The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

[3] As per the Article 142 of the Constitution, the court has the inherent jurisdiction to pass any order deemed necessary in the interest of complete justice which becomes binding on the president to enforce.

The main block of the building has been built on a triangular plot of 17 acres and has been designed in an Indo-British style by the chief architect Ganesh Bhikaji Deolalikar, the first Indian to head the Central Public Works Department.

[9] A memorandum was submitted to the then law minister Shanti Bhushan, which stated that ‘‘the statue is supposedly a symbol and inspiration for the highest institution of justice, the Supreme Court….The child is nondescript, but the mother’s resemblance to Mrs. Indira Gandhi is discernible even to the ordinary eye not trained for appreciating the nuances of sculpture’’.

A bench of 13 judges was set up to decide whether Parliament had the unfettered right to amend the Constitution, which eventually gave rise to the Basic Structure doctrine.

A citizen of India not exceeding 65 years age per Article 124 of the Constitution who has been: is eligible to be recommended for appointment, a judge of the Supreme Court.

M. Sikri, S. Chandra Roy, Kuldip Singh, Santosh Hegde, R. F. Nariman, U. U. Lalit, L. Nageswara Rao, Indu Malhotra and P. S. Narasimha and K.V.

[30] It is the duty of the judiciary to frame suo moto cases or to probe cases/petitions at the earliest against the executive or legislature when laws are implemented which violate the basic foundation and structure of the Constitution as stated in Article 38 (1) of the Directive Principles.

[40] A judge of the Supreme Court draws a salary of ₹250,000 (US$2,900) per month—equivalent to the most-senior civil servant of the Indian government, Cabinet Secretary of India—while the chief justice earns ₹280,000 (US$3,200) per month.

[47] Former law minister and senior advocate of the Supreme Court Arun Jaitley also criticized the appointment of judges in government posts after their retirement.

The Supreme Court countered these amendments in 1967 when it ruled in Golaknath v. State of Punjab[60] that Parliament did not have the power to abrogate fundamental rights, including the provisions on private property.

The New York Times wrote of this opinion: "The submission of an independent judiciary to absolutist government is virtually the last step in the destruction of a democratic society; and the Indian supreme court's decision appears close to utter surrender."

A few years after the emergency, however, the Supreme Court rejected the absoluteness of the 42nd amendment and reaffirmed its power of judicial review in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980).

After Indira Gandhi lost elections in 1977, the new government of Morarji Desai, and especially law minister Shanti Bhushan (who had earlier argued for the detenues in the Habeas Corpus case), introduced a number of amendments making it more difficult to declare and sustain an emergency, and reinstated much of the power to the Supreme Court.

It is said that the basic structure doctrine, created in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, was strengthened in Indira Gandhi's case and set in stone in Minerva Mills v. Union of India.

Another important decision was of the five-judge bench in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India; where the constitutional validity of Central Educational Institutions (Reservations in Admissions) Act, 2006 was upheld, subject to the "creamy layer" criteria.

At the same time, the court has applied the strict scrutiny standards in Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India[67] (2007) (Beyond Reasonableness – A Rigorous Standard of Review for Article 15 Infringement)a The Supreme Court declared allotment of spectrum as "unconstitutional and arbitrary" and quashed all the 122 licenses issued in 2008 during tenure of A. Raja (then minister for communications & IT), the main official accused in the 2G case.

[70][71] The government refused to disclose details of about 18 Indians holding accounts in LGT Bank, Liechtenstein, evoking a sharp response from a bench comprising justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar.

[79][81][82][88][89] In April 2014, Justice K. S. Radhakrishnan declared transgender to be the 'third gender' in Indian law, in the case, National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India.

Our society often ridicules and abuses the Transgender community and in public places like railway stations, bus stands, schools, workplaces, malls, theatres [and] hospitals; they are sidelined and treated as untouchables, forgetting the fact that the moral failure lies in the society's unwillingness to contain or embrace different gender identities and expressions, a mindset which we have to change.Justice Radhakrishnan said that transgender people should be treated consistently with other minorities under the law, enabling them to access jobs, healthcare and education.

[96] On 6 September 2018, a five-member constitutional bench decriminalised homosexuality by partially striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in the case Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India.

[101][102][103][104] The year 2008 saw the Supreme Court embroiled in several controversies, from serious allegations of corruption at the highest level of the judiciary,[105] expensive private holidays at the tax payers expense,[106] refusal to divulge details of judges' assets to the public,[107] secrecy in the appointments of judges',[108] to refusal to make information public under the Right to Information Act.

[112] Former prime minister Manmohan Singh, has stated that corruption is one of the major challenges facing the judiciary, and suggested that there is an urgent need to eradicate this menace.

The Supreme Court is also wasting its valuable time by not taking up the case in toto but conducting a piecemeal trial by delivering its judgement to dispose of petitions related to the apportionment of assets between the newly formed states Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

[129] On 20 April 2018, seven opposition parties submitted a petition seeking the impeachment of Dipak Misra to Vice President Venkaiah Naidu, with signatures from seventy-one parliamentarians.

[130] On 23 April 2018, the petition was rejected by Vice President Venkaiah Naidu, primarily on the basis that the complaints were about administration and not misbehaviour, and that thus impeachment would seriously interfere with the constitutionally protected independence of the judiciary.

In one case, "a judge was blocked from elevation to the Madras High Court in 2009, in what 'appeared to have been a joint venture in the subversion of the law governing the collegium system by both the executive and the judiciary.

'"[135] On 18 April 2019 an unnamed woman employee of the Supreme Court filed an affidavit stating that Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had sexually harassed her on 10–11 October 2018 by pressing his body against hers against her will.

[138] National Law University Delhi topper Surbhi Karwa skipped her convocation to avoid receiving her degree from Ranjan Gogoi in protest.

The woman complainant stated that she was terrified by the systematic victimisation of her family members who were all dismissed from service following her protest against Gogoi's sexual advances.