Articles on 11 August 2025

Article 137 of Indian Constitution is discussed in Part V which grants the Supreme Court the authority to review its own judgments or orders. This power acts as a safeguard to ensure justice is served and to correct errors that may have occurred in earlier decisions. It reinforces judicial accountability and provides litigants with a limited avenue to seek reconsideration without approaching another forum. The review power is exercised under Article 137 of the Constitution, Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, where applicable.

Article 137 of Indian Constitution Interpretation

Article 137 of Indian Constitution provides that, subject to any law made by Parliament or rules framed under Article 145, the Supreme Court has the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. This review jurisdiction ensures that the Court can correct its own errors in the interest of justice, but it is exercised only in rare and exceptional circumstances. The review power is guided by the principles laid out in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows review in three situations:

• Discovery of new and important evidence not available earlier despite due diligence
• An apparent error on the face of the record
• Any other sufficient reason of comparable gravity

In R. D. Sagar vs V. Nagary (1976), the Supreme Court emphasized that while its judgments are final, they are open to review only on well-established grounds such as a grave or glaring error. The petitioner in this case contended that certain observations in the judgment portrayed him as guilty of abetting forgery and perjury. While the Court refused to entirely delete the remarks, it mitigated their impact by making specific modifications, illustrating its cautious and limited approach to the review power.

Article 312 of Indian Constitution is discussed in part of Part XIV which strengthens administrative unity and efficiency through the establishment of All-India Services (AIS). Officers serve both the Union and State governments, ensuring a uniform system of recruitment, training, and service conditions. The article empowers Parliament to create new AIS, such as the proposed All India Judicial Service (AIJS). Rajya Sabha requires a two-thirds majority resolution in the Council of States, declaring it necessary in the national interest.

Article 312 of Indian Constitution

• Notwithstanding anything in Chapter VI of Part VI or Part XI, if the Council of States has declared by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting that it is necessary or expedient in the national interest so to do, Parliament may by law provide for the creation of one or more all-India services (including an all-India judicial service) common to the Union and the States, and, subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, regulate the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to any such service.
• The services known at the commencement of this Constitution as the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service shall be deemed to be services created by Parliament under this article.
• The all-India judicial service referred to in clause (1) shall not include any post inferior to that of a district judge as defined in article 236.
• The law providing for the creation of the all-India judicial service aforesaid may contain such provisions for the amendment of Chapter VI of Part VI as may be necessary for giving effect to the provisions of that law and no such law shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of article 368.

Article 312 of Indian Constitution Interpretation

Article 312 of Indian Constitution found in Part XIV of the Constitution, which deals with Services under the Union and the States.

• Clause (1) - Parliament can create new All-India Services (AIS), including a judicial service, if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution by a two-thirds majority declaring it necessary in the national interest.
• Clause (2) - The existing Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Police Service (IPS) are deemed to have been created under this Article.
• Clause (3) - An All-India Judicial Service (AIJS) would include only posts not below the rank of District Judge, as defined in Article 236.
• Clause (4) - Any law to create AIJS can amend Chapter VI of Part VI (subordinate courts), but it will not be treated as a constitutional amendment under Article 368.

Article 312 of Indian Constitution and AIJS Background

• 1958 - The 14th Law Commission Report first recommended creating AIJS to improve efficiency and uniformity in judicial appointments.
• 1976 - The 42nd Constitutional Amendment added Clauses (3) and (4) to Article 312, paving the way for AIJS.
• 1978 & 2006 - The Law Commission and Parliamentary Standing Committee revisited the proposal, stressing its relevance.
• 2008 - The 213th Law Commission Report reiterated the urgent need for AIJS to address judicial vacancies and delays.
• Recent Years - Support from both judiciary and executive has revived the debate, framing AIJS as a national interest measure to tackle pendency and strengthen judicial capacity.

All India Judicial Service Overview

• Objective-Create a centralised cadre of judicial officers selected through a common national examination.
• Level of Appointment-Primarily for District Judges, with possible extension to other subordinate judiciary roles.
• Recruitment Model-Modeled on UPSC-style recruitment for IAS/IPS, ensuring transparency and merit.
• Scope-Promote judicial diversity, speed up vacancy filling, and allow career mobility for judges.

Judicial and Executive Views

• Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (2024)-Called AIJS necessary to address 21% vacancies in the district judiciary.
• President Droupadi Murmu (2023)-Supported a system to recruit young, capable legal professionals to IAS/IPS selection.

Need for AIJS

• Vacancy Crisis-Over 5,400 vacancies and 2.78 crore pending cases require faster, streamlined recruitment.
• Standardization-A single merit-based exam ensures uniform national criteria.
• Diversity-Broad-based selection can improve representation in the judiciary.
• Judicial Independence-Helps limit political or local interference in appointments.
• Career Path-Provides structured promotion avenues.

Challenges in Implementation

• Lack of Consensus-Divergent opinions among states and High Courts on feasibility.
• Legislative Inaction-No concrete progress since 2022.
• Dual Accountability-Balancing administrative control between Centre and States is complex.
• Transition Issues-Integrating AIJS with existing judicial structures requires major logistical adjustments.

Article 312 of Indian Constitution Significance

• Sets consistent national standards for recruitment, training, and promotions.
• Enables judges from different regions to serve across states, promoting a pan-Indian judicial identity.
• Recruitment is centralised, but appointments are fulfilled to each state’s requirements, maintaining the federal balance.
• A national-level exam ensures selection of highly capable candidates for judicial posts.

Article 312 of Indian Constitution Important Case

Article 312 of Indian Constitution Important Case includes various landmark judgements out of which one of a notable case is All India Judge Association vs Union of India. During this case, the Supreme Court has set up the requirement for uniformity in appointment of the judicial system.

Article 238 of Indian Constitution discusses the application of provisions of Part VI to States in Part B of the First Schedule. It was amended by the Seventh Amendment Act in 1956 by which it was removed from the Constitution of India following the recommendations of the States Reorganisation Commission. The amendment reorganized states largely on linguistic basis, abolished the old classification of states into Categories A, B, C, and D, and introduced the concept of Union Territories.

Article 238 of Indian Constitution

The provisions of Part VI shall apply in relation to the States specified in Part B of the First Schedule as they apply in relation to the States specified in Part A of that Schedule subject to the following modifications and omissions, namely:-

1. For the word “Governor” wherever it occurs in the said Part VI, except where it occurs for the second time in clause (b) of article 232, the word “Rajpramukh” shall be substituted.
2. In article 152, for the word and letter “Part A” the word and letter “Part B” shall be substituted.
3. Articles 155, 156 and 157 shall be omitted.
4. In article 158,
   1. (i) in clause (1), for the words “be appointed” the word “becomes” shall be substituted;
   2. (ii) for clause (3), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:—
      1. “(3) The Rajpramukh shall, unless he has his own residence in the principal seat of Government of the State, be entitled without payment of rent to the use of an official residence and shall be also entitled to such allowances and privileges as the President may, by general or special order, determine.”;
   3. (iii) in clause (4), the words “emoluments and” shall be omitted.
5. In article 159, after the words “seniormost Judge of that Court available” the words “or in such other manner as may be prescribed in that behalf by the President” shall be inserted.
6. In article 164, for the proviso to clause (1) the following proviso shall be substituted, namely:-
   1. “Provided that in the State of Madhya Bharat there shall be a Minister in charge of tribal welfare who may in addition be in charge of the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and backward classes or any other work.”
7. In article 168, for clause (1) the following clause shall be substituted, namely:—
   1. “(1) For every State there shall be a Legislature which shall consist of the Rajpramukh and—
   2. in the State of Mysore, two Houses;
   3. in other States, one House.”
8. in article 186, for the words “as are specified in the Second Schedule” the words “as the Rajpramukh may determine” shall be substituted.
9. In article 195, for the words “as were immediately before the commencement of this Constitution applicable in the case of members of the Legislative Assembly of the corresponding Province” the words “as the Rajpramukh may determine” shall be substituted.
10. In clause (3) of article 202—
    1. (i) for sub-clause (a), the following sub-clause shall be substituted, namely:—
       1. “(a) the allowances of the Rajpramukh and other expenditure relating to his office as determined by the President by general or special order;”
    2. (ii) for sub-clause (f) the following sub-clauses shall be substituted, namely:—
       1. “(f) in the case of the State of Travancore-Cochin, a sum of fifty-one lakhs of rupees required to be paid annually to the Devaswom fund under the covenant entered into before the commencement of this Constitution by the Rulers of the Indian States of Travancore and Cochin for the formation of the United State of Travancore and Cochin;
       2. (g) any other expenditure declared by this Constitution, or by the Legislature of the State by law, to be so charged.”
11. In article 208, for clause (2), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:—
    1. Until rules are made under clause (1), the rules of procedure and standing orders in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution with respect to the Legislature for the State or, where no House of the Legislature for the State existed, the rules of procedure and standing orders in force immediately before such commencement with respect to the Legislative Assembly of such Province as may be specified in that behalf by the Rajpramukh of the State, shall have effect in relation to the Legislature of the State subject to such modifications and adaptations as may be made therein by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly or the Chairman of the Legislative Council, as the case may be.”
12. In clause (2) of article 214, for the word “Province” the words “Indian State” shall be substituted.
13. For article 221, the following article shall be substituted, namely:—
    1. (1) There shall be paid to the Judges of each High Court such salaries as may be determined by the President after consultation with the Rajpramukh.
       ⁠(2) Every Judge shall be entitled to such allowances and to such rights in respect of leave of absence and pension as may from time to time be determined by or under law made by Parliament and, until so determined, to such allowances and rights as may be determined by the President after consultation with the Rajpramukh:
14. ⁠Provided that neither the allowances of a Judge nor his rights in respect of leave of absence or pension shall be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.”

Article 238 of Indian Constitution Interpretation

• Article 238 applied the provisions of Part VI (dealing with states) to Part B states listed in the First Schedule, with specific modifications.
• The term Governor was replaced with Rajpramukh in most references.
• Adjustments were made in articles related to appointments, salaries, allowances, privileges, and powers of the Rajpramukh.
• Special provisions were included for legislative structures in Part B states, including bicameral and unicameral legislatures depending on the state.
• Financial provisions were modified to allow the Rajpramukh or the President to determine salaries, allowances, and certain charged expenditures.
• Procedural rules for legislatures and judicial provisions for High Courts were adapted to the context of Part B states.
• Part B states were mostly former princely states or unions of princely states, which had integrated into the Indian Union after independence.
• The article became redundant after the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, which abolished the classification of states into Part A, B, C, and D, placed all states on the same footing, and introduced Union Territories.
• Article 238 was omitted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956.

Article 238 of Indian Constitution Landmark Cases

• No major landmark judgments directly addressed Article 238 due to its early repeal in 1956.
• Its impact was felt mainly through the integration of princely states and the establishment of a common governance system across newly formed Indian states.
• State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) - While unrelated to Article 238 specifically, this case clarified the extent of the President’s powers in dismissing state governments and shaped the understanding of state-Union relations.
• Berubari Union Case (1960) - Although not about Article 238, it established important guidelines on altering Indian territory and reinforced the constitutional process for integrating regions into the Indian Union.

Article 238 of Indian Constitution Significance

• Article 238 of Indian Constitution ensured the smooth transition of princely states to be a part of the democratic nation of India. Applied Part VI provisions (with modifications) to Part B states, giving them a stable legal and administrative framework during integration into India’s democratic system.
• Placed Part B states under a governance model similar to Part A states, reducing administrative inconsistencies and reinforcing the federal structure.
• Allowed former rulers to serve as ceremonial heads of state, ensuring a politically smooth transition before full integration into the Union.
• As the difference between Part A and B states lost relevance, it covered the way for linguistic and administrative reorganisation of states.

Article 238 of Indian Constitution Amendment

• Basis for Repeal - Recommended by the States Reorganisation Commission (1953-1955), which found the Part A, B, and C classification outdated and inadequate.
• Abolition of Rajpramukh System - The hereditary or appointed heads of former princely states (Rajpramukhs) were removed, and all states adopted a uniform governance model.
• Merger of Part A, B, and C States - The three-tier classification was replaced with a single category of states and Union Territories.
• Linguistic Reorganisation - States were reorganised based on linguistic and cultural identity, creating new states such as Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra.

Article 27 of Indian Constitution is a Fundamental Right discussed in Chapter III of the constitution listed under “Freedom of Religion”. Under this Article, any citizen who promotes their religion or religious dominance must not pay any tax. Through this right, the constitution has protected the “Freedom of Conscience” under Article 25 which consists of four elements which are important including person, tax, promotion or maintenance of the religion or religious dominance.

Article 27 of Indian Constitution Interpretation

Article 27 of Indian Constitution discusses that there is no tax implied on the citizens promoting or maintaining any religion, it is a part of Fundamental Rights under the Freedom of Religion including the principle of secularism. This article ensures that the funds collected must not support any particular religion. Essential elements from the Article 27 of Indian Constitution includes:

• The term “person” has a broader definition and may refer to-
  • Individuals
  • Companies
  • associations or 
  • entities

Article 27 mentions that the state cannot compel anyone to pay a tax if that tax is used to promote or maintain a particular religion or religious denomination. For it to be violated, four conditions must all be met:

• There is a tax.
• The proceeds are used to promote or maintain a religion or religious denomination.
• A person is compelled to pay it.
• The dominant purpose of the tax is religious promotion or maintenance.

The key factor is the state’s intention behind levying the tax. If it’s for general public expenditure, Article 27 doesn’t apply. If it’s aimed at supporting a religion, it does.

Article 27 of Indian Constitution Judicial Pronouncements

In Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954), the Supreme Court had to decide whether contributions collected from religious institutions under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951, were taxes under Article 27.

The petitioner argued they were taxes and therefore unconstitutional. The Court held that while the contributions resembled a tax, they were meant for the secular purpose of managing religious institutions, not for promoting or maintaining any religion.

This case drew an important line, a levy for administrative regulation is valid, but a levy for religious promotion violates Article 27.

The Constitution of India lays down the framework that determines the structure and functioning of the government of the country. Article 85 of Indian Constitution discusses the sessions of the Parliament, Prorogation and Dissolution, it sets out the procedure for convening parliamentary sessions, the conditions under which they can be prorogued, and the circumstances in which they may be dissolved. This provision ensures Parliament works efficiently while keeping a balance of power between the legislature and the executive.

Article 85 of Indian Constitution Interpretation

Article 85 of Indian Constitution says that the President can summon each House of Parliament at times and places he thinks fit, but there can’t be more than six months between the last sitting of one session and the first sitting of the next. It also allows the President to:

• Prorogue either House or both Houses.
• Dissolve the Lok Sabha.

Parliament is required to meet at least twice a year, the Budget Session (February to May) and the Monsoon Session (July to September). A Winter Session is often held in November and December.

The President decides the timing of these sessions in consultation with the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman.

• Article 85(2)(a) covers prorogation, ending a session without dissolving Parliament. It’s done by the President after consulting the presiding officers and is different from adjournment, which is just a temporary pause during a session.
• Article 85(2)(b) covers dissolution, ending the Lok Sabha entirely, either at the end of its five-year term or earlier on the Prime Minister’s advice. Dissolution leads to general elections. The Rajya Sabha is permanent and not subject to dissolution.