Jurisdiction in the first instance refers to cases that can be heard directly by the Supreme Court without first referring to the lower courts. Federal relations cases are brought directly before the Supreme Court. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court designates him as the arbitrator in all disputes relating to federal matters. In any federal state, disputes between the Union and the State, and between the State itself, are inevitable. The power to resolve these cases rests with the Supreme Court of India. This is called initial jurisdiction because only the Supreme Court has the power to deal with such cases. Neither the High Courts nor the lower courts can hear such cases. In this capacity, the Supreme Court not only rules on disputes, but also interprets the powers of the Union and the State Government as defined in the Constitution. The most important power of the Supreme Court is the power of judicial review. Judicial review refers to the power of the Supreme Court (or Supreme Courts) to review the constitutionality of a law if the court finds that the law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, such a law is declared unconstitutional and unenforceable. The concept of judicial review is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The fact that India has a written constitution and that the Supreme Court can repeal a law that violates fundamental rights implicitly gives the Supreme Court the power to review the courts. The written powers and the power of review of the Court make the judiciary very powerful.
The power of review means that the judiciary can interpret the Constitution and laws passed by the legislature. Other branches of government should not interfere in the decisions of the judiciary. The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal. Any person may appeal the decision of the Supreme Court to the Supreme Court. However, the High Court must certify that the case is appealable, that is, that it is a serious question of interpretation of the law or the Constitution. In addition, in criminal cases, if the lower court has sentenced a person to death, an appeal may be lodged with the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decide whether appeals are allowed, even if the appeal is not allowed by the High Court. Jurisdiction to appeal means that the Supreme Court will reconsider the case and related legal issues. If the court finds that the law or constitution has a different meaning than the lower courts have understood, the Supreme Court will vary the judgment and also give a new interpretation of the provision in question. The High Courts are competent to appeal. The independence of the judiciary does not imply arbitrariness or lack of accountability. PIL has become the main vehicle for legal activism.
Through IPRs, the Court has broadened the idea of rights. The courts have ruled that individuals, as members of society, must have the right to seek justice wherever these rights are violated. Through intellectual property rights and judicial activism in the post-1980 period, the judiciary has also shown its willingness to take into account the rights of sections that cannot easily turn to the courts. To this end, the judiciary has allowed ordinary citizens, social organizations and lawyers to file petitions on behalf of the needy and needy. The following issues have been at the heart of the controversy between Parliament and the judiciary. The Indian Constitution has guaranteed the independence of the judiciary through several measures: The main task of the judiciary is to protect the rule of law and ensure the supremacy of the law. It protects the rights of individuals, settles disputes by law and ensures that democracy does not give way to individual or collective dictatorship. To do this, the judiciary must be independent of political pressure. First, it has overburdened the courts.
Legal activism has blurred the line between the executive and legislative branches, on the one hand, and the judiciary, on the other. The court has been involved in resolving executive matters. The Constitution prescribes a very difficult procedure for the removal of judges.
