The Indian judiciary is structured as a single integrated hierarchy: the Supreme Court of India sits at the top, 25 High Courts form the middle tier, and thousands of district and subordinate courts make up the base. Both central and state laws move through this same pipeline, and every court below is bound by the rulings of the courts above it. The system is built by the Constitution, which came into effect on January 26, 1950, and it draws much of its administrative framework from the Government of India Act of 1935.1Constitution of India. Government of India Act 1935
One Integrated Hierarchy, Not Two
Unlike systems that run parallel federal and state court tracks, India funnels every dispute through one pyramid. A litigant who loses at the district level can appeal up through the state’s High Court and, in qualifying matters, on to the Supreme Court. The same constitutional provisions and statutes receive uniform interpretation wherever a case is filed, because a Supreme Court decision is law across the whole country and a High Court decision binds every subordinate court within that state.
That structural choice has consequences. Because every dispute shares one hierarchy, the volume is immense: pending cases across all Indian courts have exceeded 55 million, with district courts holding roughly 85 percent of that backlog. Parliament raised the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 judges to 38 (including the Chief Justice) through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026.2Press Information Bureau, Government of India. Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026
The Supreme Court at the Apex
The Supreme Court is established under Article 124 of the Constitution and sits in Delhi, though the Chief Justice may designate other locations with the President’s approval.3Constitution of India. Article 130 – Seat of Supreme Court It is both the final court of appeal and the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Article 129 designates it a court of record, giving its proceedings permanent evidentiary value and empowering it to punish for contempt.4Indian Kanoon. Constitution of India – Article 129
Original Jurisdiction
Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes between the central government and one or more states, or between two or more states, where the dispute involves a question of legal right.5Indian Kanoon. Constitution of India – Article 131 Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court No other court can hear these matters. Conflicts within the federal structure are therefore resolved through law rather than political negotiation.
Appellate Jurisdiction
Three provisions govern appeals. Article 132 allows appeals from High Court decisions involving a substantial question of constitutional interpretation. Article 133 covers civil matters where the High Court certifies that the case raises a substantial question of law of general importance.6Indian Kanoon. Constitution of India – Article 133 Article 134 governs criminal appeals in specific circumstances, including cases where a High Court reverses an acquittal and sentences the accused to death.
Writ Jurisdiction
Article 32 is itself a fundamental right. It empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, for the enforcement of fundamental rights.7Indian Kanoon. Constitution of India – Article 32 Anyone whose fundamental rights are violated may approach the Supreme Court directly, without first exhausting the lower courts. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called Article 32 the “heart and soul” of the Constitution.
Advisory Jurisdiction
Article 143 permits the President to refer questions of law or public importance to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion. The President used this power as recently as May 2025, seeking the court’s opinion on the powers of Governors and the President regarding state legislation.8Constitution of India. Article 124 – Establishment and Constitution of Supreme Court These opinions are not technically binding, but they carry weight and effectively shape government action.
High Courts at the State Level
Article 214 requires a High Court for each state, and Article 231 allows Parliament to establish a common High Court for two or more states or union territories.9Constitution of India. Article 231 – Establishment of a Common High Court for Two or More States India currently has 25 High Courts, some of which serve multiple states or union territories. Each is the highest judicial authority within its territorial jurisdiction and exercises supervisory control over all subordinate courts and tribunals in its region.
Article 226 gives High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for “any other purpose.”10Constitution of India. Article 226 – Power of High Courts to Issue Certain Writs That second phrase matters. The Supreme Court under Article 32 can issue writs only for fundamental rights violations, while High Courts can issue them for any legal right. Someone challenging an arbitrary government order or an illegal administrative action will usually file first at the High Court, because its writ jurisdiction is broader. High Courts also hear appeals from district courts, conduct original trials in certain categories of cases, and serve as the regional gateway for matters that may eventually reach the Supreme Court.
District and Subordinate Courts
Most Indian litigation begins and ends at the district level. These courts run on two tracks. On the civil side, the District Judge handles disputes involving property, contracts, and family matters. On the criminal side, the Sessions Judge presides over serious offenses and can impose any sentence allowed by law, including life imprisonment. Below the district level sit Munsiff courts, judicial magistrates, and various specialized courts that handle smaller claims and less serious offenses.
Article 235 places administrative control over these courts in the hands of the High Court, covering postings, promotions, and leave for judicial officers.11Constitution of India. Chapter VI – Subordinate Courts Appeals move upward through the district hierarchy and then to the High Court.
Fast Track Special Courts
For sensitive categories of offenses, the government established Fast Track Special Courts to expedite rape cases and offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Districts with more than 100 pending POCSO cases must set up a dedicated POCSO court that handles no other type of offense. Each fast-track court is expected to dispose of at least 165 cases per year.12Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice. Scheme on Fast Track Special Courts for Expeditious Disposal of Cases of Rape and POCSO Act These courts are not permitted to take on general cases involving crimes against women and children outside their mandate.
Free Legal Aid
The Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987 entitles individuals below a specified income threshold to free legal representation. For cases before the Supreme Court, the national income ceiling is ₹5 lakh per year. For cases in other courts, the threshold is set by each state government and varies.13National Legal Services Authority. Legal Aid The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and its state and district counterparts administer the scheme.
Judicial Review and the Limit on Parliament
The hierarchy has real power because the Constitution gives its courts the authority to strike down unconstitutional laws. Article 13 makes this explicit: any law inconsistent with fundamental rights is void to the extent of that inconsistency.14Constitution of India. Article 13 – Laws Inconsistent With or in Derogation of the Fundamental Rights The Supreme Court enforces this power under Article 32, and the High Courts under Article 226.
In 1973, a 13-judge bench decided Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala by a 7-to-6 majority and established the Basic Structure Doctrine. Certain foundational features of the Constitution, including democracy, secularism, federalism, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary, cannot be amended or removed even by a constitutional amendment passed with the required supermajority.15Supreme Court of India. The Basic Structure Judgment The court held that judicial review itself belongs to this unamendable core. Parliament can amend nearly every provision of the Constitution, but it cannot touch the architecture that holds the document together.
Routes Around the Regular Hierarchy
Public Interest Litigation
Public Interest Litigation allows any person to file a case on behalf of those who cannot access the courts themselves. Traditional legal rules give standing only to a party directly affected by a wrong. Indian courts relaxed that requirement beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s, using Article 32 before the Supreme Court and Article 226 before High Courts as the legal basis.
The relaxation extended into what courts call epistolary jurisdiction: the power to treat a letter, telegram, or even a newspaper article as a formal writ petition. A letter addressed to the Chief Justice describing a rights violation can be converted into a case on the court’s own motion. Courts have used this route to intervene on prison conditions, bonded labor, environmental destruction, and child welfare. The judiciary has cautioned that epistolary jurisdiction cannot be exercised without limits, and whether a letter becomes a petition depends on the nature and seriousness of the issue raised.
Lok Adalats and Tribunals
Lok Adalats are forums where cases are settled through conciliation, with statutory backing under the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987. A settlement reached in a Lok Adalat is treated as a decree of a civil court, is final and binding on all parties, and cannot be appealed.16India Code. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 A dissatisfied party’s only option is to start fresh litigation in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. For disputes involving public utility services, Permanent Lok Adalats operate under Section 22-B of the same Act and can adjudicate disputes even without the consent of both parties.17National Legal Services Authority. Lok Adalats
Specialized tribunals handle technical subject areas. The National Green Tribunal, established under the National Green Tribunal Act of 2010, hears environmental cases involving water pollution, air pollution, forest conservation, and related statutes, and can award compensation and damages.18National Green Tribunal. FAQs Other specialized bodies include the Armed Forces Tribunal for military service disputes and the National Company Law Tribunal for corporate and insolvency matters.
Who Staffs the Courts
A Supreme Court judge must be an Indian citizen and must either have served at least five years as a High Court judge, practiced at least ten years as a High Court advocate, or been recognized by the President as a distinguished jurist.19Indian Kanoon. Constitution of India – Article 124 For High Court judges, the requirement is ten years of judicial service or ten years as a High Court advocate.20Indian Kanoon. Constitution of India – Article 217 Supreme Court judges serve until 65, and High Court judges until 62.
Appointments are made by the President under the Collegium System, in which the Chief Justice of India and the four most senior Supreme Court judges recommend candidates for the Supreme Court and High Courts. The President formally appoints, but the Collegium’s recommendation is in practice binding. For High Court appointments, Article 217 requires the President to consult the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the relevant state, and the sitting Chief Justice of that High Court for judges other than its Chief Justice.21Constitution of India. Article 217 – Appointment and Conditions of the Office of a Judge of a High Court
Removing a Supreme Court or High Court judge is deliberately difficult. Article 124(4) permits removal only on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, and only through a motion that both Houses of Parliament pass by a majority of the total membership of each House and by at least two-thirds of members present and voting. The Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968 spells out the procedure, which includes a three-member investigation committee before any vote.22India Code. Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 No Supreme Court judge has ever been successfully removed through this process.