The constitutional framers conferred extensive powers on the Supreme Court. The exercise of multitudinous functions heavily burdened the Court with cases within a short period of time after its inception. In spite of curtailing its jurisdiction, the Parliament has amplified it under Article 138 and the Court by its activist approach. Many proposals for reforming the Supreme Court were suggested then. Moreover, the Supreme Court itself expressed its inability in managing its docket on many occasions through its judgments. Nonetheless, it took certain policy decisions in entertaining the cases particularly under Article 32. Further, many public interest litigations were filed to restructure its jurisdiction. In this backdrop, the paper analyzes the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the downside of judicial activism that has resulted in litigation explosion. The issues relating to direct appeals from Tribunals and Commissions are also examined. Further, the various reports of the Law Commission are studied to know the suggestions to revamp the Supreme Court to its original character as contemplated by the constitutional framers. Finally, the possible reformatory steps are also analyzed by considering the practicability in establishing the National Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of India enjoys unbridled powers under the Constitution and thereby performs various functions. The primary function is exercising constitutional review of both legislative enactments and executive actions.1 This function has been extended even to the constitutional amendment and enriched its power to invalidate any amendment if it violates the ‘Basic Structure of the Constitution’.2 This judicial review of a constitutional amendment is unknown not only to the Indian Constitution, but to any Constitution of the world at that time. There are other functions carried out by the Supreme Court vested both under the Constitution as well as Statutes made by the Parliament,3 such as, it can take the side of a citizen against the arbitrary governmental processes.4 If Union or any State(s) of India has a legal quarrel with another State, either Union or State(s) can call on the Supreme Court to decide their dispute.5 It acts as the final interpreter of the Constitution.6 It can decide important civil disputes involving a substantial question of law.7 A criminal found guilty of murder, or even less serious offences, can appeal to the Supreme Court of India.8 It has discretionary jurisdiction to hear any appeal against any Order from any Court or Tribunal.9 Further, it can review its decisions10 and also has the power to cure its judgment or order if it is manifestly wrong.11 It can provide advice to the President of India on any issue relating to both law and fact.12 Besides this, it dispenses complete justice to the parties by its activist approach.13 There are no fetters on its power either on its own or by any authorities to decide any disputes. In this process, although the Supreme Court is acting as a national conscience for the people of India, it creates more confusion and doubt whether it is an institution of judicial nature as contemplated by the framers of our Constitution. Further, it suffers from many institutional deficiencies because of wide jurisdiction and overactivist approach. The paramount problem faced by the Supreme Court is the delay in disposal of cases and the accumulating pendency. It has been a matter of great concern, debate, discussion and criticism. This problem is not novel to the Supreme Court, and it started to experience it since the late 1960s, and thereby it began to engulf gradually increasing year by year, and has undergone these strains without having recourse to set right it.

The growing backlog of cases and inordinate delay in the highest appellate Court cause more concern for each and every citizen who seek justice before it. In addition to that, many cases involving complicated questions of law or interpretation of statutory provision have been pending before the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench for years, and many claim that the present Supreme Court virtually became an ordinary Court of Appeal by drifting itself from its original character as a Constitutional Court. To overcome this problem, the Law Commission of India addressed this issue in many of its reports besides the steps taken by the government and the Supreme Court itself.

In the context of the above, this paper analyzes the disturbing trend of the judicial activism and reports of the Law Commission in restructuring the Supreme Court both internally and externally along with the Supreme Court’s inclination towards National Court of Appeal.

Law Review Journal,Supreme Court, Jurisdiction, Constitutional amendment, Law Commission .