सं Samvidhan

The Constitution of India

Article 145

Rules of Court, etc

(1) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the Supreme Court may from time to time, with the approval of the President, make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court including —

(a) rules as to the persons practising before the Court;

(b) rules as to the procedure for hearing appeals and other matters pertaining to appeals including the time within which appeals to the Court are to be entered;

(c) rules as to the proceedings in the Court for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III;

(cc) rules as to the proceedings in the Court under article 139A;

(d) rules as to the entertainment of appeals under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of article 134;

(e) rules as to the conditions subject to which any judgment pronounced or order made by the Court may be reviewed and the procedure for such review including the time within which applications to the Court for such review are to be entered;

(f) rules as to the costs of and incidental to any proceedings in the Court and as to the fees to be charged in respect of proceedings therein;

(g) rules as to the granting of bail;

(h) rules as to stay of proceedings;

(i) rules providing for the summary determination of any appeal which appears to the Court to be frivolous or vexatious or brought for the purpose of delay;

(j) rules as to the procedure for inquiries referred to in clause (1) of article 317.

(2) Subject to the provisions of clause (3), rules made under this article may fix the minimum number of Judges who are to sit for any purpose, and may provide for the powers of single Judges and Division Courts.

(3)The minimum number] of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under article 143 shall be five:

Provided that, where the Court hearing an appeal under any of the provisions of this Chapter other than article 132 consists of less than five Judges and in the course of the hearing of the appeal the Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the appeal, such Court shall refer the question for opinion to a Court constituted as required by this clause for the purpose of deciding any case involving such a question and shall on receipt of the opinion dispose of the appeal in conformity with such opinion.

(4) No judgment shall be delivered by the Supreme Court save in open Court, and no report shall be made under article 143 save in accordance with an opinion also delivered in open Court.

(5) No judgment and no such opinion shall be delivered by the Supreme Court save with the concurrence of a majority of the Judges present at the hearing of the case, but nothing in this clause shall be deemed to prevent a Judge who does not concur from delivering a dissenting judgment or opinion.

Why this exists

The framers wanted the Supreme Court to have control over its own internal procedures rather than depend entirely on Parliament for every operational detail, since courts often need flexibility to manage caseloads, appeals, and emergencies. At the same time, they built in checks: presidential approval for rules, and a mandatory minimum of five judges for weighty constitutional questions, to ensure major decisions on interpreting the Constitution get broader deliberation rather than being decided by just one or two judges.

How courts read it

Courts have generally treated Article 145 as an enabling provision, letting the Supreme Court frame its own Rules (like the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and 2013) covering filing, hearing, and review procedures. On the five-judge requirement in clause (3), courts have debated what counts as a 'substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Constitution' — not every case touching the Constitution needs five judges, only ones genuinely requiring interpretation of a constitutional provision. The Supreme Court has also relied on this Article to justify practice directions and to explain why certain matters (like curative petitions, born out of its review jurisdiction under clause 1(e)) follow special internal procedures, as seen in *Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra* (2002).

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: The Supreme Court can make any rule it wants without any checks.
    Fact: Rules under Article 145 need the President's approval and must not conflict with any law Parliament has made.
  • Myth: Any case mentioning the Constitution automatically needs five judges.
    Fact: Only cases involving a 'substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Constitution' require a minimum five-judge bench under clause (3); routine cases don't need this.
  • Myth: A dissenting judge's opinion doesn't count for anything.
    Fact: Clause (5) explicitly protects a judge's right to write a dissenting judgment or opinion even though the majority view is what's legally binding.