Question 1

Consider the following statements regarding the origin of High Courts in India:
1. The institution of the high court originated in India in 1862.
2. The first three high courts were established at Calcutta, Bombay, and Allahabad.
3. After 1950, every high court existing in a British Indian province became the high court for the corresponding state.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 3 only. Statement 2 is incorrect. The first three high courts were established in 1862 at Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. The high court at Allahabad was established later, in 1866. Statements 1 and 3 are correct as the institution began in 1862, and post-1950, provincial high courts were adapted for the newly formed states.

Question 2

Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional provisions for High Courts:
1. The Constitution of India, in its original form, provided for a high court for each state.
2. The provisions concerning High Courts are detailed in Part VI of the Constitution.
3. The Seventh Amendment Act of 1956 prohibited the establishment of a common high court for two or more states.
How many of the statements given above are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 3 is incorrect. The Seventh Amendment Act of 1956 authorised, rather than prohibited, the Parliament to establish a common high court for two or more states. Statements 1 and 2 are correct. The Constitution does provide for a high court for each state, and Articles 214 to 231 in Part VI deal with high courts.

Question 3

Statement I: The Parliament of India is empowered to extend the jurisdiction of a high court to any union territory.
Statement II: The territorial jurisdiction of a common high court is co-terminus with the territories of the concerned states and union territories it serves.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II is NOT the correct explanation for Statement I.. Both statements are factually correct. Parliament has the constitutional power to extend a high court's jurisdiction to a UT. Separately, the jurisdiction of a common high court covers all constituent states/UTs. However, Statement II is a description of how a common high court's jurisdiction works, not the legal basis or explanation for Parliament's power mentioned in Statement I. The power in Statement I is a distinct constitutional authorisation.

Question 4

With reference to the structure and jurisdiction of High Courts in India, consider the following statements:
1. The High Court occupies the top position in the judicial administration of a state.
2. The territorial jurisdiction of a high court is always co-terminus with the territory of a single state.
3. Among all union territories, only Delhi has a separate high court.
4. The Indian judicial system is a single integrated system where the high court operates below the Supreme Court but above subordinate courts.
How many of the statements given above are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Statement 2 is incorrect. The Seventh Amendment Act of 1956 allows for the establishment of a common high court for two or more states, meaning its jurisdiction is not always limited to a single state. Statements 1, 3, and 4 are correct descriptions of the High Court's position in the state judiciary, the unique status of the Delhi High Court among UTs, and its place in India's integrated judicial hierarchy.

Question 5

Consider the following statements:
1. The Constitution originally mandated a separate high court for every state and union territory.
2. The union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh share a common high court.
3. As of 2019, more than five high courts have jurisdiction over more than one state.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 3 only. Statement 1 is incorrect; the Constitution provides for a high court for each state, but the provision for common high courts was added by the 7th Amendment, and there was no original mandate for a separate high court for every UT. Statement 3 is incorrect; as per the text (for 2019), only three high courts have jurisdiction over more than one state. Statement 2 is correct. The question asks for the incorrect statements.

Question 6

With reference to the appointment of a judge of a High Court (other than the Chief Justice), consider the following statements:
1. The President is required to consult the governor of the state concerned.
2. The Chief Justice of India must consult a collegium of two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
3. The Constitution specifies that the strength of a High Court is to be determined by the Parliament.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 2 only. Statement 1 is correct; the President consults the governor. Statement 2 is also correct, as established in the Third Judges case (1998), where the Supreme Court opined that the Chief Justice of India should consult a collegium of two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court for High Court appointments. Statement 3 is incorrect; the Constitution leaves the determination of a High Court's strength to the discretion of the President, not the Parliament.

Question 7

Consider the following as potential qualifications for the appointment of a person as a judge of a High Court:
1. Must be a citizen of India.
2. Must have held a judicial office in the territory of India for ten years.
3. Must be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President.
4. Must have attained a minimum age of 35 years.
How many of the above are correct qualifications?

Accepted Answer

Only two. There are two correct qualifications listed. Being a citizen of India is mandatory. Holding a judicial office for ten years is one of the two alternative professional qualifications (the other being an advocate for ten years). The provision for appointing a 'distinguished jurist' applies to the Supreme Court, not the High Court. The Constitution does not prescribe a minimum age for appointment as a High Court judge. Therefore, only statements 1 and 2 are correct.

Question 8

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014 sought to replace the collegium system of appointing judges with a new body called the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
Statement II: The Supreme Court subsequently declared the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act as unconstitutional and void, opining that the new system would affect the independence of the judiciary.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II is NOT the correct explanation for Statement I.. Both statements are factually correct. Statement I accurately describes the purpose of the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act. Statement II correctly states the outcome of the Fourth Judges case (2015), where the Supreme Court struck down the amendment. However, Statement II describes a subsequent event and the court's reasoning for it; it does not explain the historical or political reason *why* Statement I (the amendment) was enacted in the first place. Therefore, it is not the correct explanation for Statement I.

Question 9

Consider the following statements regarding the service conditions and qualifications of a High Court judge:
1. The salaries and allowances are determined by the Parliament and cannot be varied to their disadvantage after appointment under any circumstances.
2. The Constitution makes no provision for the appointment of a distinguished jurist as a judge of a high court.
3. A person must have been an advocate of a high court for at least ten years to be eligible for appointment.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 3 only. Statement 1 is incorrect because salaries can be varied to a judge's disadvantage during a financial emergency. Statement 2 is correct; the provision for appointing a distinguished jurist is for the Supreme Court, not the High Court. Statement 3 is incorrect because it presents an alternative qualification as the only one; a person can also be eligible if they have held a judicial office for ten years. The question asks for the incorrect statements.

Question 10

Consider the following functions and the authority responsible for them in the context of a High Court:
1. Determination of the strength of the court : The President
2. Appointment of the judges : The Parliament
3. Administration of oath to a judge : The Governor of the state
4. Determination of salaries and allowances : The Parliament
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only three pairs. Pair 1 is correct: The President determines the strength of a High Court. Pair 2 is incorrect: The President, not the Parliament, appoints the judges. Pair 3 is correct: The Governor administers the oath. Pair 4 is correct: The Parliament determines the salaries and allowances. Therefore, three pairs are correctly matched.

Question 11

Consider the following statements regarding the procedure for the removal of a judge of a High Court:
1. A removal motion must be signed by at least 100 members in the case of the Lok Sabha or 50 members in the case of the Rajya Sabha.
2. The Speaker/Chairman must admit the motion and constitute a three-member committee to investigate the charges.
3. If the committee finds the judge guilty, the House can take up the consideration of the motion, which is then passed by a simple majority.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 only. The Speaker/Chairman has the discretion to admit or refuse a removal motion; it is not mandatory to admit it. Furthermore, after the committee finds the judge guilty, the motion must be passed by a special majority (a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting), not a simple majority.

Question 12

Consider the following provisions regarding the tenure of a judge of a High Court:
1. The Constitution has fixed the tenure of a judge of a High Court to be until the age of 65 years.
2. A judge can resign his office by writing to the President.
3. Any question regarding the judge's age is decided by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
4. A judge vacates his office only when he is appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court.
How many of the statements given above are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

Two statements. Statement 1 is incorrect as the retirement age is 62 years. Statement 4 is incorrect because a judge also vacates office upon resignation, removal, or transfer to another high court. Statements 2 and 3 are correct. Therefore, two statements are not correct.

Question 13

With reference to the appointment of judges in a High Court, consider the following statements:
1. The President can appoint an acting chief justice of a High Court when the serving chief justice is temporarily absent.
2. The President can appoint additional judges for a temporary period not exceeding two years.
3. The Chief Justice of a High Court can request a retired judge to act as a judge with the previous consent of the President.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. All three statements are correct. The President appoints the acting chief justice in case of vacancy or absence. Additional judges are appointed by the President for a period not exceeding two years to handle increased business or arrears. A retired judge can be requested to act as a judge by the Chief Justice of the High Court, but this requires the prior consent of the President.

Question 14

Consider the following pairs related to the judiciary:
1. Impeachment Inquiry Committee : A judge of the Supreme Court, a chief justice of a high court, and a distinguished jurist.
2. Consultation for Judge Transfer : The collegium of four senior-most Supreme Court judges and the Chief Justices of the two concerned High Courts.
3. Deciding a Judge's Age Dispute : The President after consultation with the collegium of the Supreme Court.
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is correct as per the Judges Enquiry Act (1968). Pair 2 is correct as per the opinion in the Third Judges case (1998). Pair 3 is incorrect; a dispute over a judge's age is decided by the President after consulting only the Chief Justice of India, not the entire collegium.

Question 15

Under
which of the following circumstances can the President appoint an 'additional judge' of a High Court?
1. The office of the chief justice of the high court is vacant.
2. There is a temporary increase in the business of the high court.
3. A judge of the high court is unable to perform their duties due to absence.
4. There are arrears of work in the high court.
How many of the above circumstances are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. The President can appoint additional judges to a High Court only under two conditions: a temporary increase in the court's business or arrears of work. A vacant Chief Justice office leads to the appointment of an 'acting Chief Justice', and the inability of a judge to perform duties leads to the appointment of an 'acting judge'. Therefore, only two of the listed circumstances are correct for appointing an 'additional judge'.

Question 16

With reference to the financial independence of a High Court, consider the following statements:
1. The salaries and allowances of the judges of a High Court are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.
2. The pension of a retired High Court judge is charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State.
3. The administrative expenses of a High Court are non-votable by the state legislature.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. Statement 1 is incorrect; the salaries and allowances of High Court judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, not India. Statement 2 is incorrect; the pension of a High Court judge is charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, not the state. Statement 3 is correct; expenses charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State are non-votable by the legislature, ensuring financial autonomy.

Question 17

Consider the following statements regarding the provisions for the independence of a High Court:
1. The salaries and allowances of High Court judges cannot be changed to their disadvantage after their appointment under any circumstances.
2. The Constitution imposes an absolute prohibition on any discussion in Parliament or a state legislature regarding the conduct of High Court judges in the discharge of their duties.
3. High Court judges hold their office during the pleasure of the President of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. All three statements are incorrect. Statement 1 is wrong because salaries can be reduced during a financial emergency. Statement 2 is wrong because discussion is permitted when an impeachment motion is under consideration. Statement 3 is wrong because judges have security of tenure and do not hold office during the President's pleasure; they can only be removed through a specific impeachment-like process.

Question 18

Statement I: The judges of a High Court are provided with security of tenure and do not hold their office during the pleasure of the President.
Statement II: A judge of a High Court can be removed from office by the President only in the manner and on the grounds mentioned in the Constitution.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I is correct; High Court judges have security of tenure. Statement II is also correct and provides the precise reason for the security of tenure mentioned in Statement I. The fact that their removal is governed by a strict constitutional procedure, and not by the President's will, is what ensures their security of tenure.

Question 19

Consider the following statements about the powers and restrictions related to High Courts:
1. A retired permanent judge of a High Court is prohibited from pleading or acting in any court or before any authority in India.
2. The Chief Justice of a High Court has the authority to appoint officers and servants of the court without any interference from the executive.
3. The conditions of service for the staff of a High Court are prescribed by the state legislature.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only one. Only one statement is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect because retired judges can plead in the Supreme Court and other High Courts. Statement 2 is correct; this power is vested in the Chief Justice to ensure independence from the executive. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Chief Justice, not the state legislature, prescribes the conditions of service for the court's staff.

Question 20

Consider the following statements regarding the jurisdiction and powers of a High Court:
1. The Parliament can curtail the jurisdiction and powers of a High Court as specified in the Constitution.
2. A High Court's power to punish for its contempt is essential for maintaining its authority and dignity.
3. Both the Parliament and the state legislature can change the jurisdiction and powers of a High Court in respects other than those specified in the Constitution.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Two statements are correct. Statement 1 is incorrect; the jurisdiction and powers of a High Court, as specified in the Constitution, cannot be curtailed by either the Parliament or the state legislature. Statement 2 is correct; the contempt power is a key aspect of judicial independence. Statement 3 is correct; for matters outside the constitutional specification of jurisdiction, both Parliament and the state legislature can legislate to change the High Court's jurisdiction.

Question 21

Consider the following statements regarding the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court:
1. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court is wider in scope than that of the Supreme Court.
2. The Supreme Court can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other purpose involving an ordinary legal right.
3. The Supreme Court has ruled that the writ jurisdiction of both the High Court and the Supreme Court is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 3 only. Statement 1 is correct because the High Court can issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and 'any other purpose' (ordinary legal rights), whereas the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Statement 2 is incorrect for this same reason. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court held in the Chandra Kumar case (1997) that the writ jurisdiction of both courts is part of the Constitution's basic structure.

Question 22

Consider the following matters:
1. Disputes relating to the election of members of Parliament and state legislatures.
2. Matters of admiralty and contempt of court.
3. Enforcement of fundamental rights of citizens.
4. Original criminal cases in all High Courts.
How many of the above fall under the original jurisdiction of a High Court?

Accepted Answer

Only three. The original jurisdiction of a High Court extends to disputes relating to elections of MPs and state legislatures, matters of admiralty and contempt of court, and the enforcement of fundamental rights. However, the original criminal jurisdiction that some High Courts (Calcutta, Bombay, Madras) had before 1973 was fully abolished by the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Therefore, only the first three matters are correct.

Question 23

With reference to the appellate jurisdiction of a High Court, consider the following statements:
1. A death sentence awarded by a sessions court requires confirmation by the High Court, even if no appeal is made by the convicted person.
2. Second appeals in civil cases to the High Court can involve questions of both law and fact.
3. Appeals from the decisions of administrative tribunals lie to a division bench of the state High Court.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

2 only. Statement 2 is incorrect. Second appeals from subordinate courts to the High Court in civil cases lie only in cases involving questions of law, not questions of fact. Statement 1 is correct, as a death sentence must be confirmed by the High Court before execution. Statement 3 is also correct, as per a 1997 Supreme Court ruling, appeals from tribunals lie to the division bench of the High Court.

Question 24

Given below are two statements:
Statement I: A High Court, as a court of record, has the power to review and correct its own judgement, even though no specific power of review is conferred on it by the Constitution.
Statement II: The Constitution of India specifically confers the power of review on the Supreme Court.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II is not the correct explanation for Statement I.. Both statements are factually correct based on the provided text. A High Court's power to review its own judgement is an inherent power derived from its status as a court of record. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, is explicitly granted the power of review by the Constitution. While both statements are correct, the fact that the Supreme Court has an explicit power does not explain why the High Court has an inherent one. They are two separate facts.

Question 25

Consider the following pairs regarding the powers of a High Court:
1. Supervisory Jurisdiction : Extends to all courts and tribunals, including military courts, within its territorial jurisdiction.
2. Judicial Review : Power to examine the constitutionality of enactments of both Central and state governments.
3. Control over Subordinate Courts : Consultation by the governor for the appointment of district judges.
4. Appellate Jurisdiction : Wider than its original jurisdiction.
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only three pairs. Pair 1 is incorrect because the power of superintendence extends over all courts and tribunals *except* military courts or tribunals. Pair 2 is correct as High Courts can review laws from both the Centre and states. Pair 3 is correct as the governor consults the High Court for appointing district judges. Pair 4 is correct as the text explicitly states that a High Court is primarily a court of appeal and its appellate jurisdiction is wider than its original jurisdiction. Therefore, three pairs are correctly matched.

Question 26

Consider the following pairs:
1. Bombay High Court : Maharashtra and Goa
2. Calcutta High Court : West Bengal and Andaman and Nicobar Islands
3. Guwahati High Court : Assam, Nagaland, and Manipur
4. Madras High Court : Tamil Nadu and Lakshadweep
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched with respect to territorial jurisdiction?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is incomplete but not incorrect; the Bombay High Court's jurisdiction also includes Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. However, for UPSC purposes, it's often considered correct if the primary states are listed. Pair 2 is correct. Pair 3 is incorrect; the Guwahati High Court's jurisdiction covers Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh, not Manipur (which has its own High Court). Pair 4 is incorrect; the Madras High Court's jurisdiction covers Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, while the Kerala High Court has jurisdiction over Lakshadweep. Therefore, only pairs 1 and 2 are considered correctly matched.

Question 27

Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional provisions for High Courts:
1. Article 214 of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a common High Court for two or more states.
2. Article 222 deals with the transfer of a judge from one High Court to another.
3. Article 221 pertains to the oath or affirmation by judges of High Courts.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 3 only. Statement 1 is incorrect; Article 214 states that there shall be a High Court for each state, whereas Article 231 provides for the establishment of a common High Court for two or more states. Statement 2 is correct; Article 222 deals with the transfer of judges. Statement 3 is incorrect; Article 221 deals with the salaries of judges, while Article 219 deals with their oath or affirmation. Thus, statements 1 and 3 are not correct.

Question 28

With reference to the jurisdiction of High Courts in India, consider the following statements:
1. The Constitution explicitly allows for the establishment of a common High Court for two or more states.
2. The jurisdiction of a High Court can be extended to include any union territory.
3. The Bombay High Court, the Calcutta High Court, and the Madras High Court were all established in the same year.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. Statement 1 is correct, as per Article 231 which provides for the establishment of a common High Court for two or more states. Statement 2 is correct, as per Article 230 which allows for the extension of a High Court's jurisdiction to a union territory. Statement 3 is correct; the table shows that the Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras High Courts were all established in 1862. Therefore, all three statements are correct.

Question 29

Match the following pairs of Constitutional Articles and their subject matter:
1. Article 217 : Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court
2. Article 226 : Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court
3. Article 227 : Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
4. Article 230 : Establishment of a common High Court for two or more states
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only one pair. Pair 1 is correctly matched. Pair 2 is incorrect; Article 226 deals with the power of High Courts to issue writs, while Article 227 deals with the power of superintendence. Pair 3 is incorrect for the same reason. Pair 4 is incorrect; Article 230 deals with the extension of jurisdiction of High Courts to union territories, while Article 231 deals with the establishment of a common High Court. Therefore, only one pair is correctly matched.

Question 30

With reference to the institutional framework of High Courts, consider the following provisions:
1. Appointment of acting Chief Justice
2. Appointment of additional and acting judges
3. Appointment of retired judges at sittings of High Courts
4. Restriction on practice after being a permanent judge
How many of the above are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as per the provided list of Articles (214-232)?

Accepted Answer

All four. All four provisions are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Article 223 provides for the Appointment of an acting Chief Justice. Article 224 provides for the Appointment of additional and acting judges. Article 224A provides for the Appointment of retired judges. Article 220 provides for the Restriction on practice after being a permanent judge. Therefore, all four items are correct.

Question 31

Considering the ongoing debate on judicial appointments, analyze the following statements regarding the procedure for appointing High Court judges:
1. The Constitution of India explicitly defines the strength of each High Court, which the President must adhere to during appointments.
2. The Third Judges Case (1998) mandated that for appointing a High Court judge, the Chief Justice of India must consult a collegium of two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
3. The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it violated the basic structure by undermining judicial independence.
4. A recent Supreme Court ruling clarified that the scope of judicial review in appointments is limited to assessing 'effective consultation' and not the 'suitability' of candidates.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Statement 1 is incorrect; the Constitution does not specify the strength of a High Court and leaves it to the President's discretion based on workload. Statement 2 is correct as per the static text and the Third Judges Case. Statement 3 is correct; the current affairs text confirms the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC in the Fourth Judges Case (2015) for violating the basic structure. Statement 4 is correct, reflecting the recent ruling in the Himachal Pradesh HC case mentioned in the current affairs updates.

Question 32

In the context of the recent initiation of an in-house inquiry against a High Court judge, consider the following statements comparing the 'In-House Inquiry' mechanism with 'Constitutional Impeachment' for a High Court judge:

1. The investigative committee for an in-house inquiry comprises two Chief Justices and one judge of a High Court, whereas the committee for impeachment under the Judges Enquiry Act (1968) must include a distinguished jurist.
2. An in-house inquiry can be initiated by the Chief Justice of India based on a complaint, while an impeachment motion can only be initiated by members of Parliament.
3. The final authority to order the removal of a judge in an impeachment proceeding is the President of India, whereas in an in-house inquiry, the final authority for taking action (like advising resignation) is the Chief Justice of India.
4. Both procedures are explicitly detailed in the Constitution of India and are conducted as public proceedings to ensure transparency.

Which of the statements given above are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

4 only. Statement 4 is incorrect. The In-House Inquiry mechanism is not detailed in the Constitution; it is based on Supreme Court resolutions from 1999 and is an internal, confidential process. Constitutional Impeachment, on the other hand, is based on Articles 124(4) and 218 of the Constitution and is a public parliamentary process. Statements 1, 2, and 3 correctly differentiate between the composition of the investigative committees, the initiation process, and the final authority in both procedures.

Question 33

With reference to the recent Madras High Court ruling on the jurisdiction of its Madurai Bench, consider the following statements:
1. Article 214 of the Constitution directly provides the legal framework for establishing permanent benches of a High Court away from its principal seat.
2. The Chief Justice of a High Court has the authority to transfer a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning a statewide issue from a permanent bench to the principal seat.
3. The establishment of a new High Court bench requires a complete proposal from the State Government with the consent of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court and the Governor.
4. The recent Madras High Court judgment has permanently restricted the Madurai Bench from hearing any PILs that concern issues related to the entire state.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 1 is incorrect; Article 214 provides for a High Court for each state, but Section 51 of the States' Reorganisation Act, 1956, provides the legal basis for setting up benches. Statement 2 is correct; the current affairs article notes that the Chief Justice retains the authority to transfer cases between the principal seat and the bench. Statement 3 is correct; the article outlines this consultative process involving the State Government, Chief Justice, and Governor. Statement 4 is incorrect; the judgment did the opposite, restoring the Madurai Bench's right to hear all kinds of PILs, including statewide ones. Therefore, only two statements (2 and 3) are correct.

Question 34

In light of the recent plea to revive the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), consider the following statements:
1. The NJAC was introduced via the 99th Constitutional Amendment to replace the Collegium system, which itself was a product of judicial interpretation in the Second and Third Judges cases.
2. The Supreme Court declared the NJAC unconstitutional in the Fourth Judges case (2015) on the grounds that it excessively curtailed the absolute discretion of the executive in judicial appointments.
3. The current debate on reviving the NJAC is partly fueled by concerns over structural gaps, such as the high percentage of judicial vacancies in High Courts, which the Collegium system is perceived to have inadequately addressed.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 1 is correct as the NJAC (99th Amendment) was meant to replace the Collegium system established by the Second (1993) and Third (1998) Judges cases. Statement 3 is also correct; the current affairs article mentions high vacancy rates (33%) as a key structural gap, which is a common criticism of the Collegium system and a reason cited for reviving the NJAC. Statement 2 is incorrect. The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC because it was seen as a threat to the 'independence of the judiciary', not because it curtailed executive discretion. In fact, the pre-collegium system gave more power to the executive, and the current collegium system is designed to curtail the executive's absolute discretion.

Question 35

In the context of the Private Member's Bill on Judicial Diversity and the established principles of judicial appointments, which of the following statements is NOT correct?

1. The Bill's proposal for proportional representation could be legally challenged on grounds similar to those in the Fourth Judges Case (2015), where judicial independence was prioritized over external mandates on appointments.
2. The proposal for a 90-day timeline for notifying appointments addresses potential executive delays, an issue related to the balance of power that the collegium system originally sought to manage.
3. The Bill's attempt to legislate on judicial diversity directly contradicts the Third Judges Case (1998), which established that the sole opinion of the Chief Justice of India constitutes the 'consultation' process for High Court appointments.
4. The Bill's proposals, if enacted, would modify the appointment process that was reinstated after the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act was declared unconstitutional.

Accepted Answer

Statement 3. Statement 3 is incorrect. The Third Judges Case (1998) opined that for High Court appointments, the Chief Justice of India must consult a collegium of two senior-most Supreme Court judges. It moved away from a 'sole opinion' to a consultative collegium process. The Bill's proposals on diversity and timelines aim to reform this very collegium-based system, which was reinstated after the Fourth Judges Case struck down the NJAC.

Question 36

Consider the following statements regarding the appointment of High Court judges, in light of the existing constitutional framework and the recent Private Member's Bill:

1. Currently, the President determines the strength of a High Court after consulting the collegium, which includes the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
2. The Private Member's Bill proposes a mandatory 90-day timeline for the Central Government to notify judicial appointments, a procedure not specified in the judgments that established the collegium system.
3. The Constitution explicitly allows for the appointment of a distinguished jurist as a judge of a High Court, a provision the Bill seeks to supplement with social diversity criteria.
4. For appointing a judge to a common High Court, the President currently consults the governors of all concerned states, a practice that would remain unaffected by the Bill's diversity proposals.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Only two statements are correct. Statement 1 is incorrect because the President determines the strength of a High Court based on workload, at his discretion, not in consultation with the collegium for this purpose. Statement 3 is incorrect as the Constitution does not provide for appointing a distinguished jurist to a High Court. Statements 2 and 4 are correct. The Bill introduces a new 90-day timeline, and the existing procedure of consulting governors for common High Courts is a separate procedural aspect not targeted by the Bill's diversity mandate.

Question 37

With reference to the Private Member's Bill on Judicial Diversity and the constitutional provisions for the judiciary, consider the following pairs:

1. Proposal for Regional Benches : Article 130 of the Constitution
2. Proposal for Proportional Representation : Fourth Judges Case (2015) verdict
3. Current Collegium for HC Appointments : Third Judges Case (1998)

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched in their context?

Accepted Answer

All three pairs. All three pairs are correctly matched. Pair 1 is correct as Article 130 deals with the seat of the Supreme Court, which is the constitutional basis for the debate on regional benches. Pair 2 is correct because the Bill's proposal for mandated representation directly challenges the principle of judicial primacy in appointments, which was the core reasoning of the Supreme Court's verdict in the Fourth Judges Case when striking down the NJAC. Pair 3 is correct as the Third Judges Case (1998) defined the composition of the collegium for High Court appointments, which is the current procedure.

Question 38

Considering the 2026 Private Member's Bill on judicial diversity, how many of the following statements correctly analyze its potential impact on the existing power dynamics in judicial appointments?

1. The bill's mandate for proportional representation for SC/ST/OBCs directly challenges the consultative process established by the Third Judges Case (1998), which gives primacy to the opinion of the collegium.
2. The proposal for a 90-day timeline for the government to notify appointments aims to curtail a form of executive discretion, a principle that was already limited by the Fourth Judges Case (2015) which re-established the collegium system.
3. The introduction of a mandatory diversity quota would necessitate a constitutional amendment, similar in nature to the 99th Amendment which unsuccessfully attempted to alter the appointment process via the NJAC.

Accepted Answer

All three. All three statements are correct. Statement 1 is correct because the bill imposes a new, rigid criterion (proportional representation) on the collegium's selection process, altering the nature of their 'consultation'. Statement 2 is correct because while the Fourth Judges Case curtailed the executive's absolute discretion in appointments, the bill's 90-day timeline specifically targets and further limits the executive's ability to use procedural delays. Statement 3 is correct because changing the fundamental criteria for judicial appointments, currently governed by the collegium system (as interpreted by the Supreme Court), would require a constitutional amendment, just as the attempt to introduce the NJAC did.

Question 39

In the context of the Private Member's Bill on judicial diversity and the established procedures for High Court appointments, which of the following statements is NOT correct?

1. For the appointment of a High Court judge, the President is required to consult the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the state, and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.
2. The Third Judges Case (1998) clarified that for High Court appointments, the Chief Justice of India's opinion must be formed after consulting a collegium of two senior-most Supreme Court judges.
3. The proposed Private Member's Bill seeks to make the appointment of a 'distinguished jurist' as a High Court judge mandatory to enhance diversity, a provision currently absent in the Constitution for High Courts.
4. The bill's proposal for a 90-day notification timeline for appointments addresses a procedural gap concerning executive delays that is not explicitly covered by existing constitutional articles or the judgments in the Judges Cases.

Accepted Answer

Statement 3. Statement 3 is incorrect. The Private Member's Bill focuses on ensuring social diversity through proportional representation for SCs, STs, OBCs, women, and minorities. It does not propose making the 'distinguished jurist' category, which is available for Supreme Court appointments but not for High Courts, a mandatory feature for High Court appointments. The other statements accurately reflect the current procedures and the bill's intent.

Question 40

Match the constitutional provisions and judicial precedents from List-I with their corresponding principles or proposals from List-II, in light of the recent discussions on judicial reforms.

List-I (Provision/Judgment)
1. Article 130 of the Constitution
2. Fourth Judges Case (2015)
3. Third Judges Case (1998)
4. Proposed Private Member's Bill (2026)

List-II (Core Principle/Proposal)
A. Mandates proportional representation for marginalized communities in higher judiciary.
B. Affirmed the collegium system as essential for the independence of the judiciary by striking down the NJAC Act.
C. Provides the Chief Justice of India, with Presidential approval, the power to establish the seat of the Supreme Court outside Delhi.
D. Expanded the 'consultation' process for High Court appointments to include a collegium of two senior-most SC judges.

Accepted Answer

1-C, 2-B, 3-D, 4-A. The correct matches are: 1-C: Article 130 deals with the seat of the Supreme Court, relevant to the bill's proposal for regional benches. 2-B: The Fourth Judges Case (2015) famously struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act, restoring the collegium system. 3-D: The Third Judges Case (1998) specified that for HC appointments, the CJI must consult a collegium of two senior-most SC judges. 4-A: The Private Member's Bill (2026) is the source of the proposal for mandatory proportional representation to ensure social diversity.

High Court

Unlock All Questions