Judicial Federalism

Published on 20 Jan 2025

Judicial Federalism

Judicial Federalism indicates the existence of multiple tiers of court at the central and provincial levels, with each court having its own independence and one not subordinate/superior to the other.

In the Indian context, the judiciary is multi-tiered with the presence of the Supreme Court, High Courts and a network of Subordinate Courts. Through various judgments, the Supreme Court has reiterated the position that the Supreme Court is superior to the High Court only in the appellate sense. Hence the High Court has its own independence with the High Court judges enjoying equal powers as the Supreme Court judges theoretically.

Elements Indicating Judicial Federalism in India

• Writ jurisdiction of High Court: Article 226 empowers a person to approach the High Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights and the High Court has the powers to issue writs to enforce the rights.

• Limited original jurisdiction of Supreme Court: Article 131, dealing with the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, has very limited subjects indicating the need to attend the High Court and Subordinate Courts for the rest of the matters.

• Removal of High Court judges: The procedure to remove the High Court judges is similar to that of a Supreme Court judge indicating the similarity in power.

• Judicial interpretations: The Supreme Court in Chandra Kumar vs Union of India case has said that the High Courts are “institutions endowed with glorious judicial traditions” indicating their significance in the Indian judicial system. 

Challenges to Judicial Federalism in India

• Interference of Supreme Court in High Court functioning: There have been instances where the Supreme Court suo motu interfered in High Court proceedings and transferred the cases to the former under Article 139A.

• Example: During the time of COVID, the Supreme Court issued a direction for the transfer of cases at the High Court levels related to the redistribution of essential supplies across the country.

• Appointment and transfer of High Court judges: The Collegium has representation from the Supreme Court which decides upon appointment and transfer of High Court judges.

• Example: The Collegium decision to transfer a Gujarat High Court judge who refused to stay defamation case against Rahul Gandhi has been criticized for being politically motivated.

• Reduction of appellate jurisdiction: Legislations have been passed for direct appeals against tribunal verdicts to the Supreme Court, bypassing the High Court.

• Supreme Court accepting more PILs: The scope for judicial activism has increased the PIL at the Supreme Court when many of them could be resolved at the High Court level.

• Example: The number of PILs filed in the Supreme Court has increased from around 15000 in 2005 to close to 60000 in 2020.

Way Forward

• Restricting the use of Article 139A: The Supreme Court should minimize the interference in the working of the High Court and can limit the instance of transferring cases to the apex court.

• Balanced use of tribunals: Tribunalization shall only serve as a mechanism to reduce the pendency at the subordinate level and shall not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court.

• Supreme Court to focus less on PILs: Lower courts should be empowered to look into such cases and transfer cases to the apex court only for critical cases.

Thus, the Supreme Court should show some amount of restraint and aid the growth of lower courts to ensure judicial federalism is maintained in India.

Tags:
Polity

Keywords:
Judicial Federalism Indian Judiciary Federalism

Syllabus:
General Studies Paper 2

Topics:
Indian Constitution