Supreme Court and High Courts Static GK: Jurisdiction, the Collegium and Article 32 vs 226

Yesterday’s capsule on the Election Commission was built on one question: of any power, ask where it comes from — the Constitution, a statute, or nothing at all. The judiciary is where that question produces its most startling answer. The method by which every judge of the Supreme Court and the High Courts is chosen appears in no article of the Constitution and in no Act of Parliament. It comes from the Court’s own reading of a single word.

This is the sixth capsule in our polity depth series, going a level below the Constitution capsule, for SSC CGL and CHSL, RRB NTPC, State PSC, banking general awareness and UPSC Prelims.

The Hinge: Five Courts Wearing One Robe

‘Can the Supreme Court do X?’ is almost never a single question. The Supreme Court has five separate kinds of jurisdiction, each with its own door, its own rules and its own limits. Work out which door a case came through and the answer usually falls out.

Two more hats that are not jurisdictions but behave like powers:

• Article 129 — court of record. Its proceedings are recorded as evidence and, crucially, it can punish for contempt of itself. The High Courts have the identical power under Article 215.
• Article 141 — the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India. This is what makes a Supreme Court judgment law rather than just a decision in one case.
• Article 142 — the power to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice. The widest and most debated power in the Constitution. It is what allows the Court to craft a remedy no statute provides.

Note the pairing of 141 and 142, because it is worth a line in any answer: 141 says what the Court decides becomes law for everyone; 142 says the Court may go beyond the law to do justice in the case in front of it. One makes the Court a lawmaker, the other makes it a problem-solver, and the tension between them is the whole modern debate about judicial overreach.

Article 136: The Widest Door of All

If you learn one article from this capsule, learn this one, because in practice it is how most cases reach the Supreme Court.

Special Leave Petition — SLP. Article 136 lets the Supreme Court, in its discretion, grant leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order passed by any court or tribunal in India.

• No certificate from the High Court is needed. That is the difference from Articles 132 to 134.
• It is not a right. Nobody can demand special leave. The Court may simply refuse, without giving reasons.
• The one exclusion: it does not apply to any judgment or order of a court or tribunal constituted under a law relating to the Armed Forces.

The exam framing: a question that says ‘appeal as of right’ is pointing at Articles 132 to 134 with a High Court certificate. A question that says ‘at the discretion of the Court’ or ‘from any court or tribunal’ is pointing at 136.

The Counterintuitive One: Article 226 Is Wider Than Article 32

Almost everyone assumes the Supreme Court can do everything a High Court can do, and more. On writs, the opposite is true.

The sentence to remember: Article 32 is narrower in scope but stronger in status; Article 226 is wider in scope but weaker in status. Dr Ambedkar called Article 32 the heart and soul of the Constitution — a quotation that turns up constantly, and which makes sense once you see that a right you cannot enforce is not a right at all. That thread runs straight back to our Constitution capsule.

The five writs, which both articles cover:

The pair that is always confused: prohibition stops a case in progress, certiorari cleans up after the decision. Prohibition is preventive, certiorari is curative.

How Many Judges — And the Fact That Just Changed

This is the part of the chapter most revision material now has wrong.

The Constitution fixes no number. Article 124(1) says the Supreme Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such number of other judges as Parliament may by law prescribe. Parliament does that through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, which it has amended several times.

The change was made by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2026. The Cabinet approved the Bill on 5 May 2026, the Lok Sabha passed it on 3 August 2026, and the President gave assent on 12 August 2026.

Two things to take from this, both worth marks.

• The number of Supreme Court judges is fixed by an ordinary law, not by the Constitution. That is why it can be changed by a simple majority, and why it has changed so often. Contrast this with anything inside the Constitution itself, which needs the special majority of Article 368.
• Put it beside the Bill that failed. In April 2026 a constitutional amendment on delimitation was defeated on the floor of the Lok Sabha; four months later this ordinary Bill sailed through. Same Parliament, same year, two completely different outcomes — because one needed two-thirds and the other needed a simple majority. If that distinction is not yet solid, our capsule on how a Bill becomes law sets out both routes.

Who Can Be a Judge, and for How Long

Note the distinguished-jurist route. It exists in Article 124 for the Supreme Court and has never been used. It does not exist for High Court appointments, and there is no minimum age prescribed for either — two details that are asked precisely because they feel like they should be the other way round.

A few useful extras:

• Article 126 — acting Chief Justice. The President appoints one when the office is vacant or the CJI cannot act.
• Article 127 — ad hoc judges. A High Court judge may be brought in temporarily when the Supreme Court lacks quorum.
• Article 128 and Article 224A — retired judges may be requested to sit again, in the Supreme Court and the High Courts respectively.
• Article 125 and Article 221 — salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund and cannot be varied to a judge’s disadvantage after appointment, except during a Financial Emergency.
• Article 124(7) — a retired Supreme Court judge may not plead or act before any court or authority in India. A retired High Court judge may, but not before the court where he served.

The Collegium: A System With No Law Behind It

Article 124(2) says a Supreme Court judge is appointed by the President after consultation with such judges as the President thinks necessary. Article 217 says something similar for High Court judges. Everything else has been built on the meaning of that one word, ‘consultation’.

So the collegium today: for the Supreme Court, the CJI and the four senior-most judges; for a High Court, the Chief Justice of that High Court and its two senior-most judges, whose proposal then travels to the Supreme Court collegium.

Now go back to the hinge. The collegium is not mentioned in the Constitution. It is not created by any Act of Parliament. It exists because three judgments read one word a particular way. That is the same category as the Model Code of Conduct in our Election Commission capsule — enormous power resting on no legal text — except that here it is the judiciary, not a commission, that holds it.

The NJAC: The One Time Parliament Tried

In 2014 Parliament attempted to put a method into the Constitution itself.

Why the two-member veto mattered. With the Law Minister and two lay members on a six-member body, any two of them together could block a name. The majority read that as handing the executive an effective veto over judicial appointments. The collegium revived automatically the moment the Amendment fell, and it has operated ever since.

A trap. The Memorandum of Procedure, the document that was supposed to be rewritten after 2015 to govern how the collegium works, has never been finalised. Describe it as pending, not as settled.

Removing a Judge: The Procedure Nobody Has Completed

Article 124(4) for the Supreme Court, Article 217(1)(b) read with it for the High Courts. The word the Constitution uses is ‘removal’, not impeachment — impeachment in the Constitution refers only to the President.

• Two grounds only: proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Nothing else.
• A motion signed by 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 of the Rajya Sabha, admitted by the Speaker or Chairman.
• An inquiry by a three-member committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
• If the charge is proved, the motion must pass both Houses, each by a majority of the total membership of that House and by at least two-thirds of those present and voting, in the same session.
• Then, and only then, an order of the President.

No judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court has ever actually been removed. The process has been started, and in the best-known instance the motion against Justice V. Ramaswami failed in the Lok Sabha in 1993 even after the inquiry committee found against him, because a large bloc abstained and the required majority was never reached.

Look at the majority required and you will recognise it. It is the same two-part test as a constitutional amendment: a majority of total membership and two-thirds of those present and voting. The Constitution reserves that arithmetic for the things it most wants to make difficult — amending itself, and removing a judge.

The High Courts

Articles 214 to 231. There are 25 High Courts.

Article 227 is worth a second look, because it is a power the Supreme Court lacks. The Supreme Court can hear appeals from the High Courts, but it does not superintend them. A High Court, by contrast, administratively supervises every court and tribunal below it.

What Has Changed Recently

• The sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court is now 38, not 34, with effect from the 2026 amendment. Any note still saying 34 is out of date.
• The Chief Justice of India is Justice Surya Kant, the 53rd holder of the office, sworn in on 24 November 2025. Check this before an exam — the office changes hands often and it is the one fact in this capsule with a short shelf life.
• The Memorandum of Procedure remains unfinalised more than a decade after the NJAC judgment.
• Article 143 has been used recently and consequentially. In November 2025 a Constitution Bench answering a Presidential Reference held that courts cannot prescribe timelines for a Governor’s assent to Bills — the subject of our President and Governor capsule. It is a reminder that the advisory jurisdiction is not a museum piece.

Traps Worth Marking

• Article 32 is narrower than Article 226, not wider. 226 covers ‘any other purpose’.
• Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right. Article 226 is not.
• Prohibition is issued during proceedings; certiorari after an order.
• Habeas corpus is the only writ that runs against a private person as well as the State.
• The advisory opinion under Article 143 is not binding on the President.
• The Constitution says ‘removal’ for judges, not impeachment.
• The distinguished-jurist route to the Supreme Court has never been used, and has no High Court equivalent.
• The collegium appears in no Act and in no article.
• The number of Supreme Court judges is set by ordinary law — which is exactly why it moved from 34 to 38 in 2026.

Five Practice Questions

Q1. Under which article does the Supreme Court hear a Special Leave Petition from any court or tribunal in India?
(a) Article 131 (b) Article 132 (c) Article 136 (d) Article 143
Answer: (c) Article 136 It is entirely discretionary. 131 is original jurisdiction over federal disputes, 132 is a constitutional appeal needing a High Court certificate, and 143 is the advisory jurisdiction.

Q2. Which of the following is true of Article 226 but NOT of Article 32?
(a) It can be used to enforce Fundamental Rights (b) It can be used for purposes other than Fundamental Rights (c) It is itself a Fundamental Right (d) It allows the issue of habeas corpus
Answer: (b) It can be used for purposes other than Fundamental Rights Article 226 covers Fundamental Rights and any other purpose; Article 32 covers Fundamental Rights alone. Being a Fundamental Right is true of 32, not 226.

Q3. The sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court of India, including the Chief Justice, is now…
(a) 31 (b) 34 (c) 38 (d) 41
Answer: (c) 38 Raised from 34 by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2026, which received Presidential assent in August 2026. The number is fixed by ordinary law, not by the Constitution.

Q4. The National Judicial Appointments Commission was struck down…
(a) in 1993, in the Second Judges Case (b) in 1998, in the Third Judges Case (c) in 2015, in the Fourth Judges Case (d) in 2014, before it came into force
Answer: (c) in 2015, in the Fourth Judges Case On 16 October 2015, by 4 to 1, with Justice Chelameswar dissenting. The 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act both fell, and the collegium revived.

Q5. Which writ can be issued against a private individual as well as against the State?
(a) Mandamus (b) Certiorari (c) Quo warranto (d) Habeas corpus
Answer: (d) Habeas corpus Mandamus lies only against a public authority, certiorari and prohibition only against judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, and quo warranto only about a public office.

Ten more questions on this and today’s Current Affairs explainer are waiting on our Test Your Knowledge page, with a free PDF.

Sources: the Constitution of India, Parts V and VI; the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 as amended in 2026, with the PIB release of 5 May 2026 on the Cabinet approval and LiveLaw’s report of Presidential assent on 12 August 2026; the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968; and Supreme Court Observer and reported accounts of the four Judges Cases and of the swearing-in of the 53rd Chief Justice of India. The Memorandum of Procedure is described above as unfinalised because it remains so.