The Constitution of India allocates powers between the Union and its state. Such a division of powers along with other provisions of the constitution are not immune from ambiguities and vagueness. Such ambiguous provisions of the constitution are open to varying interpretations by different authorities under the constitution which may give rise to conflicts and disputes between the Union and states. 

In such a scenario, in order to maintain the supremacy of the constitution, there must be an independent and impartial authority to decide disputes between the Union and states or between different states. This responsibility can only be assigned to an impartial and self-sufficient arbiter. The Supreme Court of India serves as such an arbiter according to our constitution. It serves as the ultimate interpreter and protector of the Constitution. In addition to being guardian of the constitution, the supreme court is also the protector of fundamental rights of the people.

The constitution, in Part-V (from Article 124 to Article 147), outlines the Union Judiciary. The Constitution of India has established an integrated judiciary, with the Supreme Court being the highest court of appeal and the supreme and final interpreter of the nation’s general laws.

Composition of Supreme Court of India

• Original strength: The original constitution provided for seven judges in the supreme court excluding the Chief Justice. The constitution left it to the parliament to decide on the number of judges in the supreme court. 
• Progressive increase: The Parliament has increased this number of other judges progressively to ten in 1956, to thirteen in 1960, to seventeen in 1977, to twenty-five in 1986, to thirty in 2008 and to thirty-three in 2019. 
• Present strength: Currently, the Supreme Court comprises thirty-four judges (chief justice and thirty-three other judges). The changes to the number of judges in the SC are done by the Parliament by amending the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.

Supreme Court of India Qualifications for appointment

Article 124 provides the following qualifications for a person to be appointed as a judge of the SC:

• They must be a citizen of India and;
• They should have  –
  • Have either served as a Judge of a High Court for at least five years or have held a judgeship in two or more such Courts consecutively; or 
  • Must have practiced as an advocate in a High Court for at least ten years or in two or more such Courts successively; or 
  • Be regarded as a distinguished jurist by the President. 

No Minimum Age: There is no stipulated minimum age for qualifications as a Supreme Court judge according to the Constitution. It should be noted that the distinguished jurist is a person who is a non-practicing lawyer or an academician in the field of law. Up to now, no appointment has been made in our Supreme Court based on the qualification of “distinguished jurist.” 

Appointment of Supreme Court of India judges

Supreme Court of India Constitutional provision

• Appointment of judges: Regarding the appointment of judges, Article 124 (2) of the Constitution states that the President shall appoint Supreme Court judges by warrant under his hand and seal, following consultations with such Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts in the States as deemed necessary by the President. . Article 124 also states that the Chief Justice of India must be consulted for every judge’s appointment, excluding the Chief Justice themselves.
• Appointment of Chief Justice: The Chief Justice of India is appointed by the President after consulting with those Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts that the President considers necessary for the appointment process. 

Varying Interpretations and Controversial Appointments in the Supreme Court of India

• Ambiguous words: The usage of words “may” and “consultation” in above provisions led to varying interpretations of those words by the executive and the judiciary. Such varying interpretations caused tussle between the judiciary and the executive. 
• Controversial appointment: The tension between the judiciary and executive became prominent when Justice A. N. Ray was designated as Chief Justice of India by bypassing three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court on April 25, 1973. 
• Convention: Till 1973, the convention was to appoint the senior most judge of the SC as the Chief Justice. However, this convention was broken by the Indira Gandhi led government on the grounds that the word “may” in article 124 gives absolute discretion to the president in appointment of the CJI. This decision of the government was severely criticised by the bar council and the public.

• Interpretation of ‘consultation’: The use of the word “consultation” in the appointment of judges of the supreme court was also interpreted in varying ways. The executive interpreted this to indicate that the President holds primacy or supremacy in appointing Supreme Court judges, and it is at the President’s discretion whether or not to consult with the Supreme Court or High Court judges; even if consultations occur, their advice is not obligatory for the President. Such an interpretation was seen as an obstacle to ensure judicial independence.

So, in order to ensure judicial autonomy and independence a novel system called “Collegium System” was invented by the supreme court.