Judiciary and Legal Systems

The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or at such other place or places, as decided by Chief Justice of India with the approval of the President.

Under Article 131 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction extends to disputes between the Government of India and one or more states, AND between two or more states. This includes Centre-State disputes and inter-state disputes. Interstate river water disputes typically go to special tribunals, not the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.

In ECI vs. Service Engineering Ltd. (1999), the Supreme Court held that economic liberalization does not justify breaking industrial discipline. The court emphasized that employees must follow established procedures and cannot disrupt work, balancing worker rights with organizational needs in a changing economy.

As per Article 217 of the Constitution and the Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1993), the CJI must consult the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court for High Court appointments. However, among the given options, the correct requirement is consultation with two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the concerned High Court and the Governor are also consulted, but the mandatory collegium consultation begins with Supreme Court judges.

The judgment shall be signed by the President and the Registrar. It shall be read in open court. Due notice shall be given to the agents.

The members of the Court shall be elected by the General Assembly and by the Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

As per section 27 of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923

Power of submit cases,

A Commissioner may, if he thinks fit, submit any question of law for the decision of the High Court and, if he does so, shall decide the question in conformity with such decision.

Lachman Utamchand Kriplani v. Meena is the leading decision of the Supreme Court on the ground of desertion.

Cyber Appellate Tribunal has been established under the Information Technology Act under the aegis of the Controller of Certifying Authorities (C.C.A.). The first and the only Cyber Appellate Tribunal in the country has been established by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 48(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Tribunal, initially known as the Cyber Regulations Appellate Tribunal (C.R.A.T.), started functioning from October 2006.

Any person aggrieved by an order made by the controller or by an adjudicating officer appointed under the Information Technology Act, 2000 can prefer an appeal before the Tribunal within 45 days of receiving a copy of the order of the controller or the adjudicating officer.

Post-decisional hearing takes place where it may not be feasible to hold pre-decisional hearing. This principle was laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. This post-decisional hearing cannot be treated as a substitute of pre-decisional hearing, the reason being that for the aggrieved person, pre-decisional hearing affords such better safeguards.

Post-decisional hearing takes place where it may not be feasible to hold pre-decisional hearing. This principle was laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. This post decisional hearing cannot be treated as a substitute of pre-decisional hearing, the reason being that for the aggrieved person, pre-decisional hearing affords such better safeguards.

A mandatory procedural requirement for an administrative tribunal must be reasoned decision. It makes the process of stating the reason mandatory. 

Administrative Tribunal exercises quasi judicial functions. A quasi-judicial body is an entity such as an arbitrator or tribunal board, generally of a public administrative agency, which has powers and procedures resembling those of a court of law or judge.

Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary.