Examkin

Indian Judiciary: Supreme Court, High Courts, Judicial Review, and PIL

32 questions

All types32Multiple choice17Multiple select7Matching8
Question 1Question →

Consider the following statements regarding the jurisdictional powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts under the Constitution of India:

1. Both the Supreme Court and High Courts possess the power of judicial review to examine and strike down a constitutional amendment if it violates the basic structure of the Constitution.
2. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is a Fundamental Right in itself, whereas the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 is wider in scope as it extends to the enforcement of non-fundamental legal rights.
3. The Supreme Court's plenary jurisdiction under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) is limited strictly to final judgments of High Courts and cannot be invoked against interlocutory orders or decisions of statutory tribunals.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 1 and 2 only

Answer

Statements 1 and 2 are correct, while statement 3 is incorrect. Therefore, the option stating '1 and 2 only' is the correct choice.
The option stating '1 and 2 only' is correct because both statements 1 and 2 correctly formulate constitutional law. High Courts (Art 226) and the Supreme Court (Art 32) both hold judicial review powers over constitutional amendments under the Basic Structure doctrine. Article 32 is restricted to Fundamental Rights, whereas Article 226 extends to ordinary legal rights ('any other purpose'). Statement 3 is false because Article 136 explicitly allows special leave against any determination or order (interlocutory or final) of any tribunal or court, except military tribunals.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Statement 1 regarding Judicial Review of constitutional amendments by Supreme Court and High Courts.
Statement 1 is correct. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and L. Chandra Kumar (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Both High Courts and the Supreme Court can examine whether a constitutional amendment violates the basic structure.
Judicial review is a basic feature granted to Constitutional Courts (SC and HCs).
2
Analyze Statement 2 comparing writ jurisdiction scope under Article 32 and Article 226.
Statement 2 is correct. Article 32 is guaranteed under Part III and can be invoked ONLY for enforcing Fundamental Rights. Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs for enforcing Fundamental Rights as well as 'for any other purpose' (ordinary legal rights), making HC writ jurisdiction wider in functional scope.
Article 32 is a fundamental right itself, while Article 226 covers wider remedial grounds.
3
Analyze Statement 3 regarding the scope of Article 136 (Special Leave Petition).
Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 136(1) states that the Supreme Court may grant special leave to appeal from 'any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal'. It is not restricted to final judgments nor only to High Courts, and covers interlocutory orders and statutory tribunals.
The text of Article 136 encompasses both final and interlocutory orders across all courts and tribunals (except armed forces tribunals under Art 136(2)).

Key Concept

Constitutional Jurisdiction of Supreme Court vs. High Courts: Judicial Review, Writ Scope (Art 32 vs 226), and Special Leave Petition (Art 136)
Question 2Question →

With regard to the constitutional powers of the judiciary as a 'Court of Record' and tribunal oversight under the Constitution of India, evaluate the following statements:

Statement I: A High Court, as a court of record under Article 215, possesses inherent power to punish for contempt of itself as well as for contempt of courts subordinate to it.
Statement II: The Supreme Court's power to punish for contempt under Article 129 is limited strictly to contempt of the Supreme Court itself and cannot be extended to subordinate courts.
Statement III: The power of judicial review exercised by High Courts under Article 226 over decisions of administrative tribunals established under Article 323A forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Statements I and III only

Answer

Statements I and III only
The correct option identifies Statements I and III as true. Under Article 215, High Courts are courts of record with inherent authority to punish for contempt of both themselves and subordinate courts. Furthermore, the 7-judge bench in L. Chandra Kumar (1997) affirmed that High Court judicial review under Article 226 over tribunal decisions forms an inviolable part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Statement I regarding High Court court of record powers under Article 215.
Statement I is correct. Article 215 designates High Courts as courts of record, giving them constitutional authority to punish for contempt of themselves and subordinate courts within their territorial jurisdiction.
High Courts act as supervisory bodies over lower judicial hierarchies under Article 227 and Article 215.
2
Analyze Statement II regarding Supreme Court contempt powers under Article 129.
Statement II is incorrect. In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991), the Supreme Court affirmed that Article 129 grants plenary powers to punish for contempt of any court subordinate to it across India.
The Supreme Court, as the apex court of record, maintains judicial integrity throughout the national system.
3
Analyze Statement III regarding High Court judicial review over tribunals under Article 323A.
Statement III is correct. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), a Constitution Bench ruled that judicial review under Article 226/227 over administrative tribunals is part of the basic structure.
Exclusion of High Court jurisdiction under Article 323A was declared unconstitutional as judicial review cannot be completely abrogated.

Key Concept

Court of Record powers (Articles 129 and 215) and Basic Structure doctrine regarding Judicial Review over Tribunals (L. Chandra Kumar case)
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 3Question →

Match the Constitutional Articles relating to the Indian Judiciary in List-I with their exact Jurisdictional Scope and Legal Characteristics in List-II.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Article 131
Article 136
Article 143
Article 226

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Article 131 matches Exclusive original jurisdiction in Union-State disputes; Article 136 matches Special Leave Petition against court/tribunal orders; Article 143 matches Advisory jurisdiction upon Presidential reference; Article 226 matches High Court writ jurisdiction for Fundamental Rights and other legal purposes.
The correct pairings accurately map each Constitutional Article to its precise jurisdiction: Article 131 specifies the Supreme Court's exclusive original jurisdiction over Union-State and inter-State disputes involving legal rights; Article 136 confers plenary discretionary authority to grant special leave to appeal against judgments of any court or tribunal except military tribunals; Article 143 governs the Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction on Presidential references; and Article 226 provides High Courts with broad writ power covering both Fundamental Rights and ordinary legal rights.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Examine Article 131 of the Constitution of India.
Identified as exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Article 131 applies exclusively to federal disputes involving legal questions between the Union government and State governments or between different States.
2
Examine Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Identified as the plenary discretionary jurisdiction for Special Leave Petitions.
Article 136 permits the Supreme Court to hear appeals by special leave from any judicial or quasi-judicial body in India, excluding military tribunals.
3
Examine Article 143 of the Constitution of India.
Identified as advisory jurisdiction.
Article 143 enables the President of India to refer matters of law or fact of general public importance to the Supreme Court for advisory opinions.
4
Examine Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Identified as writ jurisdiction of the High Courts.
Article 226 grants High Courts the authority to issue writs not only for enforcing Fundamental Rights (Part III) but also for 'any other purpose' (statutory or legal rights).

Key Concept

Constitutional provisions governing the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts of India.
Question 4Question →

Under the Constitution of India, which Article empowers the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other legal purpose?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Article 226

Answer

Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other legal purpose.
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution grants High Courts broad writ jurisdiction to issue writs such as Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo-Warranto, and Certiorari for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the constitutional provision governing High Court writ powers.
Article 226 explicitly grants High Courts the power to issue directions, orders, or writs.
Unlike Article 32 which is restricted to Fundamental Rights for the Supreme Court, Article 226 includes 'any other purpose'.

Key Concept

Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226
Estimated Time:45s
Question 5Question →

Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts in India:

1. The writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 is broader in scope than that of the Supreme Court under Article 32 because High Courts can issue writs for both the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other ordinary legal purpose.
2. The advisory opinion tendered by the Supreme Court to the President under Article 143 is binding on the President and carries the weight of a judicial decree.
3. The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a guaranteed Fundamental Right in Part III, whereas approaching a High Court under Article 226 is a constitutional right but not a Fundamental Right.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 1 and 3 only

Answer

The correct combination is '1 and 3 only'. Statement 1 is correct because Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights and 'any other purpose' (ordinary legal rights), whereas Article 32 restricts the Supreme Court's writ power strictly to Fundamental Rights. Statement 3 is correct because Article 32 is located in Part III of the Constitution, making remedy through the Apex Court a Fundamental Right itself, unlike Article 226. Statement 2 is incorrect because advisory opinions under Article 143 are purely consultative and non-binding.
Statements 1 and 3 are constitutionally accurate. Under Article 226, High Courts can issue writs for fundamental rights as well as ordinary legal rights, giving them broader subject-matter writ jurisdiction than the Supreme Court under Article 32. Furthermore, Article 32 is guaranteed as a Fundamental Right within Part III, whereas Article 226 is a constitutional provision outside Part III. Statement 2 is false because Article 143 advisory opinions are consultative and non-binding.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Evaluate Statement 1 regarding Article 226 vs Article 32 writ scope.
Statement 1 is verified as CORRECT.
Article 32 can be invoked exclusively for enforcing Fundamental Rights, whereas Article 226 covers Fundamental Rights as well as ordinary legal/statutory rights ('for any other purpose').
2
Evaluate Statement 2 regarding advisory jurisdiction under Article 143.
Statement 2 is verified as INCORRECT.
An advisory opinion given by the Supreme Court under Article 143 is purely advisory and consultative in nature; it does not constitute a judicial order or binding decision on the President.
3
Evaluate Statement 3 regarding constitutional status of Article 32 vs Article 226.
Statement 3 is verified as CORRECT.
Article 32 is part of Part III (Fundamental Rights), so seeking remedy via Article 32 is guaranteed as a Fundamental Right. Article 226 resides in Part VI and is a constitutional right, but not a Fundamental Right.

Key Concept

Writ Jurisdiction (Art 32 vs 226) and Advisory Jurisdiction (Art 143) of the Indian Judiciary
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 6Question →

Match the fundamental judicial mechanisms and constitutional jurisdictions in Column I with their correct legal descriptions in Column II:

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Public Interest Litigation
Judicial Review
Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Public Interest Litigation matches the relaxation of traditional locus standi; Judicial Review matches the judicial power to invalidate unconstitutional acts; Original Jurisdiction matches exclusive inter-governmental dispute settlement; Advisory Jurisdiction matches presidential consultative references.
The pairing accurately links each judicial concept to its functional scope under the Indian Constitution: Public Interest Litigation concerns relaxed locus standi, Judicial Review pertains to checking legislative/executive constitutional validity, Original Jurisdiction governs exclusive federal dispute resolution, and Advisory Jurisdiction covers consultative presidential guidance.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
PIL allows any public-spirited individual to approach the court for the redressal of public wrongs, broadening standing rights.
It expands access to justice beyond aggrieved individuals.
2
Define Judicial Review
Judicial Review is the court's prerogative to scrutinize legislative statutes and executive actions against constitutional standards.
It upholds the principle of constitutional supremacy.
3
Analyze Original Jurisdiction
Original Jurisdiction gives the Supreme Court sole authority to resolve inter-state or federal disputes in the first instance.
It serves as the constitutional federal court of original instance.
4
Analyze Advisory Jurisdiction
Advisory Jurisdiction provides formal legal guidance to the President of India on matters of law or fact.
It fulfills a consultative role under Article 143.

Key Concept

Jurisdictions and Judicial Powers under the Indian Constitution
Question 7Question →

In the legal system of India, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) relaxed the traditional doctrine of 'locus standi'. Which of the following statements best describes the relaxed rule of locus standi as applied in PIL cases?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Any public-spirited citizen or organization can approach the court on behalf of disadvantaged individuals who cannot seek legal remedies themselves.

Answer

Any public-spirited citizen or organization can approach the court on behalf of disadvantaged individuals who cannot seek legal remedies themselves.
The key feature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India is the relaxation of the traditional doctrine of 'locus standi'. Under PIL, any public-spirited individual, social activist, or non-governmental organization can file a writ petition under Article 32 (Supreme Court) or Article 226 (High Court) for the protection of constitutional rights of disadvantaged groups who cannot approach the court on their own.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Recall the traditional concept of 'locus standi'
Traditionally, 'locus standi' (right to stand) meant that only a person whose legal or fundamental right was directly violated could move the court for redressal.
Understanding the baseline rule is essential before examining how PIL modified it.
2
Analyze the relaxation introduced through Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
The Supreme Court of India broadened judicial access by allowing third parties, public-spirited citizens, or NGOs to file petitions for marginalized sections of society who are unable to access justice themselves.
This relaxation ensures constitutional rights are reachable for vulnerable and underprivileged populations.

Key Concept

Relaxation of Locus Standi in Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Question 8Question →

Regarding Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and the scope of judicial review in the Indian constitutional framework, which of the following statements are correct?

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Public Interest Litigation allows the Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 to relax the strict doctrine of locus standi to protect public interest or the rights of marginalized groups.; Judicial review of constitutional amendments and legislative enactments is recognized as an unalterable basic feature of the Indian Constitution.

Answer

The correct statements are that Public Interest Litigation relaxes the traditional rule of locus standi for public interest causes under Articles 32 and 226, and that judicial review forms part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
The relaxation of locus standi in PIL cases allows public-spirited citizens to file writs under Article 32 and Article 226 on behalf of oppressed individuals. Additionally, the power of judicial review is an integral component of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze locus standi in PIL jurisdiction under Article 32 and Article 226
Confirm that PIL permits any public-spirited individual to approach the court on behalf of disadvantaged citizens who cannot enforce their own rights, effectively relaxing locus standi.
Procedural flexibility is essential to ensure access to constitutional remedies for socio-economically marginalized sections.
2
Evaluate the legal nature of Special Leave Petition under Article 136
Determine that Article 136 is a residual, discretionary constitutional power of the Supreme Court, not a statutory right of appeal for litigants.
Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on any party; it grants broad discretion to the apex court to interfere in extraordinary situations to prevent grave injustice.
3
Assess the status of Judicial Review under the Basic Structure Doctrine
Confirm that judicial review is a fundamental constitutional feature that cannot be damaged or destroyed by any constitutional amendment under Article 368.
Judicial review safeguards constitutional supremacy and preserves the rule of law.
4
Compare the scope of writ jurisdictions under Article 32 and Article 226
Identify that Article 226 permits writ issuance for fundamental rights and ordinary legal rights ('for any other purpose'), making High Court writ powers broader than the Supreme Court's Article 32 power.
Article 32 is strictly limited to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III.

Key Concept

Judicial Review, Locus Standi in PIL, Article 136 Discretionary Power, and Comparative Scope of Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32 vs Article 226)
Question 9Question →

Which of the following statements regarding the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts under the Constitution of India are correct?

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.; A High Court can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other legal purpose.; Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right, whereas Article 226 is not a Fundamental Right.

Answer

The statements stating that the Supreme Court can issue writs only for Fundamental Rights, that High Courts can issue writs for Fundamental Rights as well as any other legal purpose, and that Article 32 itself is a Fundamental Right while Article 226 is not, are all correct.
The Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 32 is limited to enforcing Fundamental Rights, and Article 32 itself resides in Part III as a Fundamental Right. Conversely, High Courts under Article 226 have a broader subject-matter scope to issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and any other legal rights, though Article 226 itself is not a Fundamental Right.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the constitutional mandate of Article 32 for the Supreme Court.
Article 32 is in Part III of the Constitution, making the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights itself a Fundamental Right. The Supreme Court cannot issue writs for ordinary legal rights under Article 32.
The scope of Article 32 is restricted to remedies for enforcement of Part III rights.
2
Analyze the constitutional mandate of Article 226 for High Courts.
Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights and 'for any other purpose', covering statutory and legal rights.
The phrase 'for any other purpose' broadens the remedial scope of High Courts beyond that of the Supreme Court.
3
Compare the scope of writ jurisdictions between Supreme Court and High Courts.
High Court writ jurisdiction is broader in legal scope than Supreme Court writ jurisdiction, though the Supreme Court's territorial jurisdiction spans all of India.
Supreme Court writ powers are confined to Fundamental Rights, whereas High Courts cover both Fundamental Rights and common legal rights.

Key Concept

Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court (Article 32) versus High Courts (Article 226)
Question 10Question →

Regarding the exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Article 131 of the Constitution, which of the following legal propositions accurately reflects its constitutional scope and judicial limitations?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: It is strictly confined to legal rights disputes between the constituent units of the Indian federation and does not extend to suits brought by private citizens or statutory public corporations.

Answer

The exclusive original jurisdiction under Article 131 is strictly confined to legal rights disputes between the constituent federal units (Union and States) and does not extend to suits brought by private citizens or statutory public corporations.
Article 131 of the Constitution endows the Supreme Court with exclusive original jurisdiction in disputes between federal units—the Union and States or among States—concerning legal rights. Judicial interpretation strictly limits 'State' to constituent governments of the federation, excluding statutory corporations, autonomous bodies, and private citizens.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Examine the requisite parties and subject matter for invoking Article 131.
Article 131 requires a dispute between the Government of India and one or more States, or between two or more States, centered on a question of legal right.
This establishes Article 131 as an exclusive federal forum for intergovernmental legal disputes.
2
Analyze judicial interpretation regarding the definition of 'State' under Article 131.
The Supreme Court ruled in landmark decisions (e.g., State of Bihar v. Union of India) that statutory corporations and private individuals do not constitute a 'State' for Article 131 suits.
Non-state entities must seek legal remedies through standard civil suits or writ petitions under Article 32 or Article 226.
3
Identify express constitutional exclusions under the proviso to Article 131.
Disputes arising from pre-constitutional treaties, covenants, engagements, or sanads are explicitly barred from the original jurisdiction of the Court.
Such historical disputes are reserved for executive resolution or advisory references under Article 143.

Key Concept

Scope and federal limitations of Supreme Court's Original Jurisdiction under Article 131
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 11Question →

Under the Constitution of India, which article explicitly grants every High Court the power of superintendence over all subordinate courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Article 227

Answer

Article 227 grants every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction.
Article 227 of the Constitution of India explicitly provides that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This encompasses both administrative supervision and judicial oversight.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the targeted judicial power in the stem
The requirement is to identify the constitutional provision for a High Court's superintendence over subordinate courts and tribunals.
The Indian Constitution specifies separate articles for writ powers, appellate provisions, and supervisory administrative control.
2
Evaluate the constitutional articles
Article 227 specifically deals with the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals by the High Court.
This power extends both judicially and administratively over bodies operating within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.

Key Concept

High Court Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227
Question 12Question →

Match the given Constitutional Articles concerning the Supreme Court of India with their corresponding structural mandates:

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Article 137
Article 141
Article 142
Article 144

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Article 137 matches with the power of review; Article 141 matches with binding precedent across all courts; Article 142 matches with the mandate to pass decrees for doing complete justice; and Article 144 matches with the constitutional directive that civil and judicial authorities act in aid of the Supreme Court.
The pairing accurately reflects the specific constitutional mandates: Article 137 grants review powers over Supreme Court judgments; Article 141 codifies the binding nature of Supreme Court law across all Indian courts; Article 142 supplies plenary power to achieve complete justice; and Article 144 obligates all civil and judicial authorities to support and enforce Supreme Court rulings.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Article 137
Identified as the constitutional provision authorizing the Supreme Court to review its own judgments and orders.
This establishes a specific exception to the general doctrine of finality of judicial decisions.
2
Analyze Article 141
Identified as the provision declaring Supreme Court decisions as binding precedent on all courts in India.
This serves as the core foundation of judicial consistency and judicial federalism in India.
3
Analyze Article 142
Identified as conferring inherent powers to do 'complete justice'.
This article provides plenary equitable jurisdiction that can transcend technical statutory limitations when fundamental rights or constitutional values are at stake.
4
Analyze Article 144
Identified as the mandatory instruction to civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the court.
This ensures executive and judicial machinery across all state and central departments enforce Supreme Court judgments.

Key Concept

Constitutional Powers and Jurisdictional Mandates of the Supreme Court of India
Question 13Question →

Match the following constitutional writs issued by the Indian Judiciary under Articles 32 and 226 with their respective literal Latin meanings:

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Habeas Corpus
Mandamus
Prohibition
Quo-Warranto

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Habeas Corpus pairs with 'To have the body of', Mandamus pairs with 'We command', Prohibition pairs with 'To forbid', and Quo-Warranto pairs with 'By what authority or warrant'.
Each writ originates from English common law and possesses an exact Latin translation: Habeas Corpus means 'To have the body of', Mandamus means 'We command', Prohibition means 'To forbid', and Quo-Warranto means 'By what authority or warrant'.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the literal Latin meaning of Habeas Corpus.
Habeas Corpus means 'To have the body of'.
It is an order produced to bring a detained person before the court.
2
Identify the literal Latin meaning of Mandamus.
Mandamus means 'We command'.
It commands a public official to execute a legal or constitutional obligation.
3
Identify the literal Latin meaning of Prohibition.
Prohibition means 'To forbid'.
It stops lower judicial or quasi-judicial bodies from taking up matters outside their jurisdiction.
4
Identify the literal Latin meaning of Quo-Warranto.
Quo-Warranto means 'By what authority or warrant'.
It prevents illegal usurpation of a public office by challenging the holder's authority.

Key Concept

Literal meanings and definitions of Writs under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India
Estimated Time:45s
Question 14Question →

Under the Constitution of India, the President may seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on a question of law or fact of public importance under which of the following provisions?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Article 143

Answer

Article 143
Article 143 of the Constitution of India explicitly empowers the President of India to consult the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact that are of public importance or relate to pre-constitution disputes.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the specific constitutional power being inquired about in the question.
The core requirement is identifying the constitutional provision that grants the President the right to seek advisory opinion from the Supreme Court.
The President relies on constitutional authorization to seek non-binding legal opinions from the apex court.
2
Recall the relevant article governing Advisory Jurisdiction under Part V of the Constitution.
Article 143 specifically deals with the power of the President to consult the Supreme Court.
Article 143 enables presidential references on questions of law/fact of public importance or pre-constitution treaties.

Key Concept

Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 143
Question 15Question →

With reference to the constitutional framework and statutory provisions governing the removal of a High Court Judge in India, which of the following statements are correct?

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: A High Court judge can only be removed from office by an order of the President on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, following the same procedure prescribed for a Supreme Court judge.; Upon admission of a removal motion, the investigation into the charges is conducted by a statutory three-member committee consisting of a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist.

Answer

The correct statements are that a High Court judge is removed following the same procedure and grounds as a Supreme Court judge, and that the statutory investigation upon admission of the removal motion is conducted by a three-member committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist.
The removal mechanism for High Court judges is constitutionally anchored in Article 217(1) proviso (b), which mandates identical grounds and procedure as Article 124(4) for Supreme Court judges. Furthermore, the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 prescribes that upon admission of a removal notice, a statutory three-member panel comprising a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist must investigate the charges.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Examine the constitutional relationship between High Court and Supreme Court judge removal procedures.
Article 217(1) proviso (b) explicitly links the removal of a High Court judge to Article 124(4), establishing identical grounds ('proved misbehaviour or incapacity') and identical procedure.
Constitutional provisions guarantee judicial independence by ensuring uniform removal security across higher judiciary.
2
Analyze the statutory procedure under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 regarding motion admission and investigation committee composition.
The Presiding Officer of the House has the legal discretion to accept or reject the motion. If admitted, a 3-member committee (Supreme Court judge, High Court Chief Justice, and distinguished jurist) investigates the charges.
Parliamentary statutory procedure regulates the investigation details prior to voting on the address.
3
Evaluate the requirement of parliamentary address and executive power limits.
The President cannot act on Collegium recommendations for removal; an address passed by special majorities in both Houses of Parliament during the same session is an indispensable constitutional prerequisite.
Executive interference in judicial removal is prohibited to preserve separation of powers.

Key Concept

Constitutional and statutory framework for the removal of higher judiciary judges under Article 124(4), Article 217, and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Question 16Question →

Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional jurisdiction and scope of writs under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India:

1. The Supreme Court cannot refuse to entertain an application under Article 32 on the ground that an alternative legal remedy is available, because the right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a guaranteed Fundamental Right.
2. The High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is wider in subject-matter scope than that of the Supreme Court under Article 32.
3. The judicial review power of High Courts to issue writs under Article 226 forms an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be excluded even by a constitutional amendment.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 1, 2 and 3

Answer

Statements 1, 2, and 3 are all correct.
All three statements are constitutionally sound. Statement 1 is correct because Article 32 is itself a guaranteed fundamental right, meaning the Supreme Court cannot deny relief on the grounds of alternative remedies. Statement 2 is correct because High Courts can issue writs for both fundamental rights and legal rights ('for any other purpose'). Statement 3 is correct as the 7-judge bench in L. Chandra Kumar (1997) declared judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 to be part of the unamendable basic structure of the Constitution.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Evaluate Statement 1 regarding Article 32 status
Statement 1 is correct. Article 32 is enshrined in Part III of the Constitution as a Fundamental Right. Therefore, accessing the Supreme Court under Article 32 is a constitutional duty of the court, and an alternative remedy cannot be a bar to entertaining the petition.
Article 32 provides a guaranteed remedy, whereas High Court writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary.
2
Evaluate Statement 2 regarding subject-matter scope of Articles 32 and 226
Statement 2 is correct. Article 32 can be invoked exclusively for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, whereas Article 226 can be invoked for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as 'for any other purpose' (ordinary legal rights). Thus, the subject-matter scope of High Courts is wider.
The phrase 'for any other purpose' expands Article 226 beyond Fundamental Rights.
3
Evaluate Statement 3 regarding basic structure doctrine and Article 226
Statement 3 is correct. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), a 7-judge Constitution Bench held that the power of judicial review over legislative actions vested in High Courts under Article 226 (and Supreme Court under Article 32) forms an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Constitutional amendments excluding judicial review under Article 226 are unconstitutional.

Key Concept

Writ Jurisdiction and Basic Structure Doctrine (Articles 32 & 226)
Question 17Question →

Match the following judicial instruments and doctrines of the Indian Judiciary listed in List-I with their corresponding legal principles or landmark origins in List-II:

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Writ of Quo-Warranto
Writ of Certiorari
Relaxation of Locus Standi
Curative Petition

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The correct matches are: Writ of Quo-Warranto matches with the inquiry into the legality of a person's claim to a public office; Writ of Certiorari matches with quashing an order passed in excess of jurisdiction; Relaxation of Locus Standi matches with formalization in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981); and Curative Petition matches with evolution in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002).
The matching correctly pairs each judicial instrument with its foundational definition or landmark legal source. Quo-Warranto scrutinizes public office holdings, Certiorari quashes jurisdictional excesses, PIL locus standi relaxation originates from the landmark S.P. Gupta case, and Curative Petitions stem from Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the nature of the Writ of Quo-Warranto.
Quo-Warranto directly tests the legal title of a person occupying a substantive public office, matching the description of inquiring into the claim to a public office.
It prevents unauthorized occupation of public positions.
2
Analyze the nature and function of the Writ of Certiorari.
Certiorari is issued against judicial/quasi-judicial bodies to quash existing illegal orders, matching the quashing of orders issued in excess of jurisdiction.
Unlike prohibition (which stops pending proceedings), certiorari quashes completed decisions.
3
Examine the origin of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and locus standi expansion.
The traditional rule of locus standi was expanded in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) to allow third parties to litigate for public injury.
This case laid the foundational jurisprudential framework for PIL in India.
4
Identify the origin and principle behind Curative Petitions.
Curative Petitions were created in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) as a rare remedy following the dismissal of a review petition under Article 137.
It ensures complete justice under Article 142 while maintaining finality of judgments.

Key Concept

Constitutional Writs, Judicial Remedies, and Landmark Judicial Doctrines of the Indian Judiciary
Question 18Question →

Which of the following statements accurately reflects the constitutional boundary governing the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction while entertaining a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 compared to a High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The Supreme Court can entertain a PIL under Article 32 strictly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, whereas High Courts can entertain PILs under Article 226 for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as ordinary legal rights.

Answer

The Supreme Court can entertain a PIL under Article 32 strictly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, whereas High Courts can entertain PILs under Article 226 for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as ordinary legal rights.
Article 32 provides a constitutional remedy exclusively for the enforcement of Part III Fundamental Rights. Consequently, any Public Interest Litigation (PIL) moved directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32 must demonstrate an infringement of a Fundamental Right. In contrast, Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights as well as 'for any other purpose', giving High Courts a broader jurisdictional scope for enforcing ordinary legal and statutory rights via PIL.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the constitutional scope of Article 32 for the Supreme Court.
Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs solely for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution.
The language of Article 32 explicitly restricts remedies to rights conferred by Part III.
2
Analyze the constitutional scope of Article 226 for High Courts.
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs 'for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose'.
The phrase 'for any other purpose' extends High Court writ jurisdiction to non-fundamental legal and statutory rights.
3
Compare the scope of writ jurisdiction under both articles in the context of PIL.
High Court writ jurisdiction is subject-wise broader than Supreme Court writ jurisdiction, even though Supreme Court rulings carry nationwide territorial applicability under Article 141.
A PIL directly admitted in the Supreme Court must involve an alleged infringement of a Fundamental Right, whereas a High Court PIL can enforce statutory duties or legal rights.

Key Concept

Writ Jurisdiction and Constitutional Boundaries of Article 32 vs Article 226
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 19Question →

Match the Constitutional Articles related to the Indian Judiciary listed in List-I with their corresponding provisions in List-II:

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Article 129
Article 139A
Article 215
Article 233

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Article 129 matches with Supreme Court to be a court of record; Article 139A matches with Transfer of certain cases involving the same or substantially same questions of law; Article 215 matches with High Courts to be courts of record; Article 233 matches with Appointment of district judges by the Governor of the State.
Article 129 provides that the Supreme Court is a court of record. Article 139A enables the Supreme Court to transfer cases with common legal questions. Article 215 establishes High Courts as courts of record. Article 233 mandates that appointments of district judges are made by the Governor in consultation with the High Court.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Examine the constitutional provisions governing the Supreme Court in Part V of the Constitution of India.
Article 129 designates the Supreme Court as a Court of Record with contempt powers, while Article 139A grants it power to transfer cases involving common questions of law.
This establishes the status and transfer powers of the apex court.
2
Examine the constitutional provisions governing High Courts and Subordinate Courts in Part VI of the Constitution.
Article 215 designates High Courts as Courts of Record, while Article 233 governs the appointment of District Judges by the State Governor in consultation with the High Court.
This establishes the legal status of High Courts and the appointments mechanism for subordinate judiciary.
3
Pair each Article in List-I with its corresponding constitutional description in List-II.
Article 129 → Supreme Court as a court of record; Article 139A → Transfer of certain cases; Article 215 → High Courts as courts of record; Article 233 → Appointment of district judges.
The paired items accurately reflect the textual provisions of the Indian Constitution.

Key Concept

Constitutional Articles specifying status, powers, and administrative jurisdictions of Supreme Court, High Courts, and Subordinate Courts.
Estimated Time:1m 0s
Question 20Question →

Consider the following statements regarding the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Article 131 of the Constitution:

1. Disputes arising out of any pre-Constitution treaty, agreement, or covenant fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131.
2. A legal dispute between the Government of India and one or more States falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
3. The original jurisdiction under Article 131 does not extend to a dispute brought by a private citizen against the Union Government or a State Government.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 2 and 3 only

Answer

Statements 2 and 3 only are correct.
The option specifying '2 and 3 only' is correct. Under Article 131 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States, or between States inter se, provided the dispute involves any question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. This jurisdiction does not extend to private individuals or statutory entities. Furthermore, the proviso to Article 131 explicitly excludes disputes arising out of any pre-Constitution treaty, agreement, covenant, or similar instrument.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Statement 1 regarding pre-Constitution treaties.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the proviso to Article 131 explicitly excludes disputes arising out of any pre-Constitution treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, or sanad from the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Constitutional provisos place explicit exceptions on judicial jurisdiction.
2
Analyze Statement 2 regarding inter-governmental federal disputes.
Statement 2 is correct because Article 131 vests exclusive original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court for legal disputes between the Centre and one or more States, or between two or more States.
The Supreme Court acts as a federal court deciding disputes between constitutional units of the Indian federation.
3
Analyze Statement 3 regarding standing (locus standi) under Article 131.
Statement 3 is correct because Article 131 is strictly restricted to units of the federation (Union and States). Suits filed by private individuals, public sector undertakings, or statutory bodies against a government do not fall under Article 131.
Private entities must seek remedies under Article 32 or Article 226 rather than Article 131.

Key Concept

Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Article 131)
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Page 1 / 2Next
Indian Judiciary: Supreme Court, High Courts, Judicial Review, and PIL Practice Questions — State PSC Exam | Examkin