Question

Several jurists hold the view that the original and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India is wider than that of the USA. Justify the given statement.

Answer 1

• Powers of the Supreme Court in the USA:
  1. Original Jurisdiction of USA:
     
     1. In cases concerning ambassadors and foreign agents.
     2. In cases where the state is a party.
     3. In cases of centre-state disputes.
  2. Appellate Jurisdiction of USA:
     
     1. From a state court, in cases where a law is in dispute under the constitution.
     2. Directly from federal district courts when it invalidates a federal statute, and the government appeals against it.
     3. Through petitions against the decisions given by the Federal Court of Appeals.
• Powers of the Supreme Court in India:
  1. Original Jurisdiction (Art. 131):
     
     1. Cases of dispute between the centre and states or between two or more states.
     2. Cases related to violation of fundamental rights.
  2. Appellate Jurisdiction:
     
     1. Civil cases when they involve a question of law and high court certifies them to be fit for appeal (art 133).
     2. Criminal cases when the high court certifies it or in case where a death sentence is reversed (art 134).
     3. Constitutional cases when the high court certifies that the case involves interpretation of the constitution and is fit for appeal.

Comparison between Supreme Court in India and the Supreme Court in the U.S.A.

• Indian Supreme Court has broad original jurisdiction over disputes between the central government and one or more states, or between states themselves (Article 131), be India’s federal structure with unitary spirit. The U.S. Supreme Court also has original jurisdiction in disputes between states but is limited in scope compared to the Indian Supreme Court.
• Indian Supreme Court has broad appellate jurisdiction, allowing any case involving a substantial constitutional question to be appealed directly to it. While in the U.S.A. the Supreme Court can hear constitutional cases but not all constitutional matters automatically reach it. It chooses which cases to review through writs of certiorari, limiting the number of constitutional cases it addresses.