Part V: The Union

The Union Judiciary

Article 132: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases

--- Original Article ---

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, [if the High Court certifies under article 134A] that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution.

(2) [Clause omitted]

(3) Where such a certificate is given, [Certain words omitted] any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided.

Explanation: For the purposes of this article, the expression “final order” includes an order deciding an issue which, if decided in favour of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case.

Amendments

1. Clause (2) omitted by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 17 (w.e.f. 1-8-1979).

2. Certain words omitted by the same amendment, s. 17.

3. Substituted text in Clause (1) under the same act.

Explanations

Article 132 outlines the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It ensures the Supreme Court addresses significant constitutional questions, thus upholding legal uniformity across the nation.

Clause (1): Appeals require certification under Article 134A, emphasizing that only substantial constitutional questions are eligible for appeal.

Clause (3): Appeals allow addressing misinterpretation of constitutional provisions, safeguarding constitutional integrity.

Clause-by-Clause Explanation

1. Appeals Involving Substantial Constitutional Questions

Clause (1) ensures that appeals to the Supreme Court are restricted to cases with significant constitutional questions. Certification by the High Court is mandatory, ensuring only critical matters reach the apex court.

2. Appeals on Grounds of Misinterpretation

Clause (3) provides a mechanism for addressing cases where the High Court may have misinterpreted constitutional provisions, granting litigants an avenue for redress.

3. Definition of "Final Order"

The explanation clarifies that a "final order" includes any order that conclusively resolves the case if decided in favor of the appellant.

Real-Life Examples

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark case established the "Basic Structure Doctrine" of the Constitution, arising from High Court judgments appealed under Article 132.
• S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Addressed misuse of Article 356, with appeals highlighting significant constitutional interpretations.
• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): This case involved the constitutional validity of the Prime Minister’s election, bringing significant attention to the Supreme Court's appellate role under Article 132.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Addressed personal liberty and procedural fairness under Article 21, showcasing Article 132's importance in constitutional interpretation.

Legislative History

Article 132, initially drafted as Article 110 of the Draft Constitution, was introduced to establish the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in matters involving constitutional interpretation. Its current form reflects amendments aimed at streamlining judicial processes and ensuring only substantial cases reach the Supreme Court.

Debates and Amendments

During the Constituent Assembly Debates, members like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava emphasized the importance of Supreme Court jurisdiction in maintaining constitutional integrity.

Dr. Ambedkar: Highlighted the need for constitutional clarity and emphasized the Supreme Court's role in interpreting fundamental legal questions to ensure national unity.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Advocated for broader appeal rights to ensure that significant legal errors by High Courts could be rectified at the highest judicial level.

Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar: Stressed the importance of limiting appeals to constitutional issues to prevent overburdening the judiciary and maintain focus on essential legal questions.

The Forty-fourth Amendment refined Article 132 by removing redundant provisions and ensuring clarity in the appellate process. This change streamlined the certification requirements under Article 134A and reinforced the necessity of addressing only substantial constitutional questions.

References

• The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
• S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918
• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597