Part V: The Union

The Union Judiciary

Article 133: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to civil matters

--- Original Article ---

1[(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India 2[if the High Court certifies under article 134A—]

(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; and

(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.]

(2) Notwithstanding anything in article 132, any party appealing to the Supreme Court under clause (1) may urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution has been wrongly decided.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall, unless Parliament by law otherwise provides, lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one Judge of a High Court.

Amendments

1: Subs. by the Constitution (Thirtieth Amendment) Act, 1972, s. 2, for cl. (1).

2: Subs. by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 18, for "if the High Court certifies." (w.e.f. 1-8-1979).

Explanations

Article 133 of the Indian Constitution pertains to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court concerning civil matters. It establishes the circumstances under which an appeal can be made from a High Court's decision to the Supreme Court. This article aims to ensure that substantial legal questions of general importance can be reviewed by the nation's highest court, ensuring consistent legal interpretation across the country. Over time, amendments to this article have refined the conditions for appeal and the role of the Parliament in regulating such appeals.

Clause-by-Clause Explanation

1. Grounds for Appeal to the Supreme Court

Article 133(1) establishes that an appeal from a High Court in a civil proceeding can be made to the Supreme Court, provided that the High Court certifies the case under Article 134A. The certification must meet two criteria:

• The case involves a substantial question of law of general importance.
• The High Court believes that this question should be decided by the Supreme Court.

This clause empowers the High Courts to identify cases that raise significant legal questions that could have broad implications. By providing for such appeals, the article ensures that important legal questions are interpreted consistently across different states by the Supreme Court.

2. Scope of Appeal

Article 133(2) provides an additional ground for appeal. It allows the appellant to argue that the High Court has wrongly decided a substantial question of law concerning the interpretation of the Constitution. This provision expands the scope of the appeal, making it possible for the Supreme Court to address constitutional questions, even when the original case primarily dealt with other civil matters.

3. Restriction on Appeals from Single-Judge Decisions

Article 133(3) states that no appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree, or final order of a single judge of a High Court unless Parliament has made specific provisions allowing for such appeals. This restriction underscores the need for a substantial legal basis for appealing to the Supreme Court and prevents overburdening the court with matters of less significance.

Real-Life Examples

• Shiv Prasad v. Punjab National Bank (2003): In this case, the High Court's decision on a contractual dispute involving banking laws raised substantial questions about the interpretation of certain banking regulations. The Supreme Court granted the appeal under Article 133, as the case involved a substantial question of law with wide implications for the banking sector.
• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): The Supreme Court heard an appeal under Article 133, which had been certified by the High Court as involving a substantial question of law. This case concerned the constitutionality of the death penalty, a significant legal issue of national importance, showcasing how Article 133 allows for critical legal questions to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

Historical Significance

Article 133 is historically significant as it establishes the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in civil matters, reflecting the Indian judiciary's commitment to legal consistency and the uniform interpretation of substantial legal questions across jurisdictions. The amendments introduced in the 1970s streamlined the appeal process and reduced the burden on the Supreme Court by filtering out cases that did not meet the threshold of substantial legal importance.

Legislative History

Article 133 of the Indian Constitution, originally introduced and deliberated as Article 111 of the Draft Constitution, was formally incorporated into the Indian Constitution on June 3, June 6, and October 16, 1949.

Debates and Amendments

In the Constituent Assembly Debates, Mr. Raj Bahadur proposed an amendment to clause (1) of Article 111, seeking to delete the words "except the States for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule." He argued for equal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court across all Indian territories, highlighting disparities in judicial standards and advocating for a unified, democratic judiciary.

Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand moved an amendment to sub-clause (1) of clause (1) of Article 111, suggesting the addition of the words "or such amount as may be fixed by law by Parliament" after "not less than twenty thousand rupees." This aimed to allow flexibility in adjusting the pecuniary limit for appeals to the Supreme Court. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar supported this, while Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad opposed it, proposing a fixed amount of "fifteen thousand" rupees to ensure stability and prevent disparities in accessing justice.

Dr. Ambedkar also introduced a proviso stating that no appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from High Court judgments if judges are equally divided in opinion without constituting a majority.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena proposed adding "subject to any law made by Parliament" to allow parliamentary regulation of the right of appeal to prevent the Supreme Court from being overwhelmed with civil cases. Dr. Ambedkar and Shri M. Thirumala Rao debated the specifics of legal provisions, while Shrimati G. Durgabai emphasized flexibility and parliamentary determination of appeal conditions.

Shri V. S. Sarwate and Shri B. Das stressed the need for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over appeals from High Courts in Indian States and criticized the inherited British justice system for its expense and delays. Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri and Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar supported flexibility and reform to suit India's economic conditions.

Dr. Ambedkar's amendment to clause (1) was adopted, allowing Parliament to set monetary limits for appeals, ensuring balance between flexibility and judicial oversight. Prof. Saksena's amendment was negatived.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari proposed simplifying the proviso of clause (1) of Article 111 to state: "Provided that no appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one judge of a High Court." This aimed to streamline the appeal process, aligning it with the amended Letters Patent provisions. The amendment was adopted by the assembly.

References

• The Constitution (Thirtieth Amendment) Act, 1972
• The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978
• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898
• Shiv Prasad v. Punjab National Bank, (2003)