Q: Discuss Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of India ?

Ans: The Supreme Court of India is apex judicial forum and final court of appeal as provided under part V, Chapter IV of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court is empowered with Original, Appellate, Writ and Advisory Jurisdiction. 

Further, the court also exercises the power of judicial review.

The Supreme Court of India has Original, Appellate and Advisory Jurisdiction. The Original Jurisdiction gives the power to the Supreme Court to hear the matters which are concerned with: Firstly, the dispute between the Government of India and one or more States. Secondly, if there is a dispute among the states. Thirdly, under Article 32[1] the Supreme Court has the Jurisdiction to hear in regard to enforcement of the fundamental rights. It can issue directions, orders or writs. The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction of international commercial arbitration under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over all the courts and tribunals in India. The Appellate Jurisdiction of the court gives the power to hear the matter under Article 132[2], 133[3] and 134[4] in respect to judgement, order or final decree given by the High Court in the cases of civil and criminal matter. It also grants Special Leave Petition under Article 136[5] to hear the matter from any judgement, decree, sentence or passed by any Court or Tribunal in India.

Under Article 143[6] of Constitution ofIndia, the Supreme Court of India has got the Advisory Jurisdiction under which it may advise the President of India on the matters which are related to the public importance. The Supreme Court is not bound to give the advice, but it may hear the matter then act accordingly.

It has played an important role in the development by the jurisdiction as it was done by delivering the judgment. The importance of this that it established a channel of the relationship between the Judiciary and Executive.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Discuss the case law of Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174 for maintenance of wife?

Ans: According to Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174, an able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. Conclusion: So, if the husband has liabilities like loans and other legal obligations, he will not be entitled to provide maintenance to earning wife.  Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was obligatory on the part of the Petitioner-wife to allege and prove that she was unable to maintain herself. According to Shri Rege the expression used in t...
Read more

Q: Discuss the citation of Madras High Court on Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar V. Aarti on 22 June, 2018 ?

Ans: On the misuse of the provisions for claim maintenance, it is opined by Madras High Court on Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar vs Aarti on 22 June, 2018 that it is a matter of deep concern that though the law for maintenance is a valuable and beneficial legislation safeguarding helpless wife, who is unable to maintain herself, but there are some instances where the wife focus her husband as like that of an ATM and the beneficial provisions of law are considered to be utilized as a tool of harassment. 
Read more

Question of law:

1. Whether the honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh has not ignored to consider the guidelines of Deb Narayan Halder vs Smt. Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003 , it which it is clearly mentioned that the wife can not claim maintenance if she is unable to prove cruelty. The court can not grant maintenance on the basis of conjecture and surmise and the respondent, Smt Megha Khare has made false allegations on petitioner after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, restitution of conjugal rights and she has not proved any allegation on petitioner.  2. Where the honourable high court of Madhya Pradesh has erred in not considering the legal maxim ' Salus populi est suprema lex or Suprema lex salus populi which means that the welfare of the people is the supreme law. In other words, it means public welfare is the highest law. The Honorable High Court of Madhya Pradesh neither ordered the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare to prove the cruelty on herself nor considered that...
Read more