Constitution of India
Article 135: Jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Court under existing law to be exercisable by the Supreme Court
Part V — The Union, Chapter IV — The Union Judiciary
Article 135 (no sub-divisions)
WHAT IT SAYS: Until Parliament legislates otherwise, the Supreme Court shall exercise jurisdiction and powers over any matter NOT covered by Articles 133 or 134, if the Federal Court could exercise such jurisdiction immediately before 26 January 1950 under any existing law. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. The Supreme Court inherits ALL residual jurisdiction of the pre-1950 Federal Court. 2. This covers matters beyond the civil appellate jurisdiction (Art. 133) and criminal appellate jurisdiction (Art. 134). 3. Includes jurisdiction under the Government of India Act, 1935 (Sections 204–207) and the Federal Court (Enlargement of Jurisdiction) Act, 1947. 4. Parliament retains power to modify, expand, or restrict this inherited jurisdiction at any time. 5. Functions as a constitutional bridge ensuring no jurisdictional vacuum during the colonial-to-independent transition. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Judicial Continuity — ensures seamless transfer of jurisdiction from the Federal Court to the Supreme Court with no legal vacuum.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 (UK) — Sections 204–207, 213 Original provision: The Federal Court of India had original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction over constitutional disputes, appeals from High Courts, and inter-provincial matters. What India kept: The Supreme Court inherited ALL such jurisdictions and powers, but with sovereign parliamentary oversight replacing the Privy Council's appellate authority. 2. Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949 (India) Original provision: Appeals from India to His Majesty in Council (Privy Council) were abolished; the Federal Court became the final court. What India kept: Article 135 completed this process by transferring the enlarged Federal Court jurisdiction to the new Supreme Court. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Replaced 'His Majesty in Council' with the Supreme Court — to end colonial judicial dependency and assert sovereign judicial authority. 2. Made the transfer conditional ('until Parliament by law otherwise provides') — to give the democratic legislature power to reshape jurisdiction as the new republic evolved. 3. Excluded matters already covered by Articles 133–134 — to avoid overlap with separately defined civil and criminal appellate jurisdiction. ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION: This is a transitional/savings provision unique to India's constitutional changeover. It was NOT borrowed from any foreign constitution. The framers needed it because the Federal Court (est. 1937) was being abolished mid-stream, and pending/future cases under pre-existing laws needed a seamless jurisdictional home.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 15th September 1949 (CAD Volume IX) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: 112B (not part of original Draft Constitution; inserted as a new article) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Proposed the insertion; explained it was necessary to give the Supreme Court full powers over all proceedings, including income tax and property acquisition matters, which the Privy Council had ruled were not 'civil proceedings.' 2. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (East Punjab) — Proposed adding 'or practice' after 'law' to cover powers the Privy Council may have exercised by convention/practice, not just by formal law. 3. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena — Proposed extending SC jurisdiction to hear appeals against death sentences by courts-martial, citing procedural fairness concerns. 4. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal) — Called the article 'intricate and circumspect' and criticized the piecemeal drafting approach; suggested directly naming income tax and acquisition as subjects. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. 'Law or practice' — Bhargava wanted to include 'practice'; Ambedkar rejected it, saying Art. 112B dealt with substantive jurisdiction, not procedure. 2. Court-martial appeals — Saksena wanted SC to hear death-sentence appeals from courts-martial; Ambedkar said Parliament could provide this through the Army Act, making a constitutional provision unnecessary. FINAL OUTCOME: All amendments were withdrawn by their proposers; Draft Article 112B was adopted without modification on 15 September 1949. AMBEDKAR'S KEY STATEMENT: Article 112B is needed because the Privy Council held that income tax and acquisition proceedings are not 'civil proceedings,' and without this provision, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction would be confined only to civil matters.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Dajisaheb Mane & Ors. v. Shankar Rao Vithal Rao Mane & Anr. (1955) — SC held Art. 133 was inapplicable to property disputes valued below Rs. 20,000; invoked Art. 135 to exercise Federal Court's prior jurisdiction over disputes valued above Rs. 10,000, affirming continuity of vested appeal rights. 2. United Provinces v. Governor-General in Council (1939 FCR 124) — Federal Court exercised original jurisdiction under Section 204, GOI Act 1935; this type of jurisdiction was among those transferred to the SC under Art. 135. NOTABLE OBSERVATIONS: 1. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged Art. 135 as a transitory provision ensuring that the Federal Court's powers continue until Parliament enacts a new framework. 2. The absence of major litigation under Art. 135 reflects its stabilising purpose — it functions as a constitutional bridge, not as a source of independent or disputed jurisdiction. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Dr. K. Sivananda Kumar (SSRN, 2019) — Art. 135 confers on the SC all powers of the Federal Court only in matters where Art. 133 or 134 do not apply; jurisdiction did not depend on obtaining a certificate but on compliance with conditions in relevant pre-existing statutes. 2. M.P. Jain (Indian Constitutional Law) — Art. 135 is a residual and transitional provision that plugged the gap between the Federal Court's abolition and the Supreme Court's defined appellate jurisdiction, ensuring no legal vacuum in the new constitutional order.