Are the Powers of the Supreme Court of India Unlimited?

It is well known that the judgments delivered by courts at different levels are not always consistent, as they are often based on the perspectives of the judges regarding the interpretation of the law and, perhaps, their personal views on certain matters. This is why we often see higher courts overruling the judgments of lower courts. Even within the Supreme Court, decisions made by smaller benches are sometimes overturned by larger benches. While this inconsistency may be understandable, it has led to numerous appeals and prolonged delays in the delivery of final judgments.

However, what is more difficult to understand is the manner in which the Supreme Court sometimes exercises what it refers to as “special powers” while delivering certain judgments.

Recently, the Indian Parliament passed the Waqf Amendment Bill in both Houses, following extensive debate and deliberation. The bill was also reviewed by a Select Committee of Parliament, which made its recommendations. After going through this due process, the bill was approved by the President of India and enacted into law.

Subsequently, several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court by individuals and groups who disagreed with the decision of Parliament and the President, requesting that the Court overturn their approval of the Waqf Amendment Bill.

Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has chosen to admit these petitions on a priority basis and has initiated hearings, making some interim observations and decisions.

The fundamental question arises: does the Supreme Court have the authority to overrule the decisions of the Parliament and the President of India? Both the Supreme Court and Parliament operate within the framework of the Indian Constitution. When Parliament amends the Constitution, the Supreme Court is obliged to abide by that amendment.

In the case of the Waqf Amendment Bill, the Supreme Court appears to take the view that Parliament’s decision is not absolute and is open to judicial scrutiny. In doing so, the Court may have exposed itself to criticism for admitting petitions that arguably question the sovereignty of Parliament, thereby overreaching and exercising powers that may not be constitutionally sanctioned.

Parliament, the Judiciary, and the Election Commission are all constitutional bodies, and it is essential for each to respect the role and responsibilities of the others. When one constitutional body interferes with or questions another, it risks creating institutional chaos. A clear example of this can be seen in the case of the Election Commission, where several of its decisions have been overruled by the Supreme Court, effectively rendering the Commission subordinate to the judiciary. It is doubtful whether the framers of the Constitution ever intended such a practice.

A similar issue arose in the case involving the Tamil Nadu Government and the Governor of Tamil Nadu. Here, the Supreme Court ruled that the decision of the State Legislature was final and could not be overruled by the Governor. When the President of India withdrew assent to the state bills in question, the Supreme Court claimed to use its special powers to override the President’s decision and approved the bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.

It is perplexing that, in one case, the Supreme Court upholds the absolute authority of a Legislative Assembly, yet in another case, it does not recognise the decision of Parliament as final.

This inconsistency suggests the need for greater introspection within the judiciary. Judges must avoid creating the impression that verdicts are delivered arbitrarily under the pretext of exercising “special powers”.

In India today, the common man looks to the judiciary for clarity and justice in the face of disputes. Judges continue to command significant public respect and trust—especially in contrast to the declining credibility of many politicians in recent years.

In such a scenario, the Supreme Court plays a pivotal role and must discharge its duties with the utmost caution to maintain public confidence in both judges and the judicial process.

Many believe that the invocation of so-called “special powers” by judges opens the door to arbitrary decision-making, which can lead to miscarriages of justice. This would not only be detrimental to the nation’s legal framework but would also damage the reputation of the judiciary itself.