The High Court Archives

1. Which one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India provi

Which one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India provides for the appointment of a retired High Court judge to sit and act as a judge of a High Court ?

Article 222A

Article 224A

Article 226A

Article 228A

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

Article 224A of the Constitution of India provides for the appointment of retired judges at sittings of High Courts. It states that the Chief Justice of a High Court for any State may at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request any person who has held the office of a Judge of that Court or of any other High Court to sit and act as a Judge of the High Court for that State.

This provision allows for the temporary engagement of retired High Court judges to help clear backlog or assist with judicial work when needed, ensuring the efficient functioning of the High Court.

Article 224A was inserted by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. This is distinct from the appointment of additional and acting judges (Article 224), who are appointed for a specific period to address temporary increases in the business of the High Court or absence of a judge.

2. What is the total number of writs which High Courts can issue ?

What is the total number of writs which High Courts can issue ?

This question was previously asked in

UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2021-22

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B) 5.

The High Courts in India are empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs. The traditional types of writs that can be issued are five: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto. These writs are powerful instruments for the enforcement of fundamental rights and also for other legal rights.

The Supreme Court, under Article 32, can also issue these five writs, but only for the enforcement of fundamental rights. High Courts have a wider writ jurisdiction as they can issue these writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for ‘any other purpose’, which includes the enforcement of ordinary legal rights.

3. Consider the following statements: A High Court requires prior approva

Consider the following statements:
A High Court requires prior approval of the Governor while making certain rules

settling tables of fee to advocates and pleaders practising before district courts
calling returns from district courts
which include rules for super-intendence of the district courts

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

1 only

1 and 2

2 only

This question was previously asked in

UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2019-20

Download PDF Attempt Online

Based on the constitutional provisions (Article 227(3) and Article 235), the High Court’s rules for regulating the practice and proceedings of subordinate courts, prescribing forms, settling fees, and for general administrative control and superintendence require the previous approval of the Governor of the state. Statements 1 and 2 describe types of rules that fall under this requirement. Rules for settling tables of fee (1) are explicitly mentioned in Article 227(3). Rules for calling returns (2) fall under the administrative superintendence/control power (Article 235 read with Article 227), which requires rules made by the High Court to be approved by the Governor. Statement 3, referring to “rules for super-intendence”, is a broad category that also requires approval. However, given the provided options, option B (1 and 2) is the most plausible intended answer, although constitutionally, rules for superintendence (3) also require approval, indicating a potential flaw in the question or options.

– Article 227(3) provides that rules made by the High Court for regulating practice and proceedings, prescribing forms, and settling fees for subordinate courts require the Governor’s approval. Statement 1 (settling fees) is explicitly covered.
– Rules made by the High Court under Article 235 for the administrative control of subordinate courts (which would include rules for administrative procedures like calling returns, Statement 2) also require the Governor’s approval.
– Rules for general superintendence (Statement 3), encompassing both administrative and procedural aspects, also require approval under Article 227 and 235.
– All three statements describe types of rules requiring Governor’s approval. Since “1, 2 and 3” is not an option, and options B (1 and 2) and D (3) are mutually exclusive and incomplete, there appears to be an error in the question or options. Assuming the question intends to distinguish between specific examples (1 and 2) and the general power (3), and forcing a choice from the provided options, B (1 and 2) might be the intended answer, focusing on specific aspects rather than the broad category, though this is legally contestable.

Article 227 empowers the High Court with superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Article 235 gives the High Court control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto, including posting, promotion, and leave, as well as disciplinary matters. Rules for the efficient functioning and administration of subordinate courts are made by the High Court, but require Governor’s assent.

4. Who among the following can apply to the High Court to set aside a dec

Who among the following can apply to the High Court to set aside a declaration of State Government under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to forfeit any newspaper?

Editor of the newspaper

Publishing house of the newspaper

Any employee of the newspaper

Any person having any interest in that newspaper

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 95(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 explicitly states that “Any person having any interest in any such newspaper, book or document” in respect of which a declaration of forfeiture has been made under Section 95(1) may apply to the High Court to set aside such declaration. This wording encompasses individuals or entities with a proprietary, financial, or other significant legal interest in the publication.

– Section 95 of CrPC allows the State Government to declare certain publications forfeited for containing seditious matter or matter promoting enmity between different groups, etc.
– Section 95(2) provides a legal remedy for challenging this forfeiture order in the High Court.
– The right to apply is granted to “Any person having any interest” in the publication.
– This includes the editor, publisher, owner, or anyone else with a direct stake in the newspaper or publication.

This provision serves as a safeguard against arbitrary state action by allowing affected parties to seek judicial review of the forfeiture order. The High Court examines the content of the publication to determine if it falls within the prohibited categories.

5. Which among the following statements regarding the powers of the High

Which among the following statements regarding the powers of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not correct ?

It can issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, and prohibition.

Writs can be issued to enforce any rights conferred by Part-III and for any other purpose.

This power can derogate the power conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 32(2).

Writ can be issued to any authority under its jurisdiction.

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2023

Download PDF Attempt Online

Statement C is incorrect. The power of the High Courts under Article 226 to issue writs is very wide and co-extensive with that of the Supreme Court under Article 32 in matters of fundamental rights, but it also extends to the enforcement of any other legal right, unlike Article 32 which is limited to fundamental rights. However, the High Court’s power under Article 226 does *not* derogate (lessen or diminish) the power conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 32(2). Recourse under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right, and it cannot be taken away or diluted by the existence of a parallel power under Article 226. Both powers exist independently, and the aggrieved person can approach either the High Court or the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights, although typically the High Court is approached first.

Article 226 grants High Courts extensive writ jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights and other legal rights. This power is a constitutional power parallel to Article 32, but it cannot negate or reduce the scope and force of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 32 to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.

Statements A, B, and D correctly describe aspects of the High Court’s power under Article 226: they can issue the specified writs (A), for fundamental and other legal rights (B), against authorities within their territorial jurisdiction (D). The High Court’s power is discretionary compared to the mandatory nature of Article 32 when a fundamental right is violated.

6. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the appointment of

Which one of the following is correct in respect of the appointment of District Judges?

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.

They are appointed by the President of India on the advice of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.

They are appointed by the Governor in consultation with the High Court of the concerned State.

They are appointed by the Supreme Court on the advice of the concerned High Court.

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is C. The appointment of District Judges in India is made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.

– Article 233 of the Constitution of India deals with the appointment of District Judges.
– It explicitly states that appointments, postings, and promotion of persons to be and district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.

– The recruitment of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State is also regulated by the Governor of the State in accordance with rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State (Article 234).
– The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto, including the posting, promotion, and grant of leave to persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of a district judge, is vested in the High Court (Article 235).

7. The President of India has recently given approval to establish separa

The President of India has recently given approval to establish separate High Courts in three of the North-Eastern States of India. Which one among the following is not among them?

Arunachal Pradesh

Manipur

Meghalaya

Tripura

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2012

Download PDF Attempt Online

In 2013, separate High Courts were established for the North-Eastern states of Meghalaya, Manipur, and Tripura. Prior to this, these states were under the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court (which covers Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh). Therefore, Arunachal Pradesh was not among the three states that received a separate High Court in this move; it continues to be under the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court.

High Courts are established for states or groups of states in India. Several North-Eastern states historically shared the Gauhati High Court due to geographical and logistical reasons.

The creation of separate High Courts for Meghalaya, Manipur, and Tripura fulfilled a long-standing demand and aimed at improving the administration of justice in these states. Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh continue to have benches of the Gauhati High Court.

8. Public Interest Litigation falls within the jurisdiction of the High C

Public Interest Litigation falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court provided certain conditions are fulfilled. Which one among the following conditions is not accepted by the courts?

Public is interested in vindication of some rights

Enforcement of public duty

Courts can examine previous records of public servants

Personal injury or loss is an essential element

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2012

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is D) Personal injury or loss is an essential element.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a mechanism allowing any public-spirited citizen or organization to file a petition in a high court or the Supreme Court on behalf of a group of persons or the public at large whose rights are affected by action or inaction of the government or public authorities. Unlike traditional litigation where the aggrieved party files the suit, in PIL, the petitioner does not necessarily have a direct personal injury or loss; they represent the public interest.

PIL aims at the vindication of some rights of the public (A), enforcement of public duty (B), and can involve courts examining executive actions, which might indirectly involve examining previous records (C). The key characteristic that distinguishes PIL from traditional litigation is the relaxation of the locus standi rule, meaning personal injury or loss is *not* an essential element for the petitioner to file the case.

9. A common High Court for two or more states can be established by

A common High Court for two or more states can be established by

a law passed by the Parliament

an order of the Supreme Court of India

an order of the President of India

an amendment to the Constitution of India

This question was previously asked in

UPSC NDA-2 – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is (A) a law passed by the Parliament.

According to Article 231 of the Constitution of India, Parliament may by law constitute a High Court for two or more States or for two or more States and a Union territory.

While the President of India appoints the judges and determines the strength of a High Court, the establishment of a common High Court for multiple states is a legislative power vested solely with the Parliament. The President can establish a High Court for a Union Territory under Article 241, but the power for a common High Court for states is explicitly with the Parliament through law.

10. Which one of the following statements is not correct?

Which one of the following statements is not correct?

Allahabad High Court has a Bench at Lucknow.

Madhya Pradesh High Court has a Bench at Gwalior.

Rajasthan High Court is located at Jodhpur.

Guwahati High Court has no Bench.

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CDS-2 – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

The Guwahati High Court is the High Court for the states of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh. It has its principal seat at Guwahati, Assam, and has permanent Benches at Kohima (Nagaland), Aizawl (Mizoram), and Itanagar (Arunachal Pradesh). Therefore, the statement that Guwahati High Court has no Bench is incorrect.

High Courts in India often have Benches in cities other than their principal seat to cater to different regions within their jurisdiction.

Allahabad High Court has a permanent Bench at Lucknow. Madhya Pradesh High Court has permanent Benches at Gwalior and Indore. Rajasthan High Court has its principal seat at Jodhpur and a permanent Bench at Jaipur.