Question 1

With reference to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), consider the following individuals as potential members of the committee that recommends the appointment of its chairperson and members:
1. The Prime Minister
2. The Chief Justice of India
3. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha
4. The Union Minister for Law and Justice
5. The Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha
How many of the individuals listed above are part of the said committee?

Accepted Answer

Only three. The committee for recommending the appointment of the NHRC chairperson and members consists of six members: the Prime Minister (as its head), the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the leaders of the Opposition in both the Houses of Parliament, and the Central Home Minister. The Chief Justice of India and the Union Minister for Law and Justice are not members of this committee.

Question 2

Consider the following statements regarding the composition and tenure of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC):
1. The chairperson of the NHRC must be a retired Chief Justice of India.
2. The members hold office for a term of three years or until they attain the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier.
3. The chairperson and members are eligible for re-appointment for another term of three years.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1 only. Statement 1 is incorrect; the chairperson can be either a retired Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court. Statement 2 is correct as the tenure is three years or age 70, whichever is earlier. Statement 3 is also correct as the chairperson and members are eligible for reappointment, subject to the age limit.

Question 3

Statement I: The recommendations made by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) are advisory in nature and not binding on the concerned government or authority.
Statement II: The NHRC does not possess the power to punish violators of human rights, nor can it award monetary relief to the victims.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Both statements are correct. The NHRC's role is primarily recommendatory and advisory. It cannot enforce its decisions because it lacks the power to punish violators or provide direct relief. Therefore, its limited powers (Statement II) are the reason its recommendations are not binding (Statement I).

Question 4

Consider the following pairs regarding the ex-officio members of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC):
1. Chairperson, National Commission for Scheduled Castes
2. Chairperson, National Commission for Women
3. Chairperson, National Commission for Backward Classes
4. Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
How many of the pairs above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

All four pairs. The National Human Rights Commission includes seven ex-officio members. These are the chairpersons of the National Commission for Minorities, National Commission for Scheduled Castes, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, National Commission for Women, National Commission for Backward Classes, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. All four individuals listed are correct ex-officio members.

Question 5

With reference to the service conditions of the chairperson and members of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), consider the following statements:
1. The President can remove the chairperson or any member only after the Supreme Court, on inquiry, has found them guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity.
2. After their tenure, the chairperson and members are not eligible for any further employment under the Central or a state government.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

Both 1 and 2. Both statements are correct. The removal process for the chairperson or a member on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity requires an inquiry and report by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, to ensure their impartiality and independence, the chairperson and members are barred from further employment under the Central or any state government after completing their tenure.

Question 6

With reference to the establishment and evolution of the Supreme Court of India, consider the following statements:
1. The Supreme Court of India was inaugurated on January 28, 1950.
2. It succeeded the Federal Court of India, which was established under the Government of India Act of 1935.
3. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is greater than that of its predecessor as it replaced the British Privy Council as the highest court of appeal.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. All three statements are historically accurate. The Supreme Court of India was inaugurated on January 28, 1950, succeeding the Federal Court of India (est. 1935). Its jurisdiction expanded significantly because it also took over the role of the British Privy Council, which was previously the ultimate appellate authority for India.

Question 7

Consider the following statements comparing the judicial systems of India and the USA:
1. The Indian Supreme Court's jurisdiction can be enlarged by Parliament, whereas the American Supreme Court's powers are limited to those conferred by the Constitution.
2. The Indian Supreme Court possesses advisory jurisdiction, a power which is also available to the American Supreme Court.
3. The Indian Supreme Court has the power of judicial superintendence over state high courts, a power the American Supreme Court lacks due to a dual judicial system.
4. The scope of judicial review for the Indian Supreme Court is wider than that of the American Supreme Court.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two statements. Statement 1 is correct as Parliament can enlarge the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. Statement 3 is correct as India's integrated judiciary allows for superintendence over high courts. Statement 2 is incorrect because the American Supreme Court has no advisory jurisdiction. Statement 4 is incorrect as the scope of judicial review in India is limited compared to the very wide scope in the USA. Therefore, only two statements are correct.

Question 8

Statement I: The Indian Constitution establishes an integrated judicial system, unlike the dual system of courts found in the USA.
Statement II: This single system of courts in India, adopted from the Government of India Act of 1935, is responsible for enforcing both Central and state laws.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I.. Statement I correctly points out India's integrated judicial system. Statement II correctly explains a key feature of this integrated system – that a single hierarchy of courts enforces both central and state laws. This functional aspect is a direct consequence of the integrated design, making Statement II the correct explanation for Statement I.

Question 9

Consider the following statements regarding the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court of India:
1. Its appellate jurisdiction is confined to constitutional cases only.
2. It defends the rights of the citizen according to the 'due process of law'.
3. Its original jurisdiction is confined to federal cases.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. All three statements are incorrect. 1) The appellate jurisdiction of the Indian Supreme Court covers constitutional, civil, and criminal cases, not just constitutional ones. 2) It defends rights according to the 'procedure established by law', not 'due process of law' (which is an American concept). 3) Its original jurisdiction is wider than just federal cases and includes matters relating to naval forces, maritime activities, etc.

Question 10

Consider the following pairs regarding the powers of the Indian Supreme Court:
1. Special leave to appeal : A wide discretionary power against judgments of any court or tribunal.
2. Advisory jurisdiction : A power not possessed by the American Supreme Court.
3. Judicial superintendence : Control over state high courts due to an integrated judicial system.
4. Scope of judicial review : Wider than the American Supreme Court.
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only three pairs. Pair 1 is correctly matched. Pair 2 is correctly matched as the Indian SC has advisory jurisdiction while the US SC does not. Pair 3 is correctly matched as the integrated system allows for superintendence. Pair 4 is incorrectly matched; the scope of judicial review in India is limited compared to the very wide scope in the USA. Thus, only three pairs are correctly matched.

Question 11

Consider the following statements regarding the judicial appointment process in India:
1. The First Judges case (1982) held that 'consultation' in the appointment process implies 'concurrence'.
2. The Third Judges case (1998) established that the Chief Justice of India must consult a collegium of four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court.
3. The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, which introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judges case (2015).
4. According to the ruling in the Third Judges case, a recommendation for appointment should not be sent to the government if two of the collegium members give an adverse opinion.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

2 and 4 only. Statement 1 is incorrect; the First Judges case held that consultation does not mean concurrence. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect; the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judges case declared the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act as unconstitutional and void. Statement 4 is correct as per the ruling in the Third Judges case.

Question 12

Consider the following statements regarding the appointment of the Chief Justice of India (CJI):
1. The established convention of appointing the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court as the CJI was never violated between 1950 and 1977.
2. The Second Judges Case (1993) ruled that the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court should alone be appointed to the office of the CJI.
3. The President appoints the CJI after consultation with the cabinet, and this consultation is obligatory.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 3 only. Statement 1 is incorrect; the convention was violated in 1973 and 1977. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect; the President appoints the CJI after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and high courts as he deems necessary, not the cabinet, and the text does not state this consultation is obligatory for the CJI's appointment, unlike for other judges.

Question 13

Statement I: The Parliament of India has the authority to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court.
Statement II: The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019, increased the strength of the Supreme Court to one chief justice and thirty-three other judges.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I is correct as the text explicitly mentions that Parliament has progressively increased the number of judges. Statement II is also correct as it states the outcome of the 2019 amendment. Statement II serves as a specific example of the power mentioned in Statement I, thus acting as a correct explanation.

Question 14

Match the following landmark cases with their outcomes regarding the judicial appointment process:
1. First Judges case (1982) : Consultation requires a collegium of four seniormost judges.
2. Second Judges case (1993) : Consultation means concurrence.
3. Third Judges case (1998) : Consultation only implies exchange of views.
4. Fourth Judges case (2015) : The collegium system was restored.
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is incorrect; the First Judges case held consultation means exchange of views. Pair 2 is correct. Pair 3 is incorrect; the Third Judges case established the collegium of four judges. Pair 4 is correct as it struck down the NJAC and restored the collegium system. Therefore, only two pairs (2 and 4) are correctly matched.

Question 15

With reference to the appointment and tenure of Supreme Court judges,
how many of the following statements is/are correct?
1. The original strength of the Supreme Court was fixed at one chief justice and ten other judges.
2. The appointment of a Supreme Court judge, other than the Chief Justice, requires an obligatory consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
3. Supreme Court judges hold their office during the pleasure of the President.
4. No judge of the Supreme Court has been removed (or impeached) so far.

Accepted Answer

Only two statements. Statement 1 is incorrect; the original strength was one chief justice and seven other judges. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect; judges have security of tenure and do not hold office during the pleasure of the President. Statement 4 is correct. Thus, only two statements (2 and 4) are correct.

Question 16

Consider the following statements regarding the qualifications for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court:
1. The Constitution prescribes a minimum age of 45 years for appointment.
2. A person must have been an advocate of a High Court for at least five years.
3. A distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President is eligible for appointment.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 2 only. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Constitution has not prescribed a minimum age for the appointment of a Supreme Court judge. Statement 2 is incorrect because the requirement for an advocate is ten years of practice in a High Court (or High Courts in succession), not five. Statement 3 is a valid qualification.

Question 17

With reference to the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court, consider the following statements:
1. A removal motion must be signed by at least 100 members in the case of the Rajya Sabha and 50 members in the case of the Lok Sabha.
2. The Presiding Officer (Speaker/Chairman) of the House is bound to admit a duly signed removal motion.
3. The final order for the removal of the judge is passed by the President after an address by Parliament is presented to him.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. Statement 1 is incorrect; the requirement is 100 members for the Lok Sabha and 50 for the Rajya Sabha. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Speaker/Chairman has the discretion to either admit or refuse to admit the motion. Statement 3 is correct; after the motion is passed by both Houses, an address is presented to the President, who then passes the final removal order.

Question 18

According to the Judges Enquiry Act (1968), if a removal motion against a Supreme Court judge is admitted, a three-member committee is constituted to investigate the charges. Consider the following as potential members of this committee:
1. The chief justice or a judge of the Supreme Court
2. A chief justice of a high court
3. A distinguished jurist
4. The Law Minister of India
How many of the above are correctly mentioned as members of the investigative committee?

Accepted Answer

Only three. The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) specifies that the three-member investigative committee should consist of (a) the chief justice or a judge of the Supreme Court, (b) a chief justice of a high court, and (c) a distinguished jurist. The Law Minister of India is not a member of this committee. Therefore, only the first three are correct.

Question 19

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: The Constitution of India has not fixed the tenure of a judge of the Supreme Court.
Statement II: A judge of the Supreme Court holds office until attaining the age of 65 years and can be removed from office only by an order of the President on the recommendation of the Parliament.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I is correct. The Constitution does not specify a fixed term of office (like 5 or 6 years). Statement II is also correct, outlining the conditions of holding office. Statement II correctly explains Statement I by clarifying that the tenure is not a fixed number of years but is defined by a retirement age (65 years), along with other provisions for resignation or removal, which collectively define the term of office.

Question 20

Before entering office, a judge of the Supreme Court takes an oath or affirmation. Consider the following commitments:
1. To bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India.
2. To uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India.
3. To perform duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.
4. To uphold the Constitution and the laws.
How many of the above commitments are part of the oath of a Supreme Court judge?

Accepted Answer

All four. The oath of a Supreme Court judge includes all four of the commitments listed: (1) bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, (2) upholding India's sovereignty and integrity, (3) performing duties impartially, and (4) upholding the Constitution and the laws.

Question 21

With reference to the appointment of an ad hoc judge in the Supreme Court, consider the following statements:
1. The Chief Justice of India can make such an appointment only with the previous consent of the President.
2. An ad hoc judge can be appointed from among the judges of any High Court in India.
3. The primary reason for such an appointment is the lack of quorum of the permanent judges to hold a session.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

All three. All three statements are correct. The Chief Justice of India can appoint a judge of a High Court as an ad hoc judge for a temporary period when there is a lack of quorum. This can only be done after consultation with the chief justice of the concerned High Court and with the previous consent of the President.

Question 22

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: The Chief Justice of India has the authority to request a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court to act as a judge of the Supreme Court for a temporary period.
Statement II: Such an appointment is made solely at the discretion of the Chief Justice of India and requires no external consent.

Accepted Answer

Statement I is correct but Statement II is incorrect.. Statement I is correct as the Chief Justice of India can request a retired judge to act as a Supreme Court judge. However, Statement II is incorrect because this action requires the previous consent of the President and also the consent of the person to be so appointed. It is not an act of sole discretion.

Question 23

Consider the following statements regarding temporary judicial appointments in the Supreme Court:
1. An ad hoc judge, while attending the sittings of the Supreme Court, enjoys all the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a judge of the Supreme Court.
2. A retired judge requested to act as a judge of the Supreme Court is, for all legal and constitutional purposes, deemed to be a judge of the Supreme Court.
3. The President of India can appoint an acting Chief Justice of India only when the office of the Chief Justice of India is vacant.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

2 and 3 only. Statement 2 is incorrect because a retired judge acting as a Supreme Court judge will not be deemed to be a judge of the Supreme Court otherwise. Statement 3 is incorrect because an acting CJI can also be appointed if the CJI is temporarily absent or unable to perform duties, not just when the office is vacant. Statement 1 is correct.

Question 24

Consider the following pairs:
1. Appointment of Acting Chief Justice of India : President of India
2. Appointment of Ad Hoc Judge to Supreme Court : Chief Justice of India
3. Determination of allowances for a retired judge acting in the Supreme Court : President of India
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

All three pairs. All three pairs are correctly matched. The President appoints the Acting CJI. The CJI appoints the ad hoc judge (with the President's consent). The President determines the allowances for the retired judge acting as a Supreme Court judge.

Question 25

Consider the following conditions for the appointment of an ad hoc judge to the Supreme Court:
1. Lack of quorum of permanent judges.
2. The appointee must be qualified for appointment as a Supreme Court judge.
3. Prior consultation with the chief justice of the concerned High Court.
4. Previous consent of the President of India.
How many of the above are necessary pre-conditions for the Chief Justice of India to appoint an ad hoc judge?

Accepted Answer

All four. All four conditions are necessary. An ad hoc judge is appointed by the CJI when there is a lack of quorum. The appointee must be a High Court judge qualified for SC appointment. The process requires consultation with the concerned High Court's Chief Justice and the previous consent of the President.

Question 26

Consider the following statements regarding the seat and procedure of the Supreme Court:
1. The Chief Justice of India can unilaterally decide to appoint a place other than Delhi as the seat of the Supreme Court.
2. All cases involving a reference made by the President under Article 143 must be decided by a Bench consisting of at least five judges.
3. The Constitution makes it mandatory for the Supreme Court to have benches in other parts of India besides Delhi to ensure wider access to justice.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

2 only. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Chief Justice of India can appoint another place as the seat of the Supreme Court only with the approval of the President. Statement 3 is incorrect because this provision is optional and not compulsory; no court can direct the President or Chief Justice to establish another seat.

Question 27

In the context of the independence of the judiciary, consider the following actions:
1. Curtailing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
2. Discussing the conduct of a Supreme Court judge in the discharge of their duties.
3. Voting on the salaries and allowances of Supreme Court judges.
4. Extending the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
How many of the above actions is the Parliament of India authorised to perform under normal circumstances?

Accepted Answer

Only one. Parliament is not authorised to curtail the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. It is also prohibited from discussing the conduct of judges, except during an impeachment motion. The salaries and allowances are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and are non-votable. However, Parliament is explicitly authorised to extend the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Therefore, only one action is permitted.

Question 28

Consider the following statements regarding the provisions that ensure the independence of the Supreme Court:
1. The salaries and administrative expenses of the Supreme Court are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and are non-votable by the Parliament.
2. A retired judge of the Supreme Court is prohibited from pleading or acting in any Court or before any authority within the territory of India.
3. The service conditions of a Supreme Court judge can never be changed to their disadvantage after their appointment.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. Statement 3 is incorrect. While the salaries, allowances, and privileges of a Supreme Court judge cannot be changed to their disadvantage after appointment, there is an exception: this can be done during a financial emergency. Statements 1 and 2 are correct provisions safeguarding judicial independence.

Question 29

With reference to the functioning of the Supreme Court, consider the following statements:
1. The Chief Justice of India can appoint officers of the Supreme Court without any interference from the executive.
2. The Supreme Court can make rules for regulating its practice and procedure with the approval of the Parliament.
3. All judgements of the Supreme Court are delivered by majority vote in an open court.
4. The Supreme Court can punish any person for its contempt.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Statement 2 is incorrect; the Supreme Court can make rules for its practice and procedure with the approval of the President, not the Parliament. Statements 1, 3, and 4 are correct descriptions of the Supreme Court's powers and procedures for maintaining its independence and functioning.

Question 30

Statement I: The Constitution prohibits retired judges of the Supreme Court from pleading or acting in any Court or before any authority within the territory of India.
Statement II: This provision is intended to ensure that judges do not deliver favourable verdicts in the hope of securing future employment or favour after retirement.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I correctly states the constitutional prohibition on post-retirement practice for Supreme Court judges. Statement II provides the precise rationale for this rule, which is to prevent any potential for bias in judgements based on the hope of future favour. Therefore, both statements are correct, and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.

Question 31

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: The writ jurisdiction of a High Court is wider than that of the Supreme Court.
Statement II: The Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, whereas a High Court can issue them for other legal rights as well.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I is correct because High Courts can issue writs for a broader range of purposes than the Supreme Court. Statement II correctly explains this difference: the Supreme Court's power is limited to enforcing Fundamental Rights, while High Courts can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for 'any other purpose,' which includes the enforcement of ordinary legal rights.

Question 32

Consider the following statements regarding the powers and role of the Supreme Court of India.
1. It functions as a Federal Court to decide disputes between units of the Indian Federation.
2. It is a self-correcting agency, not being bound by its previous decisions.
3. It has the power to punish for contempt of itself, but not of High Courts or subordinate courts.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. Statement 3 is incorrect. As a Court of Record, the Supreme Court has the power to punish for contempt not only of itself but also of High Courts, subordinate courts, and tribunals functioning in the entire country. Statements 1 and 2 are correct descriptions of the Supreme Court's role and powers.

Question 33

Consider the following pairs:
Article of the Constitution : Subject Matter
1. Article 131 : Advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
2. Article 136 : Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
3. Article 137 : Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court
4. Article 143 : Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is incorrect; Article 131 deals with the Original Jurisdiction. Pair 4 is incorrect; Article 143 deals with the Advisory Jurisdiction. Pairs 2 and 3 are correctly matched. Article 136 provides for Special Leave to Appeal, and Article 137 provides for the power of the Supreme Court to review its own judgments. Therefore, only two pairs are correct.

Question 34

Consider the following types of disputes:
1. Inter-state water disputes
2. Matters referred to the Finance Commission
3. Ordinary disputes of a commercial nature between the Centre and states
4. A dispute between the Centre and a state on which the existence of a legal right depends
How many of the above fall outside the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

Accepted Answer

Only three. The exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court applies to federal disputes involving a question of legal right. However, certain categories are explicitly excluded. These include inter-state water disputes, matters referred to the Finance Commission, and ordinary commercial disputes between the Centre and states. A dispute between the Centre and a state over a legal right is the very definition of what falls under this jurisdiction. Therefore, the first three items are excluded from this jurisdiction.

Question 35

With reference to the criminal appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, consider the following statements:
1. An appeal can be made to the Supreme Court as a matter of right if a High Court reverses an order of acquittal and sentences the accused to death.
2. If a High Court reverses an order of conviction and acquits the accused, there is no right to appeal to the Supreme Court.
3. The Parliament has enlarged the criminal appellate jurisdiction to include cases where a High Court, on appeal, reverses an acquittal and sentences the accused to imprisonment for life.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. All three statements are correct. Statement 1 is correct as an appeal lies as a matter of right in such a case. Statement 2 is also correct; the constitution does not provide for a right to appeal in case of acquittal by the High Court. Statement 3 is correct; a 1970 parliamentary act enlarged the jurisdiction to include cases where an acquittal is reversed and a sentence of life imprisonment or for ten years is imposed.

Question 36

Consider the following statements regarding the designation of Senior Advocates in India:
1. Only the Supreme Court of India has the authority to designate an Advocate as a Senior Advocate.
2. The designation is conferred if the Court believes the Advocate is deserving due to their ability, standing at the Bar, or special legal knowledge.
3. The consent of the Advocate is mandatory for them to be designated as a Senior Advocate.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

2 and 3 only. Statement 1 is incorrect because both the Supreme Court and any High Court can designate an advocate as a Senior Advocate. Statements 2 and 3 are correct as the designation is based on merit and requires the advocate's consent.

Question 37

Statement I: A Senior Advocate is not entitled to appear in the Supreme Court without an Advocate-on-Record.
Statement II: Only Advocates-on-Record are entitled to file any matter or document before the Supreme Court.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Both statements are factually correct. A Senior Advocate requires an Advocate-on-Record to appear in the Supreme Court. The reason for this is the procedural rule that only an Advocate-on-Record can file documents and matters before the Court. Thus, Statement II provides the underlying procedural reason for the rule mentioned in Statement I.

Question 38

Consider the following activities with respect to a Senior Advocate practicing in India:
1. Drawing pleadings or affidavits for a case.
2. Advising on evidence in a case.
3. Settling pleadings in consultation with a junior advocate.
4. Undertaking conveyancing work.
How many of the above activities is a Senior Advocate entitled to perform?

Accepted Answer

Only one. A Senior Advocate is explicitly prohibited from drawing pleadings, advising on evidence, or undertaking conveyancing work. However, an exception allows them to settle such matters, like pleadings, in consultation with a junior advocate. Therefore, only one of the listed activities is permissible.

Question 39

With reference to the advocates entitled to practice before the Supreme Court, consider the following statements:
1. An advocate whose name is entered on a State Bar Council roll can file any document before the Supreme Court.
2. An Advocate-on-Record is prohibited from appearing and arguing a matter in the Supreme Court.
3. A Senior Advocate is not entitled to appear without a junior in any court or tribunal in India.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 2 only. Statement 1 is incorrect; advocates on a State Bar Council roll can appear and argue but cannot file documents, a right reserved for Advocates-on-Record. Statement 2 is incorrect; Advocates-on-Record are entitled to file appearances and act for a party, which includes appearing and arguing. Statement 3 is correct, as a Senior Advocate must be accompanied by a junior in courts and tribunals.

Question 40

Consider the following pairs regarding advocates in the Supreme Court:
1. Senior Advocate : Entitled to file any document before the Court.
2. Advocate-on-Record : Can appear and argue any matter on behalf of a party.
3. Other Advocate : Entitled to draw pleadings and affidavits.
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only one pair. Pair 1 is incorrect; only Advocates-on-Record can file documents. Pair 3 is incorrect; drawing pleadings is a function prohibited for Senior Advocates and not specified as a right for 'Other Advocates', who primarily appear and argue. Pair 2 is correct; an Advocate-on-Record can file an appearance and act for a party, which includes appearing and arguing.

Question 41

Considering the recent tensions between the executive and judiciary in the US, evaluate the following statements comparing the powers and limitations of the Indian and US judicial systems:

1. The Indian Supreme Court's ability to summon government officials for non-compliance is reinforced by its integrated judicial structure and a comparatively weaker doctrine of sovereign immunity than in the US.
2. The US President possesses the power to pardon an individual for criminal contempt of court, whereas the Indian Supreme Court's power to punish for its own contempt under Article 129 is a constitutional power independent of executive pardon.
3. The Indian Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 allows it to proactively opine on legal matters for the executive, a mechanism absent in the US system which tends to avoid such direct advisory roles.
4. The scope of judicial review in India is fundamentally more limited than in the US because the Indian Constitution adheres to the ‘procedure established by law’ rather than the ‘due process of law’.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Statement 1 is correct as the current affairs text highlights India's weaker sovereign immunity and the court's ability to summon officials. Statement 2 is correct; the CA mentions the US President's pardon power for criminal contempt, while in India, the SC's contempt power under Art 129 is constitutional. Statement 3 is correct as both static and CA texts confirm the Indian SC's advisory jurisdiction (Art 143) and its absence in the US. Statement 4 is incorrect. While the textual basis differs, the Indian Supreme Court, particularly after the Maneka Gandhi case, has interpreted 'procedure established by law' to include fairness and reason, bringing it closer to substantive due process. The CA also notes that Indian judicial review is 'well-established' and can strike down unconstitutional actions, making the claim that it's 'more limited' misleading in the modern context.

Question 42

Considering the evolution of the judicial appointment process in India, as highlighted by recent debates in 2024, evaluate the following statements:

1. The Second Judges Case (1993) was pivotal in establishing judicial primacy by interpreting the term 'consultation' in Article 124(2) as 'concurrence'.
2. The Third Judges Case (1998) refined the collegium system by mandating that the Chief Justice of India must consult a plurality of four senior-most judges, thereby institutionalizing a collective opinion.
3. The Supreme Court, in the Fourth Judges Case (2015), invalidated the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) primarily on the grounds that the inclusion of the executive in the appointment process compromised the independence of the judiciary, a basic feature of the Constitution.
4. The ongoing discourse on reform, as of 2024, often suggests that a revised version of a multi-stakeholder body like the NJAC, rather than the current opaque collegium system, could better balance judicial independence with accountability.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

All four. All four statements accurately trace the evolution and current debate surrounding judicial appointments. Statement 1 correctly identifies the outcome of the Second Judges Case. Statement 2 correctly describes the expansion of the collegium in the Third Judges Case. Statement 3 correctly states the reason for striking down the NJAC in the Fourth Judges Case. Statement 4 accurately reflects the central theme of the 2024 current affairs article, which calls for reform and suggests a revamped NJAC as a potential solution to the collegium's perceived lack of transparency and accountability.

Question 43

In light of the recent discussions surrounding an impeachment motion against a High Court judge, consider the following statements regarding the removal process for a Supreme Court judge as per the Judges Enquiry Act (1968) and the Constitution:

1. A removal motion must be initiated by at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha or 50 members in the Rajya Sabha.
2. The Speaker/Chairman, upon receiving the motion, is constitutionally obligated to constitute a three-member committee for investigation.
3. The inquiry committee must consist of a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist.
4. If the committee finds the judge guilty, the President can issue the removal order immediately based on the committee's report.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 1 is correct as per the Judges Enquiry Act (1968). Statement 3 is also correct, outlining the composition of the inquiry committee. However, Statement 2 is incorrect; the Speaker/Chairman has the discretion to either admit or refuse the motion. Statement 4 is incorrect; after the committee's report, the motion must be passed by each House of Parliament with a special majority, and only then is an address presented to the President, who then issues the removal order.

Question 44

Considering the recent discussions on appointing ad hoc judges to High Courts and the established procedures for the Supreme Court, evaluate the following statements:

1. The appointment of an ad hoc judge to the Supreme Court under Article 127 requires consultation with the state's Chief Minister.
2. The appointment of a retired judge to a High Court under Article 224A requires the prior consent of the President of India.
3. The Chief Justice of India can appoint a sitting High Court judge as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court only to address a lack of quorum.
4. The appointment of a retired judge to the Supreme Court under Article 128 does not require the consent of the person to be so appointed.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 1 is incorrect; the procedure for appointing an ad hoc judge to a High Court (Art 224A) involves the Chief Minister, not the appointment to the Supreme Court (Art 127). Statement 2 is correct; Article 224A explicitly requires the President's approval. Statement 3 is correct; Article 127 specifies that the appointment of an ad hoc judge to the SC is for when there is a lack of quorum. Statement 4 is incorrect; Article 128 clearly states that the appointment of a retired judge requires the consent of the person to be so appointed. Therefore, only two statements (2 and 3) are correct.

Question 45

In the context of the ongoing debate about post-retirement appointments for judges, consider the following constitutional and procedural safeguards intended to ensure judicial independence.

1. The salaries and allowances of Supreme Court judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and are non-votable by the Parliament.
2. Retired judges of the Supreme Court are explicitly prohibited by Article 124(7) of the Constitution from accepting any post-retirement appointment from the government.
3. The Constitution prohibits any discussion in Parliament regarding the conduct of judges in the discharge of their duties, except during an impeachment motion.
4. The Supreme Court, in the Bombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India case, mandated a two-year cooling-off period for retired judges before they can accept government appointments.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 1 is correct; salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund to ensure financial independence. Statement 3 is also correct as it protects judges from political pressure. Statement 2 is incorrect; Article 124(7) prohibits retired SC judges from 'pleading or acting in any Court or before any authority', not from accepting post-retirement appointments. Statement 4 is incorrect; the Supreme Court dismissed the PIL seeking a cooling-off period, stating it was a matter for the legislature to decide. Therefore, only two statements are correct.

Question 46

Considering the recent Diamond Jubilee of the Supreme Court and the launch of new digital initiatives, evaluate the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's role as a 'Court of Record' under Article 129:

1. The 'Digital Supreme Court Reports (Digi SCR)' initiative, providing free access to judgments since 1950, directly enhances the Court's function as a 'Court of Record' by making its recorded judgments, which serve as legal precedents, more accessible.
2. The power to punish for contempt, an inherent power of a 'Court of Record', is exclusive to the Supreme Court and cannot be exercised with respect to High Courts or subordinate courts.
3. The 'Digital Courts 2.0' initiative, using AI for real-time transcription, primarily serves the Supreme Court's function of judicial review by creating a faster record for constitutional examination.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only one. Statement 1 is correct as the Digi SCR initiative makes the judgments, which are recorded for 'perpetual memory and testimony' as per the definition of a Court of Record, widely accessible, thus strengthening this function. Statement 2 is incorrect; the static text explicitly mentions that in 1991, the Supreme Court ruled it has the power to punish for contempt of itself, as well as of high courts, subordinate courts, and tribunals. Statement 3 is incorrect; while a faster record is useful, the primary purpose of real-time transcription is to improve the efficiency of judicial proceedings and record-keeping, not specifically to aid the power of judicial review.

Question 47

With reference to the recent discussions on establishing regional benches for the Supreme Court, consider the following statements:

1. Article 130 of the Constitution mandates the establishment of Supreme Court benches outside Delhi to improve access to justice.
2. The Chief Justice of India can unilaterally decide to establish a regional bench without any external approval.
3. The Parliament can amend the Constitution to create regional benches, thereby bypassing the procedure mentioned in Article 130.
4. The Law Ministry's endorsement of the proposal for regional benches is legally binding on the Supreme Court.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only one. Statement 1 is incorrect; Article 130 states the Supreme Court 'shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.' It is a discretionary power, not a mandate. Statement 2 is incorrect; the CJI requires the approval of the President. Statement 3 is correct; Parliament has the constituent power to amend the Constitution to provide for regional benches, which would be a different route than the executive action under Article 130. Statement 4 is incorrect; the Supreme Court has consistently opposed the idea, and the Law Ministry's endorsement is a proposal, not a binding directive on the judiciary.

Question 48

Considering the Supreme Court's appellate powers and the legal framework for tribunals mentioned in recent updates, analyze the following statements:

1. According to recent legal frameworks, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is designated as the final fact-finding authority, with its orders being appealable to the High Court only if a substantial question of law arises.
2. Despite statutory provisions that may limit further appeals from a tribunal like the ITAT, the Supreme Court retains an overriding discretionary power under Article 136 to grant special leave to appeal against its judgments.
3. The Supreme Court's power to grant special leave to appeal is an exceptional power that cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is exercised sparingly in extraordinary situations.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

All three. All three statements are correct. Statement 1 is accurate as per the current affairs text regarding the ITAT. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court's constitutional power under Article 136 (Special Leave to Appeal) is a plenary jurisdiction that can override statutory limitations on appeals from any court or tribunal, as established in the static content. Statement 3 correctly describes the nature of this discretionary power, as explicitly mentioned in the static text, stating it is 'exceptional and overriding' and to be 'exercised sparingly'.

Question 49

In the context of the recent Supreme Court ruling (August 2024) emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 as a fundamental right, consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's jurisdiction:

1. An aggrieved citizen can directly approach the Supreme Court under its exclusive Original Jurisdiction (Article 131) for the enforcement of the right to a speedy trial.
2. The Supreme Court's intervention in the Delhi excise policy case to grant bail, citing prolonged incarceration, is an exercise of its Appellate Jurisdiction, likely through a Special Leave Petition under Article 136.
3. The power to declare that prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21, even under stringent laws like PMLA, stems from the Supreme Court's power of Judicial Review.
4. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for enforcing fundamental rights is exclusive, preventing High Courts from hearing such matters to ensure uniform application of law.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 1 is incorrect; the exclusive Original Jurisdiction under Article 131 is for federal disputes between states and/or the Centre, not for fundamental rights violations by citizens. Statement 4 is incorrect; the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is concurrent with that of the High Courts. Statements 2 and 3 are correct. The SC often hears bail matters from lower courts under its appellate jurisdiction (often via SLP under Art 136), and its power to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments (like PMLA) and executive actions (like prolonged detention) in light of fundamental rights is its power of Judicial Review.

Question 50

Considering the recent Supreme Court guidelines on death penalty and mercy petitions, analyze the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's multifaceted role:

1. The SC's Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction under Article 134 allows an appeal as a matter of right if a High Court reverses an acquittal and imposes a death sentence.
2. The SC's power to commute a death sentence due to 'inordinate delay' in execution, as seen in the Purshottam Dashrath Borate case, is an exercise of its power of judicial review over executive inaction, linked to its role as a guarantor of Fundamental Rights under Article 32.
3. The SC's discretionary power under Article 136 (Special Leave to Appeal) can be invoked in any criminal matter, providing a final judicial recourse against a death sentence after other appellate routes are exhausted.
4. The President is bound by the Supreme Court's opinion if sought under its Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143) on a question of law concerning the commutation of a death sentence.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Statement 1 is correct as the static text specifies that an appeal lies to the SC as a matter of right if a high court reverses an acquittal and sentences the accused to death. Statement 2 is correct; the commutation due to inordinate delay is a remedy against the violation of Article 21 (Right to Life), which falls under the SC's writ jurisdiction. Statement 3 is correct as Article 136 grants wide discretionary power to the SC to hear appeals. Statement 4 is incorrect; the opinion expressed by the Supreme Court under its Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143) is only advisory and not a judicial pronouncement, hence it is not binding on the President.

Question 51

With reference to the jurisdictions of the Supreme Court of India, as highlighted by the recent Presidential Reference under Article 143, consider the following statements:
1. The Supreme Court's Original Jurisdiction in federal disputes is exclusive, whereas its Writ Jurisdiction for fundamental rights is concurrent with High Courts.
2. The Writ Jurisdiction of a High Court is wider than that of the Supreme Court because High Courts can issue writs for purposes other than just the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
3. Under its Advisory Jurisdiction, the Supreme Court is obligated to tender its opinion on any dispute arising out of a pre-Constitution treaty referred by the President.
4. Any reference made under the Advisory Jurisdiction must be heard by a Supreme Court bench of at least five judges.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

All four. All four statements are correct. Statement 1 is correct as per the static text, which clearly distinguishes between the exclusive original jurisdiction for federal disputes and the concurrent writ jurisdiction. Statement 2 is also correct; the static text explicitly states that the High Court's writ jurisdiction is wider. Statement 3 is correct; the static text and the CA mention that for matters under Article 143(2) (pre-constitution treaties), the SC 'must' tender its opinion. Statement 4 is correct as mentioned in the current affairs article, citing Article 145(3) of the Constitution.

Question 52

In the context of the renewed debate over the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) versus the Collegium system, consider the following statements regarding the evolution of judicial appointments in India:

1. The Supreme Court's ruling in the First Judges Case (1982), which gave primacy to the executive's view in appointments, aligns with the principle underlying the NJAC, which sought to give the executive a formal role.
2. The current Collegium system, which the NJAC was intended to replace, is a direct outcome of the Supreme Court's interpretation of 'consultation' as 'concurrence' in the Second Judges Case (1993).
3. The Parliament's power to increase the number of Supreme Court judges, as exercised in 2019, is distinct from the power to change the appointment process, which was attempted via the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act.
4. The convention of appointing the seniormost judge as CJI, which was violated in the 1970s, was constitutionally cemented by the Supreme Court in the Second Judges Case (1993), making it a rigid rule.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

All four. All four statements are correct. Statement 1 is correct as the First Judges Case gave primacy to the executive, and the NJAC also aimed to include the executive in the appointment process. Statement 2 is correct as the Second Judges Case established the Collegium by interpreting 'consultation' as 'concurrence'. Statement 3 is correct; Parliament can increase judge strength via ordinary law (like the 2019 Act), but altering the appointment process required a constitutional amendment (the 99th Act). Statement 4 is correct as the Second Judges Case ruled that the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court should alone be appointed as CJI, curtailing government discretion and making it a binding precedent.

Supreme Court

Unlock All Questions