Salary and Allowances, Tenure of Office, Vacancy of post, Powers and Functions of Judges in Supreme Court and State Judiciary for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

1. Salary and Allowances:

• Judges of the Supreme Court and State High Courts receive a fixed salary and various allowances as determined by law.
• The rationale behind this is to ensure that judges have financial stability and independence so they can focus solely on their judicial duties without any financial worries.
• The exact salary and allowances are determined by laws passed by the Parliament for Supreme Court judges and by state legislatures for High Court judges.

2. Tenure of Office:

• The Indian Constitution prescribes a specific retirement age for judges to ensure a continuous influx of new talent into the judiciary.
• Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65, while High Court judges retire at 62.
• This fixed retirement age helps maintain the vitality and dynamism of the judiciary by allowing fresh appointments and preventing stagnation.

3. Vacancy of Post:

• When a judge's post becomes vacant due to retirement or any other reason, it's essential to fill that vacancy promptly to maintain the judiciary's efficiency.
• The process for filling judicial vacancies is outlined in the Constitution and generally involves the following steps:
• The Chief Justice of India (CJI) initiates the process by making recommendations for new appointments.
• The recommendations are typically made to the President of India.
• The President appoints new judges based on the advice of the CJI and, in the case of High Courts, in consultation with the Governor of the concerned state.
• The collegium system, a group of senior judges led by the CJI, plays a significant role in making these recommendations.

4. Powers and Functions:

• Powers of the Supreme Court:
  • Original Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has the authority to hear cases directly, known as original jurisdiction. For example, disputes between the central government and state governments fall under its original jurisdiction.
  • Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in India. Its decisions are binding on all lower courts, which means that once the Supreme Court decides a matter, it sets a precedent for the entire country.
  • Advisory Jurisdiction: The President can seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on any matter of public importance. While this jurisdiction is not frequently invoked, it is significant in constitutional matters.
• Powers of High Courts:
  • Original Jurisdiction: High Courts have original jurisdiction in cases that involve fundamental rights. Citizens can directly approach High Courts if they believe their fundamental rights are being violated.
  • Appellate Jurisdiction: High Courts are the highest courts of appeal within their respective states or union territories. They can hear appeals against the decisions of lower courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction.
  • Supervisory Jurisdiction: High Courts have the power of superintendence over all subordinate courts and tribunals in their jurisdiction. They can issue orders and directives to ensure the proper functioning of the lower courts.

Examples from the Indian Constitution and Case Law:

• Article 125 (Salaries of Judges): Article 125 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Parliament to determine the salaries and allowances of judges of the Supreme Court. This 

Case Law Example: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982):

Background:

• The case arose from a presidential reference regarding the transfer of certain judges of High Courts.
• The President of India sought the Supreme Court's opinion on whether the President, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), had the authority to transfer judges of High Courts.

Key Points and Implications:

• Independence of the Judiciary:
  • The central issue in the case was the independence of the judiciary and the extent to which the executive branch could influence the transfer of judges.
  • The Supreme Court emphasized that maintaining the independence of the judiciary was essential for the proper functioning of the legal system and the protection of citizens' rights.
• Role of the Chief Justice of India (CJI):
  • The case reaffirmed the vital role of the CJI in the appointment and transfer of judges.
  • It recognized the CJI as the head of the judiciary and the senior-most judge, who played a pivotal role in safeguarding judicial independence.
• Consultation with the CJI:
  • The judgment clarified that the executive (the President of India) should consult the CJI on matters related to the appointment and transfer of judges.
  • This consultation process aimed to ensure that executive decisions concerning judges were made with the judiciary's interests in mind, without compromising judicial independence.
• Executive's Authority:
  • While the case reinforced the judiciary's role in protecting its independence, it also recognized that the executive had a legitimate role in the appointment and transfer of judges.
  • It struck a balance between the two branches of government, affirming that the executive should have some say in these matters but not to the detriment of judicial independence.
• Transparency and Objectivity:
  • The case raised questions about the transparency and objectivity of the process for appointing and transferring judges.
  • It led to debates about the need for greater transparency in these processes and the development of the "collegium system" for making recommendations for appointments and transfers.
• Subsequent Developments:
  • The S.P. Gupta case played a significant role in discussions on judicial reform and led to changes in the appointment and transfer procedures for judges in India.
  • Subsequent cases and legal developments further clarified the role of the CJI and the collegium system in making recommendations for judicial appointments and transfers.