Consider the following statements: 1. The Parliament cannot enlarge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India as its jurisdiction is limited to that conferred by the Constitution. 2. The officers and servants of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by the concerned Chief Justice and the administrative expenses are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. Which of the statements is/are correct?

1. Integrated Judiciary: Structure and Hierarchy (basic)

In India, we follow a Dual Polity (meaning we have both a Central Government and State Governments), but we do not have a dual system of administration of justice. Instead, the Constitution establishes an Integrated Judicial System. This means that unlike the United States—where federal laws are enforced by federal courts and state laws by state courts—India has a single, unified hierarchy of courts that enforces both Central and State laws Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30.

This structure is designed as a pyramid to ensure uniformity in the administration of justice and to eliminate diversities in remedial procedures Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Centre-State Relations, p.151. The hierarchy functions as follows:

• The Supreme Court: Standing at the absolute apex, it is the federal court, the highest court of appeal, the guarantor of fundamental rights, and the guardian of the Constitution.
• High Courts: Situated at the state level, these are the primary judicial headers for each state, yet they operate under the guidance and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
• Subordinate Courts: These include District Courts and other lower courts that handle the bulk of grassroots litigation.

To better understand how this differs from other federal systems, consider this comparison:

Feature	Indian Integrated System	American Dual System
Law Enforcement	Single system enforces both Central and State laws.	Federal courts for federal laws; State courts for state laws.
Hierarchy	Strictly hierarchical (SC → HC → Lower Courts).	Parallel systems (Federal and State systems are largely distinct).

Crucially, this integration is maintained through administrative links. For instance, judges of a State High Court are appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, and they can be transferred between states by the President Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Centre-State Relations, p.151. Furthermore, while the Constitution sets the baseline, Parliament has the power to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, for example, by conferring further appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, THE SUPREME COURT, p.349.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Centre-State Relations, p.151; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, THE SUPREME COURT, p.349

2. Independence of the Judiciary: Constitutional Safeguards (intermediate)

To understand the Independence of the Judiciary, we must first distinguish between two concepts: Integration and Independence. While our judiciary is integrated (a single hierarchy from the Supreme Court down to Subordinate Courts enforcing both Central and State laws), it is designed to be independent from the Executive and Legislature to ensure it remains the 'guardian of the Constitution' Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30.

The Constitution ensures this independence through several 'shields' that protect judges from political pressure:

• Security of Tenure: Judges do not serve at the 'pleasure' of the President. They have a fixed retirement age (65 for the Supreme Court) and can only be removed by the President following a rigorous 'impeachment-like' procedure in Parliament on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Supreme Court, p.287.
• Financial Autonomy: The salaries, allowances, and pensions of judges, along with the administrative expenses of the Court, are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. This means they are non-votable by Parliament, preventing the legislature from using 'power of the purse' to influence judicial decisions Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT, Judiciary, p.126.
• Administrative Control: To prevent executive interference in the court's day-to-day work, the appointment of officers and servants of the Supreme Court is handled by the judiciary itself (the Chief Justice or designated judges/officers), not by the government or the UPSC.

A critical nuance regarding Jurisdiction is that while Parliament has the power to enlarge the Supreme Court's jurisdiction (for example, by conferring extra appellate powers in criminal matters), it generally cannot curtail it in a manner that violates the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. Furthermore, the conduct of judges cannot be discussed in Parliament or State Legislatures, except when a motion for their removal is under consideration, ensuring they can perform their duties 'without fear or favour' Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, High Court, p.356.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Supreme Court, p.287; Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.), JUDICIARY, p.126; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, High Court, p.356

3. Core Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (intermediate)

To understand the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, think of it as the boundary of its legal authority—the "territory" where its word is law. The Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court a vast and diverse jurisdiction, which is often categorized into three primary pillars: Original, Appellate, and Advisory. However, as we explore these, you will see that the Court also possesses a unique Writ Jurisdiction for protecting our fundamental rights D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Chapter 22, p. 346.

1. Original Jurisdiction (Article 131): This is the Court’s power to hear a case for the first time, acting as a federal tribunal. It exclusively handles disputes between the different units of the Indian Federation (e.g., the Union vs. one or more States, or State vs. State). It is important to distinguish this from Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32). While Article 32 is also "original" because you can approach the Court directly, it is technically a separate power focused on protecting individuals against the State, rather than resolving federal disputes between governments D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Chapter 22, p. 348.

Feature	Original Jurisdiction (Art. 131)	Writ Jurisdiction (Art. 32)
Parties Involved	Units of the Federation (Union vs. States)	Aggrieved Individual vs. Government/Agencies
Purpose	Maintaining federal equilibrium	Enforcement of Fundamental Rights

2. Appellate Jurisdiction (Articles 132–136): As the highest court of appeal, the Supreme Court reconsiders cases and legal issues previously decided by High Courts NCERT, Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 6, p. 132. This includes Constitutional matters (where a substantial question of law exists), Civil matters, and Criminal matters. A crucial point for your exams is that Parliament has the authority to enlarge this jurisdiction. For instance, Parliament may enact laws to confer further appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters beyond what is strictly mentioned in the Constitution D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Chapter 22, p. 349.

Finally, the independence of this jurisdiction is safeguarded by the fact that the administrative expenses of the Supreme Court, including salaries of staff, are "charged" upon the Consolidated Fund of India. This means they are not subject to a vote in Parliament, ensuring the judiciary remains insulated from political pressure regarding its daily functioning D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Chapter 22, p. 339.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT, p.346, 348, 349, 339; Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.), Chapter 6: JUDICIARY, p.132; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Judicial Review, p.298

4. High Courts: Jurisdiction and Writ Powers (intermediate)

In our federal structure, while the Supreme Court sits at the apex, the High Courts function as the highest judicial institutions at the State level. A High Court's territorial jurisdiction is generally co-terminous with the boundaries of the State it serves. However, Article 231 empowers Parliament to establish a common High Court for two or more States or extend its jurisdiction to a Union Territory D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Chapter 22, p. 363. To ensure their independence, the administrative expenses of a High Court, including salaries of staff, are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, meaning they are not subject to a vote in the State Legislature.

The most distinctive power of the High Court is its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226. While both the Supreme Court and High Courts can issue the five famous writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo-Warranto), the High Court’s power is actually broader in scope than the Supreme Court’s. This is because the Supreme Court can only issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, whereas a High Court can issue them for Fundamental Rights as well as "for any other purpose"—meaning the enforcement of ordinary legal rights M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Fundamental Rights, p. 98.

However, there is a catch: the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction is mandatory because Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right. In contrast, the High Court’s power under Article 226 is discretionary; the court can refuse to exercise it if it feels an adequate alternative remedy exists for the petitioner M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Fundamental Rights, p. 99. Additionally, under Article 227, the High Court enjoys supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals (except military tribunals) functioning within its territorial limits, ensuring they stay within the bounds of their authority M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Courts, p. 701.

Feature	Supreme Court (Art. 32)	High Court (Art. 226)
Scope	Only Fundamental Rights	Fundamental Rights + Legal Rights
Nature	Mandatory (it is a FR)	Discretionary
Territory	Entire India	Respective State/Territory

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT, p.363; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.98-99; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), High Courts, p.701

5. Financial Autonomy: Charged Expenditure (exam-level)

To ensure that the Judiciary remains a truly independent pillar of democracy, it must be shielded from the political pressures of the 'power of the purse.' If Parliament could reduce the budget of the Supreme Court or slash judges' salaries whenever it disagreed with a verdict, judicial independence would be a myth. This is why the Constitution provides for Financial Autonomy through the mechanism of 'Charged Expenditure.'

Under Article 112(3) and Article 146(3), the administrative expenses of the Supreme Court, including the salaries, allowances, and pensions of both the judges and the staff, are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India (CFI). In the language of the Indian budget, this means these items are non-votable. While Parliament is free to discuss these expenses during the budget session, it cannot put them to a vote. This ensures that the Court's daily operations and the livelihoods of its officers are never used as leverage by the executive or the legislature M. Laxmikanth, Parliament, p.252.

It is crucial to distinguish between the financial arrangements of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, as this is a frequent area of confusion in exams. The table below clarifies where these funds are drawn from:

Expense Item	Supreme Court	High Court
Salaries & Allowances of Judges	Consolidated Fund of India	Consolidated Fund of the State
Pensions of Judges	Consolidated Fund of India	Consolidated Fund of India
Administrative/Staff Expenses	Consolidated Fund of India	Consolidated Fund of the State

Note the unique case of High Court pensions: while their active salaries come from the State they serve, their pensions are charged to the Union (CFI) to simplify matters when a judge has served in multiple different High Courts throughout their career D.D. Basu, The Union Legislature, p.258. The only exception to these financial guarantees is a Financial Emergency under Article 360, during which the President may issue directions to reduce salaries D.D. Basu, The Supreme Court, p.343.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), The Union Legislature, p.258; M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (7th ed.), Parliament, p.252; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), The Supreme Court, p.343

6. Parliament's Power to Enlarge SC Jurisdiction (exam-level)

To understand the Supreme Court's reach, we must look at it not as a static entity, but as one that can grow. While the Constitution defines a 'minimum guaranteed' jurisdiction for the Supreme Court—such as its Original Jurisdiction (Art 131) and Writ Jurisdiction (Art 32)—it explicitly empowers Parliament to expand these powers. Think of the Constitution as providing the foundation and the ground floor; Parliament has the authority to build additional stories as the needs of the nation evolve. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Supreme Court, p.296

Under Article 138, the Parliament is authorized to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court with respect to any of the matters in the Union List. Furthermore, if the Government of India and the Government of any State enter into a special agreement, Parliament can even confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court regarding matters outside the Union List. This ensures that the Court remains a flexible institution capable of handling new legal complexities. For instance, while Article 134 provides for criminal appeals in specific cases, Article 134(2) specifically allows Parliament to enact laws conferring further appellate jurisdiction on the Court to hear any criminal judgment or sentence from a High Court. Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, THE SUPREME COURT, p.348

It is crucial to distinguish between enlargement and curtailment. While Parliament can add to the Court's powers, it generally cannot take away the core jurisdictions specifically granted by the Constitution (like the power to protect Fundamental Rights under Article 32). Parliament also plays a secondary role in the Court's administration; for example, it determines the number of judges and can empower other courts to issue writs, although it has not yet exercised the latter power for subordinate courts. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Fundamental Rights, p.98

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Supreme Court, p.296; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, THE SUPREME COURT, p.348; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Fundamental Rights, p.98

7. Administrative Staff and Officers of the Courts (exam-level)

To ensure the independence of the judiciary, the Constitution of India provides that the courts must have complete control over their own administrative machinery. If the executive branch controlled the hiring, firing, or salaries of court staff, it could indirectly influence judicial outcomes or paralyze the court's functioning. Therefore, under Article 146 (for the Supreme Court) and Article 229 (for High Courts), the power to appoint officers and servants is vested in the Chief Justice of the respective court (or such other judge/officer as they may direct), rather than the Union Public Service Commission or the Ministry of Law Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Chapter 22, p.343. Furthermore, the financial independence of the courts is secured by treating their administrative expenses as "Charged" expenditure. This means that the salaries, allowances, and pensions of the staff, as well as the administrative expenses of the court, are not subject to the annual vote of the legislature. While the Supreme Court's expenses are charged to the Consolidated Fund of India, the High Court's expenses are charged to the Consolidated Fund of the State Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Courts, p.701. This ensures that the court's budget cannot be used as a political tool by the government of the day.

Feature	Supreme Court (Article 146)	High Court (Article 229)
Appointing Authority	Chief Justice of India (or delegate)	Chief Justice of the High Court (or delegate)
Financial Source	Consolidated Fund of India	Consolidated Fund of the State
Legislative Control	Non-votable (Charged)	Non-votable (Charged)

It is also important to note that while the judiciary is independent, Parliament maintains the power to make laws regulating the Supreme Court's organization and jurisdiction. Parliament can even enlarge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (such as conferring further appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters) but it generally cannot curtail the core constitutional powers of the court Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Chapter 22, p.339.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT, p.339, 343; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), HIGH COURTS, p.701

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

This question tests your ability to synthesize two critical pillars of the Indian Polity: the Independence of the Judiciary and the division of administrative powers between the Union and the States. To solve this, you must recall the specific constitutional provisions that balance judicial autonomy with parliamentary oversight. While the Supreme Court's 'Basic Structure' is protected, the Constitution specifically provides mechanisms for the legislature to expand the court's reach to meet evolving legal needs, as seen in Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu.

Let’s analyze the statements logically. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 138 and Article 134(2) explicitly empower Parliament to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, particularly regarding federal matters and criminal appeals. Statement 2 is a classic UPSC 'half-truth' trap. While it is true that the Chief Justice (or their nominee) appoints court staff to ensure judicial independence, the funding mechanism differs by tier. The administrative expenses of the Supreme Court are charged to the Consolidated Fund of India, but those of the High Courts are charged to the Consolidated Fund of the State. Because Statement 2 incorrectly lumps both into the Union fund, it is false.

Therefore, the correct answer is (D) Neither 1 nor 2. Common traps to watch out for include over-generalizing (assuming that because High Court judges are appointed by the President, their expenses must also come from the Union) and assuming constitutional rigidity (forgetting that Parliament can augment, but not diminish, the Court's powers). Always verify the source of funding—Union vs. State—whenever a question combines different levels of the judiciary.