Constitution of India
Article 138: Enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Part V — The Union, Chapter IV — The Union Judiciary
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: The Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter in the Union List as Parliament may by law confer. WHAT IT MEANS: Parliament can pass ordinary legislation to expand the SC's jurisdiction over Union List subjects (e.g. defence, banking, atomic energy) — no constitutional amendment needed. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Parliamentary Enlargement of Jurisdiction — SC's jurisdiction is not frozen by the Constitution but can be expanded by legislative action.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: The SC shall have further jurisdiction over any matter as the Government of India and the Government of any State may by special agreement confer, if Parliament by law provides for such exercise. WHAT IT MEANS: Centre and a State can enter into a special agreement to refer a matter to the SC, but this requires a supporting parliamentary law — a dual-consent mechanism (executive agreement + legislative backing). KEY DOCTRINE: Cooperative Federalism in Judicial Jurisdiction — enables Centre-State collaboration in extending the apex court's reach beyond constitutionally fixed boundaries.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Australia — Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, Section 76 Original provision: Section 76 empowers the Australian Parliament to make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in specified matters. What India kept: The concept that the legislature can confer additional jurisdiction on the apex court by ordinary law, without needing a constitutional amendment. 2. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 205-207 (Federal Court) Original provision: These sections defined the limited jurisdiction of the Federal Court of India (1937-1950), confined to constitutional and intergovernmental disputes. What India kept: The framers noted the limitations of the Federal Court model and designed Article 138 to avoid such rigidity for the new Supreme Court. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Clause (2) — Special Agreement Mechanism — No foreign model had a provision for Centre-State agreements to expand apex court jurisdiction; this was an Indian innovation to suit cooperative federalism. 2. Union List Linkage — Unlike Section 76 of Australia, India specifically tied Clause (1) to matters in the Union List (Seventh Schedule), maintaining federal balance. 3. Dual Lock in Clause (2) — India required both an executive agreement AND a parliamentary law, ensuring democratic legitimacy; Australia only requires parliamentary law.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 6th June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) Draft Article Number: Draft Article 114 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Moved Draft Article 114 for consideration; no substantive speech was necessary as the provision was non-controversial. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. None — The Draft Article was accepted without any debate or amendments. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 114 was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 6th June 1949 without debate, reflecting unanimous agreement on the need for jurisdictional flexibility for the Supreme Court. NOTE: The absence of debate indicates the framers' consensus that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction should be expandable by Parliament through ordinary legislation, given the limitations experienced with the Federal Court (1937-1950) under the Government of India Act, 1935.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) — Emphasized that Parliament plays a central role in defining and expanding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the constitutional framework. 2. Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 (Presidential Reference) — Clarified that when Parliament expands the SC's jurisdiction under Article 138, such expansion must remain within constitutional bounds and cannot violate fundamental principles. 3. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) — While primarily about Articles 323A/323B, the 7-judge bench affirmed that judicial review jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 is part of the basic structure and any jurisdictional restructuring must respect this. KEY LEGISLATION ENACTED UNDER ARTICLE 138: 1. Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 — Enlarged the SC's criminal appellate jurisdiction, allowing appeals as of right where a High Court reverses acquittal and sentences to 10+ years or life imprisonment. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. None specifically on Article 138 — The article has not been the subject of significant judicial controversy. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Observed that Article 138 reflects the framers' vision of a dynamic Supreme Court whose jurisdiction is not static but can evolve through democratic legislative processes. 2. Dr. K. Sivananda Kumar (SSRN, 2019) — Argued that even without Article 138, Parliament may have had competence under Article 246(1) and (2) to enlarge SC jurisdiction, but Article 138 provides explicit constitutional authority. 3. Law Commission of India — Various reports have highlighted the need for expanding the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 138 to address evolving legal challenges.