has writ and revisory jurisdiction, i.e., as follows:
Writ Jurisdiction: Article 32 imposes duty on the Supreme Court to enforce the Fundamental rights. Under this Article, every individual has a right to move the Supreme Court directly if there has been any infringement on his Fundamental Rights. The writ Jurisdiction sometimes is referred to as the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but in the strict sense, Original Jurisdiction relates to the federal character of the Constitution.
Revisory Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court under Article 137 is empowered to review an judgment or order made by it with a view to remove any mistake or error that might have crept in the judgment or orders. This means that even though all the judgments and order passed by Supreme Court are binding an all courts of India, they are not binding on the Supreme Court.
Kapil Chandna Advocate
Supreme Court of India
Conceal , Mislead Convict- That is not Victory By an legal expert -collected from lawyersclub
dkj
A lawyer died
His wake was big, the cortege long.
Seems that he had done no wrong.
He lay in state, seemed free of sin,
But in hand, each mourner, had a pin.
Each pricked the corpse, nNo word was said,
They just made sure, the man was dead.
Readers are free to decide on the veracity.
Lawyers get a bad name because our system of litigation is adversarial. One person has to lose and therefore the other’s advocate becomes the villain. No one faults the adversary himself. Always the lawyer. Sometimes, however, the lawyer deserves to be vilified.
Courts decide matters on proof. Documentary proof is best. Followed by verbal testimony and cross-examination. Almost every time that proof does exist, yet, often, the courts are unaware of its existence. A decision by a court, in such a case, may be flawed. Who then is to be blamed?
Our laws require that all proof must be put on the table; even if is adverse to one’s interest. This axiom follows from the belief that the primary duty of a court of law is to find the truth. Orders, judgements, convictions, acquittals, awards, fines, dismissals flow from that. Without access to the truth, the court is handicapped.
Our laws require that all proof must be put on the table; even if is adverse to one’s interest. This axiom follows from the belief that the primary duty of a court of law is to find the truth. Orders, judgements, convictions, acquittals, awards, fines, dismissals flow from that. Without access to the truth, the court is handicapped.
What is stated above must be news, or anathema, to our readers. The standard reaction of most litigants is, “Why should I produce this as evidence?”, when asked to present the inconvenient truths. But the law demands it. Hide-and-seek is not a game that courts play. They can come down heavily on those who conceal vital evidence. The same is also true with concocted proof and perjury.
Public Prosecutors are appointed by the State, meaning the government, to conduct criminal trials. Their results are show-cased for all to see, especially in high publicity issues. They often become superstars. But what if they fail?
Losing one’s job, or losing an election to this office, is not palatable to most lawyers. They will die a thousand deaths for a conviction. It is this pressure that leads some astray, and the police is often there to help with manufactured proof.
YOU BE THE JUDGE in these trials.
a) Mr. X knows that his opponent, Mr. B, has some vital documents that will prove X right. B wants to hide them. X asks the judge to force B to produce the important proof. What can the judge do?
b) X says that he needs some documents to prove his case but does not have them. B has them. What should B do?
c) A man is convicted because the prosecutor did not reveal all he knew about the man’s innocence. Later on, the proof is out, but, by then, the man has spent 18 years in prison. Can the prosecutor be punished?
In the first case, if the judge demands the papers from B, B will have to produce them. Otherwise B can lose his case. He may also be held in contempt, obstruction of justice and wrongful harassment of Mr. X, beside a host of other crimes.
In the second case, it is the duty of B to inform the court that B has the documents with him and will produce them, not to help the opponent, but to “Assist the Court”. We did exactly that two days ago, in a civil case.
The third is one example of many such trials culminating in wrongful imprisonment. After a recent American study, 20% of those convicted were set free; all victims of malicious prosecution. Many of the affected sued the government agencies and were compensated. Unfortunately, only ONE prosecutor was punished. A low level functionary, he lost his license to practice. That’s all!
Faced with similar situations, what can litigants do? They must ask their lawyers to apply to the court for documents withheld by the other side. The law permits this and it is codified in Order 11, Rule 21 of The Code of Civil Procedure. It can save months of delay.
It’s a law is just waiting to be used.
Very informative article and thanks for information, Thanks for the great post
ReplyDelete