The Supreme Court

1. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 replacing the 1966 Rules, have been framed u

Supreme Court Rules, 2013 replacing the 1966 Rules, have been framed under which Article of the Constitution of India ?

Subscribe on YouTube
Article 145
Article 144
Article 143
Article 142
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The Supreme Court Rules, including the 2013 Rules which replaced the 1966 Rules, are framed under Article 145 of the Constitution of India.
– Article 145 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court, with the approval of the President, to make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court.
– These rules cover various aspects such as the persons practicing before the Court, the procedure for hearing appeals and other matters, the conditions for entertaining appeals, proceedings relating to contempt, and so on.
– The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, detail the procedural aspects for filing cases, hearings, and overall functioning of the court.
Article 142 deals with the Supreme Court’s power to enforce decrees and orders; Article 143 deals with the President’s power to consult the Supreme Court; Article 144 mandates civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court. Only Article 145 explicitly grants the rule-making power to the Supreme Court regarding its own procedure.

Join Our Telegram Channel

2. The Supreme Court of India has no power to grant special leave to appe

The Supreme Court of India has no power to grant special leave to appeal against

Subscribe on YouTube
the decisions of the National Green Tribunal
the decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
against the decisions of all those tribunals for which appeal is provided under the legislation
any judgment passed by any Court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Article 136 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court broad power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India. However, Article 136(2) explicitly carves out an exception: “Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.” This means the Supreme Court cannot entertain a special leave petition against the decisions of military courts or tribunals.
The special leave petition power of the Supreme Court under Article 136 is exceptionally wide but specifically excludes decisions of courts and tribunals related to the armed forces.
The decisions of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) are subject to appeal or special leave petition to the Supreme Court. While legislation may provide for specific appeal routes for tribunal decisions, Article 136 provides an overriding power for the Supreme Court to grant special leave in exceptional circumstances, except for military tribunals.

Join Our Telegram Channel

3. Consider the following statements: 1. The main sources of law in In

Consider the following statements:

Join Our Telegram Channel
  • 1. The main sources of law in India are the Constitution, Statutes (Legislations), Customary Law and Case Law.
  • 2. Decisions of the Supreme Court are not binding in all courts within the territory of India.

Which of the above statements is/are correct ?

1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2021-22
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is A, as only statement 1 is correct.
Statement 1 correctly identifies the primary sources of law in India: the Constitution (supreme law), Statutes enacted by legislatures (Parliament and State Legislatures), Customary Law (practices accepted as law in certain communities), and Case Law (judicial precedents, particularly decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts). Statement 2 is incorrect because, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
Article 141 of the Constitution states, “The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.” This principle is fundamental to the hierarchical structure of the Indian judiciary and ensures uniformity and certainty in the interpretation and application of laws.

Subscribe on YouTube

4. The Supreme Court of India has the power to review its own judgments u

The Supreme Court of India has the power to review its own judgments under which one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India ?

Subscribe on YouTube
Article 129
Article 137
Article 141
Article 142
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2021-22
Download PDFAttempt Online
Article 137 of the Constitution of India grants the Supreme Court the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or rules made under Article 145. This power allows the Court to correct errors or reconsider its earlier decisions.
Article 137 provides the basis for the Supreme Court’s review jurisdiction over its own decisions.
Article 129 declares the Supreme Court a court of record and gives it the power to punish for contempt of itself. Article 141 states that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India. Article 142 provides the Supreme Court with the power to pass decrees and orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter before it.

Join Our Telegram Channel

5. If a person occupies a public office illegally, which one of the follo

If a person occupies a public office illegally, which one of the following writs/orders can be issued against him/her for getting the office vacated ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Quo warranto
Prohibition
Certiorari
Permanent injunction
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2021-22
Download PDFAttempt Online
If a person occupies a public office illegally, the writ of Quo Warranto can be issued to challenge their claim to the office and get it vacated.
The writ of Quo Warranto (meaning “by what authority”) is issued by a court to inquire into the legality of the claim of a person to a public office. It is used to prevent illegal usurpation of a public office by a person. If the court finds that the person is not legally entitled to the office, it can issue an order to remove them from office.
Prohibition and Certiorari are writs issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal, dealing with their jurisdiction. Prohibition is preventative (to stop exceeding jurisdiction), while Certiorari is curative (to quash an order made in excess of jurisdiction). Permanent injunction is a remedy issued by civil courts, usually to restrain someone from doing a specific act.

Subscribe on YouTube

6. Which one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India allow

Which one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India allows the President to seek advice from the Supreme Court on any matter of public importance ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Article 139
Article 143
Article 148
Article 150
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2021-22
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is B) Article 143.
Article 143 of the Constitution of India empowers the President to consult the Supreme Court. The President can seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact of public importance. The Supreme Court may give its opinion or refuse to do so, except in cases referred under the first clause of Article 143 (disputes arising out of pre-Constitution treaties).
– Article 139 deals with the conferment on the Supreme Court of powers to issue certain writs (Parliament can enlarge the writ jurisdiction).
– Article 148 deals with the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India.
– Article 150 deals with the form of accounts of the Union and of the States.

Subscribe on YouTube

7. Which writ can be issued against a private trust/institution for failu

Which writ can be issued against a private trust/institution for failure to give effect to rules made by the Government?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Mandamus
Prohibition
Quo warranto
Certiorari
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2019-20
Download PDFAttempt Online
The writ of Mandamus is issued by a court to a public official, body, or lower court requiring them to perform a specific public or statutory duty which they are legally bound to perform. While typically issued against state authorities, Mandamus can also be issued against private bodies if they are performing a public function or failing to fulfill a statutory duty imposed by law, including rules made by the government that are binding on them.
Mandamus is a command to perform a duty.
The other writs are generally not applicable in this specific scenario: Prohibition prevents exceeding jurisdiction (for courts/tribunals), Certiorari quashes an order for lack of jurisdiction or error of law (for courts/tribunals), and Quo Warranto questions the authority to hold a public office.

Subscribe on YouTube

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

Which one of the following statements is not correct?

Join Our Telegram Channel
The President of India appoints the judges of the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of Article 124 of the Constitution of India.
The President of India appoints the judges of the Supreme Court on the basis of the recommendations of the collegium.
The President of India appoints the Chief Justice of India on the basis of the recommendations of the collegium.
The number of judges in the collegium for recommending appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts is not the same.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2019-20
Download PDFAttempt Online
The statement that is NOT correct is C.
– Statement A: The President of India appoints the judges of the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of Article 124 of the Constitution of India. Article 124(2) states that every judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President. This statement is correct.
– Statement B: The President of India appoints the judges of the Supreme Court on the basis of the recommendations of the collegium. This is correct based on the judicial interpretation of Article 124 by the Supreme Court in the “Judges Cases”, establishing the collegium system where the President appoints based on the collegium’s recommendations.
– Statement C: The President of India appoints the Chief Justice of India on the basis of the recommendations of the collegium. While the collegium is involved in the process and the outgoing CJI (head of the collegium) recommends the successor, the established convention for appointing the Chief Justice of India is primarily based on seniority. The senior-most judge of the Supreme Court is usually appointed as the CJI. The collegium process for CJI is largely one of formalizing this seniority principle rather than selecting among multiple candidates based on other criteria, as is done for other judges. Stating it is appointed “on the basis of the recommendations of the collegium” may not fully capture the primary basis, which is seniority.
– Statement D: The number of judges in the collegium for recommending appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts is not the same. The Supreme Court Collegium for recommending Supreme Court judges consists of the CJI and four senior-most Supreme Court judges (total 5). The Supreme Court Collegium for recommending High Court judges consists of the CJI and two senior-most Supreme Court judges, along with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court and two senior-most judges of that High Court (total 3 SC judges + 3 HC judges involved in the process). Thus, the composition and number of judges involved in the collegium’s recommendation process differ for SC and HC appointments. This statement is correct.

Subscribe on YouTube

Given that A, B, and D are correct descriptions of the process and composition, statement C, due to the nuance around the seniority principle governing the appointment of the CJI versus the more discretionary selection for other judges by the collegium, is the statement that is least accurate or potentially misleading.

The collegium system has evolved through judicial interpretations (Second and Third Judges Case). While it is the basis for judicial appointments now, the specific process and factors considered differ slightly between the CJI and other judges, and between Supreme Court and High Court appointments.

9. In which one among the following cases, the Supreme Court issued detai

In which one among the following cases, the Supreme Court issued detailed directions for the protection of the rights of the arrested person?

Subscribe on YouTube
D. K. Basu vs State of West Bengal
Lalita Kumari vs State of UP
Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar
Parmanand Katara vs Union of India
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
The Supreme Court of India issued detailed directions for the protection of the rights of arrested persons in the landmark case of D. K. Basu vs State of West Bengal (1996). This judgment laid down 11 specific guidelines that police and other agencies must follow during arrest and detention.
The question tests knowledge of landmark Supreme Court judgments concerning fundamental rights, specifically the rights of individuals during arrest and detention.
– Lalita Kumari vs State of UP (2013) dealt with the mandatory registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code for cognizable offences.
– Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar (1983) is a significant case regarding the right to compensation for illegal detention, establishing the principle of compensatory jurisprudence for violation of fundamental rights.
– Parmanand Katara vs Union of India (1989) held that medical aid should be provided to accident victims immediately without waiting for legal formalities.

Join Our Telegram Channel

10. In which one of the following cases did the Supreme Court give directi

In which one of the following cases did the Supreme Court give directions that statutory status should be conferred upon the Central Vigilance Commission ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Vineet Narain & Others v. Union of India & Another
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India
Centre for PIL v. Union of India & Others
Pravin Kumar v. The State
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2023
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is A, which refers to the case of Vineet Narain & Others v. Union of India & Another.
In the landmark Vineet Narain case (1997), the Supreme Court of India issued significant guidelines regarding the functioning of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). Concerned about the integrity and independence of investigative agencies in prosecuting corruption cases involving high-profile individuals, the Court directed that the CVC be given a statutory status to ensure its independence and effectiveness in supervising anti-corruption efforts.
Following the directions in the Vineet Narain judgment, the Central Vigilance Commission Act was enacted in 2003, conferring statutory status upon the CVC and defining its powers and functions. This was a crucial step towards strengthening institutional mechanisms against corruption in India.

Subscribe on YouTube
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5