With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements: 1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India. 2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Contents10
- A1 only
- B2 only
- CBoth 1 and 2 only
- DNeither 1 nor 2
Show answer
Answer: (A) 1 only
Under Article 128 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of India can request a retired judge of the Supreme Court (or a qualified retired High Court judge) to sit and act as a judge of the Supreme Court.
This can be done only:
- with the prior consent of the President, and
- with the consent of the retired judge concerned.
Therefore, Statement 1 is correct.
Statement 2 is incorrect in the context of this UPSC question:
The Supreme Court has an explicit constitutional power of review under Article 137.
However, the Constitution does not similarly grant an explicit review power to High Courts “as the Supreme Court does.”
Although High Courts may review certain judgments under procedural laws and inherent powers in limited situations, UPSC here distinguishes between:
- the explicit constitutional review power of the Supreme Court, and
- the more limited/non-identical review powers of High Courts.
Therefore, Statement 2 is treated as incorrect.
Hence:
- Statement 1 is correct.
- Statement 2 is incorrect.
Therefore, the correct answer is 1 only.
Article 128 allows retired Supreme Court judges to be recalled to reduce the massive case backlog, while Article 215 gives High Courts powers as courts of record including self-review.
The Supreme Court has over 70,000 pending cases and High Courts have lakhs of pending cases, making these provisions practically important for case disposal.
UPSC is testing whether students know that High Courts have similar review powers as the Supreme Court, not just appellate jurisdiction over lower courts.
Recalled Supreme Court Judges
Indian Polity retired judge Supreme Court Chief Justice of India President of India
Recalled Supreme Court Judges: Article 128 Mechanism
Article 128 allows retired SC judges to be recalled with CJI + President's consent
Recalled judges have same powers as sitting judges during their tenure
Primary purpose is managing case backlogs and judicial efficiency
Article 128 provides a constitutional mechanism to temporarily expand the Supreme Court's judicial strength by recalling retired judges. This addresses the practical challenge of mounting case backlogs without permanent appointments.
Recall Process Requirements
Step | Authority | Requirement | Constitutional Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
Initiation | Chief Justice of India | Must identify need for additional judges | Article 128 |
Approval | President of India | Prior consent mandatory | Article 128 |
Judge's Consent | Retired Judge | Cannot be compelled to serve | Judicial independence |
Powers | Recalled Judge | Same as sitting SC judge | Article 128 |
Key Features
Dual consent required: Both CJI and President must agree before recall
Voluntary participation: Retired judge cannot be forced to accept recall
Full judicial powers: Recalled judges can hear cases, write judgments, and participate in constitutional benches
Temporary arrangement: Typically used during heavy case loads or judge shortages
Trap: CJI alone cannot recall judges - President's prior consent is mandatory under Article 128
Trap: Only retired Supreme Court judges can be recalled, not retired High Court judges
Trap: Statement says 'prior permission' but constitutional text uses 'prior consent' of President
High Court Review Power
Indian Polity High Court power to review own judgement
High Court Review Power: Article 215 & Court of Record Status
Article 215 makes every High Court a 'court of record' with review powers
High Courts can review own judgments like Supreme Court does
Pottakalathil Ramakrishnan case established this review jurisdiction clearly
Article 215 declares that every High Court is a 'court of record' - this status inherently includes the power to review its own judgments, similar to the Supreme Court's review jurisdiction under Article 137.
Court of Record Powers
Power | High Court | Supreme Court | Constitutional Source |
|---|---|---|---|
Review own judgments | Yes | Yes | Article 215 / Article 137 |
Punish for contempt | Yes | Yes | Article 215 / Article 129 |
Permanent record maintenance | Yes | Yes | Court of record status |
Judicial precedent value | Yes | Yes | Court of record status |
Review Jurisdiction Scope
Grounds for review: Error apparent on face of record, not re-hearing on merits
Limited scope: Cannot review on grounds that would require fresh evidence or re-argument
Inherent power: Flows from 'court of record' status, not separate constitutional provision
Parallel to SC: High Court review power mirrors Supreme Court's Article 137 jurisdiction
Landmark Case
The Pottakalathil Ramakrishnan case definitively established that High Courts possess review jurisdiction as courts of record under Article 215, settling any doctrinal uncertainty about this power.
Trap: High Courts have review power like Supreme Court - both are courts of record
Trap: Review power is inherent in court of record status, not a separately granted jurisdiction
Trap: Many assume only Supreme Court can review - but High Courts have equal review power
Key Constitutional Articles on Judiciary
Indian Polity Article 128 Article 215
Constitutional Articles: Judicial Administration & Powers
Article 128: Recalled judges mechanism for Supreme Court
Article 215: High Court as court of record with review powers
Article 137: Supreme Court's review jurisdiction (for comparison)
Judicial Articles Comparison
Article | Court | Provision | Key Feature |
|---|---|---|---|
Article 128 | Supreme Court | Recalled retired judges | CJI + President consent required |
Article 215 | High Court | Court of record status | Review power + contempt power |
Article 137 | Supreme Court | Review jurisdiction | Error apparent on record |
Article 129 | Supreme Court | Court of record status | Contempt power |
Article 226 | High Court | Writ jurisdiction | Constitutional remedies |
Constitutional Framework
# Judicial Articles
## Supreme Court
- Article 128 (Recalled judges)
- Article 129 (Court of record)
- Article 137 (Review power)
## High Court
- Article 215 (Court of record)
- Article 226 (Writ jurisdiction)
- Article 227 (Superintendence)
## Common Powers
- Review jurisdiction
- Contempt power
- Precedent value
- Permanent recordsArticle number confusion: Article 128 is for recalled judges, Article 215 is High Court record status
Power parity trap: Both SC and HC have review powers - don't assume only SC can review
Authority confusion: Article 128 requires both CJI and President consent, not either one alone