Constitution of India · Part V: The Union · Chapter IV: The Union Judiciary
Article 145: Rules of Court, etc
In plain words
Subject to Parliament's laws, the Supreme Court can make rules, with the President's approval, on its practice and procedure. These include rules on who can practise before it, appeals and time limits, Fundamental Rights cases, transferred cases, review, costs and fees, bail, stay of proceedings, and summary disposal of frivolous or vexatious appeals.
- The rules can fix the minimum number of Judges for any purpose and the powers of single Judges and Division Courts.
- At least five Judges must sit to decide a case involving a substantial question of law on interpreting the Constitution, or to hear a reference under article 143.
- A smaller bench hearing an appeal (other than under article 132) that finds such a question must refer it to a bench of that size and decide the appeal in line with its opinion.
- Judgments and opinions must be delivered in open Court, with the agreement of a majority of the Judges who heard the case. Dissenting Judges can deliver their own judgment or opinion.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(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.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the official text of the Constitution of India. As amended up to the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023. Text as on 10 September 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the article 145
-
The State of Jharkhand v. The Indian Builders Jamshedpur
Bharat Drilling & Foundation Treatment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2009) 16 SCC 705, if requires to be referred to a larger bench for reconsideration and authoritative decision in order to obviate…
-
IN RE: MEPUNG TADAR BAGE, MEMBER, ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus
Leakage of question paper of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination conducted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), on 26th and 27th August, 2022, led to the present reference by the Hon’ble…
-
Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew v. Rajesh Kumar
The petitioner-mother has preferred the instant review petitions primarily on the ground that the news of the imminent separation of the minor child (aged 11 years old at that time) from his mother, who has been his…
-
Orissa High Court and Others v. Banshidhar Baug and Others Etc.
Issue arose as regards the designation of Senior Advocates by the Full Court by exercising its suo motu power.
-
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
(a) Whether the 100-point assessment laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 and modified in Indira Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1 for the designation of Senior…
-
N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Misconduct committed by Advocates. The Advocates offered an absolute and unconditional apology. Whether the advocates are worthy of pardon.
-
Supreme Court Bar Association & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
The present Miscellaneous Applications have been filed seeking intervention in the matter and seeking clarification/ modification of the directions contained in Para 42 of the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2024 in…
-
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
I. Whether the Supreme Court decisions in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (I) and (II), which lay down the guidelines for the designation of senior advocates, require reconsideration. II. Whether an advocate on…
-
involved and in I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N. [(1999) 7
(1) Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati case) survives in the Constitution after amendment to the provision by the forty-second amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills case; and…
-
Department & Another v. M/s K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others
Issue arose to resolve as to which of the two views on maintainability of the Review petitions-Hon’ble Judge presiding over the Bench ruling in favour of maintainability of the review petitions whereas the Hon’ble…
-
The State of Telangana & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs.
High Court whether justified in passing the impugned order in review petition in favour of the plaintiff-respondent despite him not proving his title over the suit property (forest land), setting aside the concurrent…
-
State of Kerala v. Union of India
What is the true import and interpretation of the expression “if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends” contained in…
-
Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident
When can a litigant apply for modification of a judgment or an order in a matter which stands finally concluded; and can a party file an application after disposal of the statutory appeal by invoking inherent powers of…
-
M/S Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries Etc. Etc v. The Assam State Electricity Board and Others
Whether registry has the power to dismiss a curative petition solely on the ground that no averment has been made to the effect that the review petition was dismissed by circulation.
-
Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
The matter pertains to the constitutional validity of the Electoral Bond Scheme which introduced anonymous financial contributions to political parties; as also the constitutional validity of the provisions of the…
-
Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of
Appellant aggrieved by the order of the High Court dismissing the bail application filed u/s.439 of Cr.P.C. has preferred this appeal. (i) Whether the appellant was prima facie found involved in the commission of the…
-
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (1) &
A Batch of five Review Petitions was filed by the Review Petitioners, aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 2568 of…
- CBI v. R.R. Kishore
- Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service
- Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India
- Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of
- Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
- M/s N. N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/s
- Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of
- Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of
- Dept. v. M/S. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd.
- Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India
- Nandini Sharma and Anr. v. Registrar Supreme Court of India and Ors.
- Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
- Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Aishat Shifa v. The State of Karnataka & Ors
- M/S Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. Through Its Director Shri Pradeep Kumar Agrawal v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi Through Its Principal Secretary (Finance) & Ors.
- S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy and Others
- Sandeep Alias Kala v. Supreme Court of India
- Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal & Ors.
- Indian Ex Servicemen Movement & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Rajendra Khare v. Swaati Nirkhi and Ors.
- In Re: Advocate on Record Includes A Proprietary Firm Etc. v. .
- In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Anr. v. In Re:
- Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India & Ors.
- Commissioner (Ct) Ltu Kakinada & Ors. v. M/S. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited
- Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors.
- Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat and Another.
- District Bar Association, Dehradun Throughits Secretary v. Ishwar Shandilya & Ors.
- Akshay Kumar Singh v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr.
- Yashwant Sinha & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation Through Its Director & Anr.
- Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr. Its General Secretary and Ors.
- Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Hon’Ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Others
- M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. V. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (Now Known As Khoday India Limited) and Others v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., Kollegal (Under Liquidation) Represented by the Liquidator
- Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India
- R. Muthukrishnan v. The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras
- Union of India v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors.
- Gopal Jha v. The Hon’Ble Supreme Court of India
- Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India
- Public Interest Foundation & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
- Mar Koorilos (Dead) and Anr. Etc. v. M. Pappy (Dead) and Another Etc.
- Vinay Sharma & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India Through Its Registrar and Another
- Kalpana Mehta and Others v. Union of India and Others
- Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India Thr. Its Registrar and Ors.
- State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Anr. v. Mahendra Gupta & Ors.
- Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India and Others
- The State of Tripura & Ors. v. Jayanta Chakraborty & Ors.
- Kamini Jaiswal v. Union of India & Anr.
- Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust Thr. Velji Devshi Patel v. Collector, Haridwar & Ors.
- Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
- Vikram Singh @ Vicky Walia and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.
- Suraz India Trust v. Union of India
- Oil & Natural Gas Corp. Ltd. v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
- Nidhi Kaim and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
- Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Anr v. State of Haryana & Ors
- Jamshed Ansari v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Ors.
- V. Vasanthakumar v. H.C. Bhatia and Ors.
- Mahipal Singh Rana, Advocate v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association and Another v. Union of India
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &Another v. Union of India & Others
- Devi Das Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra& Ors.
- Videocon International Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India
- Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another
- Mohd. Arif @Ashfaq v. He Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Ors.
- Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors.
- Association of Unified Tele Services Providers & Others v. Union of India
- Usha Bharti v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- Rajeshwar Singh v. Subrata Roy Sahara & Ors.
- Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Ors.
- Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. and Ors.
- Purno Agitok Sangma v. Pranab Mukherjee
- Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mawasi & Ors. Etc.Etc.
- Supreme Court Bar Association and Others v. B.D. Kaushik
- Ram Jethmalani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors
- Ab. Bhaskara Rao v. Inspector of Police, CBI Visakhapatnam
- Yomeshbhai Pranshankar Bhatt v. State of Gujarat
- Remdeo Chauhan @ Rajnath Chauhan v. Bani Kant Das and Ors.
- Reference Under Article 317 (1) No.2 of 2008 in Re: Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman, Hpsc and Ors. v. --
- Amicus Curie v. Prashant Bhushan & Anr.