Part V: The Union

The Union Judiciary

Article 135: Jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Court under existing law to be exercisable by the Supreme Court

--- Original Article ---

Until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the Supreme Court shall also have jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter to which the provisions of article 133 or article 134 do not apply if jurisdiction and powers in relation to that matter were exercisable by the Federal Court immediately before the commencement of this Constitution under any existing law.

Explanations

Article 135 of the Constitution of India pertains to the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court concerning matters that were previously under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court before the commencement of the Constitution. This article essentially serves as a transitional provision, allowing the Supreme Court to exercise powers in areas that were under the Federal Court's authority, pending further legislation by Parliament. The objective is to ensure the continuity of judicial authority in specific matters that were not covered by Articles 133 and 134, which define the appellate and criminal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Clause-by-Clause Explanation

1. Continuation of Federal Court’s Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court inherits the powers and jurisdiction of the Federal Court in certain matters that are not specifically addressed under Articles 133 and 134. This ensures that no legal gap arises in the transition from the Federal Court to the Supreme Court.

2. Limitation by Parliamentary Law

Parliament retains the authority to modify this jurisdiction. Until such laws are passed, the Supreme Court exercises jurisdiction in the same manner as the Federal Court did before the Constitution’s commencement.

Amendments

There have been no specific amendments to Article 135, which remains in its original form since the adoption of the Constitution. The article provides a safeguard against judicial uncertainty during the early years of the Constitution's implementation, ensuring that any legal matters not covered by other articles continue to be adjudicated by the highest court.

Real-Life Examples

• Berubari Union Case (1960): In this case, the Supreme Court, exercising its broad jurisdiction, dealt with the transfer of Berubari Union to Pakistan following the Indo-Pakistan agreement. The Federal Court’s powers in handling territorial disputes were transferred to the Supreme Court under Article 135, illustrating the continuity in judicial powers between the Federal Court and the Supreme Court.

Historical Significance

The Federal Court of India was established under the Government of India Act, 1935, and functioned as the apex judicial authority for resolving constitutional, civil, and criminal matters under British rule. After India’s independence and the adoption of the Constitution in 1950, the Supreme Court of India replaced the Federal Court. Article 135 plays a crucial role in this transition by ensuring that the Supreme Court retained all necessary jurisdiction and authority over cases that were previously heard by the Federal Court. This article safeguarded the continuity of justice and upheld the rule of law during the crucial phase of India’s post-independence judicial system.

References

• Government of India Act, 1935: Establishment of the Federal Court.
• Berubari Union Case (1960): An example of jurisdiction inherited by the Supreme Court under Article 135.
• Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 133, 134, and 135 define the appellate, criminal, and transitional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Legislative History

Article 135 of the Indian Constitution, originally drafted and deliberated as article 112B of the Draft Constitution, was ultimately incorporated into the Indian Constitution.

Debates and Amendments

During the Constituent Assembly debates, the focus was on ensuring that the transition from the Federal Court to the Supreme Court would not result in a loss of jurisdiction over important matters. Discussions led by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized the need for continuity in judicial authority, ensuring that the Supreme Court could seamlessly inherit the jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Court until Parliament legislated otherwise. The debates highlighted the significance of maintaining judicial stability in India’s post-independence legal framework.