Article 135

Article 135 of the Constitution of India ensures the continuity of judicial authority by transferring the jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Court of India to the newly established Supreme Court of India, except in cases expressly covered under other constitutional provisions such as Articles 133 and 134. This Article safeguards the seamless transition from the pre-Constitution judicial framework to the post-Independence legal order, ensuring that no gap or ambiguity exists in the jurisdictional powers of the apex court.

Historical Background

Before the adoption of the Constitution in 1950, the Federal Court of India, established under the Government of India Act, 1935, functioned as the highest judicial body within British India. It possessed both original and appellate jurisdiction in matters involving the interpretation of the Act, constitutional disputes between provinces and the central government, and appeals from High Courts.
With the coming into force of the Constitution of India on 26 January 1950, the Federal Court was replaced by the Supreme Court of India. Article 135 was incorporated to ensure that all jurisdictional powers previously exercised by the Federal Court would continue to vest in the Supreme Court unless specifically excluded or modified by other constitutional provisions or future legislation enacted by Parliament.
This provision thus provided judicial continuity and preserved legal stability during the constitutional transition from colonial to independent governance.

Text and Interpretation of Article 135

Article 135 states:

“Until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the Supreme Court shall also have jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter to which the provisions of Article 133 or Article 134 do not apply if jurisdiction and powers in relation to that matter were exercisable by the Federal Court immediately before the commencement of this Constitution under any existing law.”

This provision can be broken down into three key components:

1. Jurisdiction of the Federal Court:It acknowledges that before 1950, the Federal Court had jurisdiction and powers over certain cases, as defined under pre-Constitutional laws such as the Government of India Act, 1935.
2. Transfer of Jurisdiction:These same powers automatically vested in the Supreme Court upon its establishment, ensuring that the transition did not leave any legal vacuum.
3. Parliamentary Authority:The Article explicitly states that this jurisdiction will remain in effect “until Parliament by law otherwise provides.” This clause empowers Parliament to alter, expand, or restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court through legislation as necessary to meet the needs of an evolving legal system.

Scope and Nature of Jurisdiction

The jurisdiction transferred under Article 135 is residual in nature, meaning it applies only to cases not expressly covered under Articles 133 and 134, which deal respectively with civil and criminal appeals from High Courts.
In practice, Article 135 extends the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to:

• Cases or appeals that were previously maintainable before the Federal Court, but do not fall within the defined categories of civil or criminal appellate jurisdiction under the Constitution.
• Situations where existing laws prior to the Constitution provided for Federal Court intervention.
• Transitional matters concerning disputes or appeals that arose before 1950 but were pending resolution after the commencement of the Constitution.

This provision ensures that the Supreme Court inherits all residual and transitional judicial powers that were once exercised by the Federal Court.

Relationship with Articles 133 and 134

• Article 133: Grants appellate jurisdiction in civil cases from High Courts to the Supreme Court.
• Article 134: Deals with appeals in criminal cases.
• Article 135: Covers all other cases where such jurisdiction is not explicitly defined by the Constitution but was vested in the Federal Court before 1950.

Together, these three provisions comprehensively outline the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, ensuring no legal gaps remain in the hierarchy of appeals and judicial oversight.

Judicial Interpretation and Analysis

Although there are no landmark cases directly interpreting Article 135, judicial discussions concerning the continuity of jurisdiction and the historical role of the Federal Court often reference it.
In several judgments, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that Article 135 operates as a transitory provision, ensuring that the powers and jurisdiction previously exercised by the Federal Court continue until Parliament enacts a new legal framework.
The absence of major litigation under Article 135 reflects its stabilising purpose rather than a contentious one. It functions primarily as a constitutional bridge, not as a source of independent or disputed jurisdiction.

Legislative Powers under Article 135

The Article explicitly vests Parliament with the authority to:

• Modify the jurisdiction inherited from the Federal Court.
• Define the procedural and substantive parameters for exercising such jurisdiction.
• Enact new laws that replace or regulate the scope of judicial powers transferred to the Supreme Court.

This legislative flexibility ensures that India’s judicial framework can evolve with the changing demands of society, governance, and justice delivery. Parliament has exercised this authority over time through various legislations, including the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, and procedural laws such as the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Significance of Article 135

Article 135 holds both historical and structural significance in the evolution of India’s judicial system. Its key contributions include:

• Continuity of Justice: It ensured a smooth transition from the colonial Federal Court to the independent Supreme Court, preserving judicial consistency.
• Avoidance of Legal Vacuum: Prevented disruption in ongoing cases and preserved the enforceability of pre-Constitutional laws and judicial powers.
• Flexibility and Adaptability: Allowed Parliament to gradually redefine and modernise the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in accordance with the requirements of a democratic republic.
• Preservation of Legal Heritage: Recognised the foundational role of the Federal Court while seamlessly integrating its legacy into India’s constitutional framework.

Contemporary Relevance

Although largely transitional in nature, Article 135 continues to remain constitutionally relevant. It serves as a residual jurisdictional clause, allowing the Supreme Court to entertain cases falling outside the purview of explicitly mentioned provisions.
In modern judicial practice, the Article functions as a safety net — ensuring that no area of judicial competence is left unaddressed due to the absence of specific constitutional or statutory provisions. It thereby reinforces the Supreme Court’s role as the apex authority of justice and a court of complete jurisdiction in India.

Constitutional Significance

Article 135 exemplifies the continuity, coherence, and adaptability of India’s constitutional framework. By transferring the powers of the Federal Court to the Supreme Court, it guarantees institutional stability and reinforces the supremacy of judicial authority in maintaining the rule of law.