WHAT TYPE OF CASES APPELLATE JURISDICTION VESTS WITH THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA?

Appellate Jurisdiction:

The Supreme Court is the highest Court of Appeal, stands at the apex of the Indian judiciary. M.C. Setalved in his speech at the inauguration of the Supreme Court on January 28, 1950 said, “The writ of this court will run over territory extending to over two million square miles inhabited by a population of about 300 millions. It can truly be said that the jurisdiction and powers of this Court in their nature and extent are wider than those exercised by the High Courts of any country in the Commonwealth or by the Supreme Court of the U.S.A.”

The appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be divided into 4 main categories of cases; Constitutional, Civil, Criminal and Special.

(a) Civil Cases:

The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction in civil cases is of limited character. In civil matters after passage of the 30th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1972 (where no constitutional question is involved), appeal could lie to the Supreme Court, if the High Court certified that any of the under-mentioned conditions were satisfied:

(i) That the amount or the value of the subject matter of the dispute is not less than Rs. 20,000,

(ii) That the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court irrespective of value.

It may be pointed out that the appellate jurisdiction of the Court in civil cases can be enlarged, if Parliament passes a law to that effect. Further if the court is hearing the appeal, it is open to any party to challenge a decision of the High Court as invalid so far as it deals with the interpretation of the constitution.

(b) Criminal Cases:

The Draft Constitution had not made any provision for criminal cases in the appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court. Most of the member’s consider it a serious omission of the Constitution. So eventually the provision was incorporated in the Constitution, substantially conforming to the views of K.M. Munshi. There are only two modes by which appeals in the criminal matters lie from the decision of a High Court to the Supreme Court, i.e.,

(i) Without a certificate of High Court;

(ii) With a certificate of the High Court.

(i) Without Certificate:

An appeal lies to the Supreme Court without a certificate, if:

(i) The High Court has reversed an order of acquittal of an accused and sentenced him to death.

(ii) If the High Court has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such a trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death.

For instance in the case of Tara Chand vs. State of Maharashtra[1] the accused charged for murder was acquitted by the Trial Court. The High Court reversed the order and convicted the accused of murder and sentenced him to death. The Supreme Court rejecting the argument on behalf of the State said that the word acquittal meant complete acquittal and that the accused was entitled to a certificate under Section 134 (i) (a).

(ii) With Certificate:

An appeal lies to the Supreme Court from a decision of High Court in criminal proceedings, if the High Court certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. Parliament can, by further passing an Act, extend the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in criminal matters. But the enhancement of its jurisdiction “ought to be made, having regard to the enlightened conscience of the modern world and the Indian people.”

In fact, if we see cases decided by the Supreme Court under appellate jurisdiction, we feel enamoured of the Fathers of our Constitution who incorporated these provisions in the constitution. According to Pylee, “It stands as a living testimony to the increasing recognition that is accorded to the sanctity of human life in recent times in contrast to the incredible frequency with which capital punishment was awarded for the most petty and trifling offences in the past.”

(c) Constitutional Cases:

According to Article 132(1) an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgement, decree or final order of a High Court in the territory of India, whether in a criminal, civil or other proceedings, 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 such- a certificate, the Supreme Court can grant special leave to appeal, if the Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.

In the case of  Election Commission vs. Venkata Rao[2] (1953) a point was raised whether appeal lay to the Supreme Court in a constitutional matter under Article 132 from a decision of a single judge. The Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmatively and this made the Supreme Court the ultimate interpreter and saviour of the Constitution.

[1] Tara Chand vs. State of Maharashtra 1962 AIR 130, 1962 SCR (2) 775

[2] Supreme Court of India Judgement Cited In 1953 AIR(SC) 210, 1953 SCJ 293, 1953 (4) SCR 1144.