Article 145

Article 145 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to frame its own rules of practice and procedure, thereby ensuring its administrative independence and smooth functioning. It also provides a constitutional framework for procedural uniformity in the Supreme Court and High Courts, subject to parliamentary regulation. This Article reflects the principle of judicial autonomy in managing court affairs while maintaining harmony with legislative oversight.

Constitutional Text

Article 145 reads:

(1) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the Supreme Court may from time to time, with the approval of the President, make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court including—(a) rules as to the persons practising before the Court;(b) rules as to the procedure for hearing appeals and other matters under this Chapter;(c) rules as to the proceedings in the Court for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III;(d) rules as to the entertainment of appeals and applications for special leave to appeal to the Court;(e) rules as to the conditions subject to which any judgment pronounced or order made by the Court may be reviewed and the procedure for such review including the time within which applications for such review are to be entered;(f) rules as to the costs of proceedings in the Court and the fees to be charged in respect of proceedings therein;(g) rules as to the grant of bail;(h) rules as to stay of proceedings; and(i) any other matter relating to the practice and procedure of the Court.

(2) Subject to the provisions of clause (3), rules made under this Article may fix the minimum number of Judges who are to sit for any purpose, and may provide for the powers of single Judges and Division Courts.

(3) The minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution or for hearing any reference under Article 143 shall be five:Provided that where the Court hearing an appeal under any of the provisions of this Chapter other than Article 132 consists of less than five Judges and in the course of the hearing of the appeal the Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution, the determination of that question shall be reserved for decision by a Bench of five Judges or more.

This Article thus establishes a structured procedural framework for the Supreme Court, ensuring that it can function autonomously while adhering to the rule of law.

Purpose and Constitutional Context

The purpose of Article 145 is to maintain judicial efficiency, procedural consistency, and institutional independence. By granting the Supreme Court the power to frame its own rules, the framers ensured that:

• The Court could manage its internal functioning without interference from the executive or legislature.
• Procedures could evolve with changing legal requirements and case complexities.
• Access to justice and the uniform administration of law could be strengthened through transparent procedural mechanisms.

This autonomy is fundamental to the independence of the judiciary, a basic feature of the Indian Constitution.

Authority to Make Rules

1. Supreme Court’s Power:
   • The Supreme Court may frame rules regulating its practice and procedure, including rules on appeals, writ petitions, review petitions, and special leave petitions.
   • These rules also cover aspects like the appearance of advocates, filing of cases, admission criteria, time limits, and fee structures.
   • Rules framed under this Article must receive the President’s approval before coming into effect.
2. High Courts’ Procedural Framework:
   • While Article 145 concerns the Supreme Court, similar provisions for High Courts are found under Articles 225 and 227, and procedural rules may be prescribed by the President or under laws enacted by Parliament or the respective State Legislatures.
3. Parliamentary Supervision:
   • The Supreme Court’s rule-making power is subject to any law made by Parliament.
   • This ensures legislative oversight and prevents potential procedural inconsistencies with statutory provisions.

Scope and Key Provisions

Article 145 covers a wide range of procedural aspects that govern the Supreme Court’s functioning, including:

• Practice and Representation: Rules regarding who may appear and practice before the Supreme Court (e.g., the Advocates-on-Record Rules).
• Appeals and Special Leave: Procedures for hearing appeals and Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) under Article 136.
• Fundamental Rights Petitions: Procedures for enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32.
• Review and Revision: Rules concerning applications for review of judgments, including timelines and grounds for reconsideration.
• Bail, Costs, and Stays: Procedures governing interim orders, costs, and bail applications.
• Constitutional Benches: Provisions fixing the minimum number of Judges (at least five) for cases involving constitutional interpretation or presidential references under Article 143.

The Supreme Court can also determine whether a smaller Bench must refer any substantial constitutional question to a larger Bench for authoritative interpretation.

Supreme Court Rules, 2013

The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, framed under Article 145, provide a detailed procedural framework for the Court’s operations. They replaced the earlier Supreme Court Rules, 1966, and are periodically amended to address technological, procedural, and administrative developments.
These Rules cover:

• Filing and registration of cases (civil, criminal, and constitutional).
• Electronic filing and record management.
• Listing and hearing of cases.
• Review and curative petitions.
• Court fees and costs.
• Conduct of advocates before the Court.

The Registry of the Supreme Court functions in accordance with these rules, ensuring procedural transparency and efficiency.

Judicial Interpretation and Case Laws

The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 145 in several judgments to clarify its scope and constitutional position:

• K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954):The Court highlighted that procedural rules are essential for ensuring the proper administration of justice and must operate within the constitutional framework.
• A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982):The Court observed that while Parliament may regulate court procedures through law, such regulation cannot infringe judicial independence or undermine the Court’s essential functions.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975):The Court underscored the necessity of clear procedural rules to ensure transparency, fairness, and consistency in judicial proceedings.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2016):The Court reaffirmed its authority to regulate its internal functioning and uphold institutional autonomy, derived partly from Articles 145 and 146.

These judgments reinforce the view that Article 145 is not merely administrative but an instrument of judicial independence.

Relationship with Other Constitutional Articles

Article 145 interacts closely with several other provisions to create an integrated framework for judicial authority and functioning:

• Article 141: The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts.
• Article 142: Grants power to do complete justice and enforce Court decrees.
• Article 144: Requires all authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court.
• Article 146: Deals with the staffing, salaries, and conditions of service of the Supreme Court’s officers and employees.

Together, these Articles ensure that the Supreme Court operates independently, efficiently, and effectively as the guardian of the Constitution.

Significance of Article 145

1. Judicial Independence:The Article safeguards the autonomy of the Supreme Court in managing its internal procedures without executive interference.
2. Uniformity and Consistency:It ensures that judicial procedures are standardised across the nation, promoting predictability and fairness in judicial outcomes.
3. Efficient Administration:Procedural rules made under Article 145 streamline case management, reduce delays, and improve access to justice.
4. Flexibility and Adaptability:The power to frame and revise rules allows the judiciary to respond to changing social, technological, and legal challenges.
5. Transparency and Accountability:By codifying procedures, Article 145 fosters procedural discipline and transparency in judicial functioning.

Constitutional Limitations

While Article 145 grants wide procedural autonomy, it operates within certain constitutional constraints:

• Rules framed by the Supreme Court must not contradict parliamentary legislation.
• The rule-making power cannot curtail fundamental rights or principles of natural justice.
• The President’s approval is necessary before rules come into effect.
• The Court must adhere to the minimum Bench strength requirements for constitutional cases (five Judges).

Practical Implications

• Access to Justice: Article 145 directly impacts citizens by determining how petitions, appeals, and reviews are processed before the Supreme Court.
• Case Management: Efficient rule-making under this Article aids in timely disposal of cases and minimises procedural delays.
• Judicial Discipline: It ensures that court proceedings adhere to established standards, preserving the dignity of judicial institutions.
• Technological Integration: The power under Article 145 enables the Court to modernise its functioning, including the adoption of e-filing and virtual hearings.

Constitutional Significance

Article 145 exemplifies the institutional independence and procedural sovereignty of the Supreme Court. By empowering the Court to regulate its own functioning, the Constitution ensures that judicial efficiency and fairness are maintained in accordance with democratic principles.