The Supreme Court

11. In 2015, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the Inf

In 2015, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 as being unconstitutional and violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. In which case did the Supreme Court deliver this landmark judgment ?

Subscribe on YouTube
Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana
Shankar v. State
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
Suhas Katti v. State of Tamil Nadu
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2023
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is C) Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
The Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgment delivered in 2015 which struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as unconstitutional for violating Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) was in the case of *Shreya Singhal v. Union of India*.
Section 66A criminalized the sending of offensive messages through communication service. The Supreme Court found that the section was vague, arbitrary, and had a chilling effect on freedom of speech, and therefore it was not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). This judgment was a significant development for online free speech in India.

Join Our Telegram Channel

12. Which of the following is an incorrect procedure to impeach a Judge of

Which of the following is an incorrect procedure to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court?

Join Our Telegram Channel
A motion addressed to the President signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha is delivered to the Speaker or the Chairman.
The motion is to be taken up for investigation by a Committee comprising 2 Judges of the Supreme Court and a distinguished jurist.
The motion is put to vote irrespective of the outcome of the Committee's Report.
The motion needs to be passed by each House by majority of the total membership of that House and two-thirds of the members present and voting.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is The motion is put to vote irrespective of the outcome of the Committee’s Report.
– The procedure for impeachment of a Supreme Court Judge is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, read with Articles 124(4) and 217 of the Constitution.
– The process involves:
– Initiation of a motion signed by required members (100 LS or 50 RS) (Option A – Correct initial step).
– Constitution of an Inquiry Committee by the Speaker/Chairman (Option B describes a committee, though its composition description is inaccurate based on the Act’s specification of one SC judge, one HC Chief Justice, and one jurist. However, the *existence* of a committee is correct).
– Investigation and Report by the Committee.
– **Crucially, if the Committee reports that the Judge is *not* guilty, the motion lapses, and no further steps are taken in either House. Only if the Committee finds the Judge guilty is the motion taken up for consideration and voting.** (Option C is incorrect).
– Passing the motion in each House by a special majority (majority of total membership and 2/3rd of members present and voting) (Option D – Correct).
– Option C describes a procedure where the outcome of the mandatory inquiry report is ignored, which directly contradicts the statutory procedure laid down in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The report’s finding of guilt is a necessary precondition for the motion to be voted upon in the Houses.
– While Option B’s description of the committee’s composition is factually incorrect (the Act specifies one SC Judge, one HC Chief Justice, and one jurist, not two SC Judges), Option C describes a fundamental failure to follow the laid down sequence and dependency, making it the more clearly incorrect *procedural step* in the sequence.

Subscribe on YouTube

13. In which one of the following cases had the Supreme Court directed an

In which one of the following cases had the Supreme Court directed an authority to provide drainage system for removal of a public nuisance under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ?

Subscribe on YouTube
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1986
Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand & Others, 1980
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 2000
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 1996
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The question asks for the Supreme Court case where an authority was directed to provide a drainage system for public nuisance under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The case Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand & Others (1980) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court. In this case, residents complained about public nuisance caused by open drains and accumulation of filth and human excreta due to the municipality’s failure to maintain drainage and sanitation. The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate can issue an order under Section 133 of the CrPC to a local authority (like a municipality) to abate a public nuisance by providing necessary facilities like drainage, and the municipality cannot plead lack of funds as an excuse for failing to perform its statutory duty relating to public health.
While M.C. Mehta cases involved environmental issues and Supreme Court intervention, the Municipal Council, Ratlam case is specifically known for the application and interpretation of Section 133 of the CrPC against a municipal body for ordering drainage and sanitation to abate public nuisance.

Join Our Telegram Channel

14. Which one of the following statements about the judgement in the D.K.

Which one of the following statements about the judgement in the D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal case (Supreme Court, 1997) is not correct ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
A person arrested must be made aware of the right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.
It provided for compensation in the case of displacement from land in Government projects.
The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
It emerged out of a Public Interest Litigation.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The statement “It provided for compensation in the case of displacement from land in Government projects” is not correct regarding the D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal case (1997).
The D.K. Basu case dealt with laying down guidelines for police to follow during arrest and detention procedures to prevent custodial torture and deaths. It did not concern land acquisition or displacement issues.
The D.K. Basu case arose from a Public Interest Litigation concerning deaths in police custody. The Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines (often referred to as ‘DK Basu guidelines’) that police must scrupulously observe, including the right of the arrested person to be informed of the grounds of arrest, the right to have a relative/friend informed, the right to consult a lawyer, and mandatory medical examination. Statement B describes issues related to laws like the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which are unrelated to the D.K. Basu judgment.

Subscribe on YouTube

15. Which of the following statements about the Writ of Mandamus is/are co

Which of the following statements about the Writ of Mandamus is/are correct ?

Subscribe on YouTube
  • 1. Mandamus lies against the Government.
  • 2. Mandamus lies against inferior Courts and Tribunals.
  • 3. Mandamus lies against individuals in cases where a public duty is imposed on them.

Select the correct answer using the code given below :

1, 2 and 3
2 and 3 only
1 and 3 only
1 only
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
All three statements about the Writ of Mandamus are correct.
Mandamus is a judicial writ issued by a higher court (Supreme Court or High Court) commanding a public official, lower court, tribunal, corporation, or any person/body performing a public duty, to perform a specific public duty which they are legally bound to perform but have failed or refused to do.
1. Mandamus lies against the government and governmental officials for performance of public duties.
2. Mandamus lies against inferior courts and tribunals if they refuse to exercise their jurisdiction or perform a duty imposed by law.
3. Mandamus generally does not lie against private individuals or bodies, but it *does* lie against individuals or private bodies when they are performing a public duty or are legally obligated to perform a public function imposed by statute or common law.

Join Our Telegram Channel

16. The Supreme Court of India exercises advisory jurisdiction under which

The Supreme Court of India exercises advisory jurisdiction under which Article of the Constitution of India?

Subscribe on YouTube
Article 141
Article 142
Article 143
Article 144
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CBI DSP LDCE – 2023
Download PDFAttempt Online
The Supreme Court of India has various jurisdictions. Its advisory jurisdiction is derived from Article 143 of the Constitution. This article empowers the President of India to refer to the Supreme Court questions of law or fact that have arisen or are likely to arise and are of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it. The Supreme Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.
Article 143 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court advisory jurisdiction, allowing the President to seek its opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.
The opinion given by the Supreme Court under Article 143 is advisory and not a judicial pronouncement binding on lower courts. The President is also not bound to act upon this opinion.
Article 141 states that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
Article 142 deals with the power of the Supreme Court to pass decrees and orders for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
Article 144 mandates that all civil and judicial authorities in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.

Join Our Telegram Channel

17. With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider th

With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements:

Join Our Telegram Channel
  • 1. Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty.
  • 2. Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company.
  • 3. Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto.

Which of the statements given above are correct ?

1 and 2 only
2 and 3 only
1 and 3 only
1, 2 and 3
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2022
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is correct. The writ of Mandamus is a command from a superior court to a public official, body, corporation, or tribunal directing them to perform a public duty they are legally required to perform. It will not ordinarily lie against a private individual or organization unless they are performing a public function or are under a public duty imposed by statute or common law.
Statement 2 is incorrect. A writ of Mandamus can lie against a Government Company, especially when it is discharging a public function or duty. The nature of the duty determines whether Mandamus is applicable, not merely the classification as a ‘Company’. If a government company is entrusted with a statutory or public duty, Mandamus can be issued to enforce that duty.
Statement 3 is correct. The writ of Quo Warranto is issued to inquire into the legality of the claim of a person to a public office. Unlike other writs, any interested person, even if not personally aggrieved, can file a petition for Quo Warranto to prevent a person from holding an office they are not legally entitled to. This is a check against illegal usurpation of public office.
Writs are powerful tools issued by the Supreme Court (under Article 32) and High Courts (under Article 226) to protect fundamental rights and for other purposes. Mandamus compels performance of a public duty, and Quo Warranto questions the legality of holding a public office.
The other writs are Habeas Corpus (to produce a person illegally detained), Prohibition (to prevent a lower court/tribunal from exceeding jurisdiction), and Certiorari (to quash an order of a lower court/tribunal exceeding jurisdiction or violating principles of natural justice). High Courts have a wider scope for issuing writs compared to the Supreme Court, as they can issue them for the enforcement of fundamental rights *and* for any other legal right.

Subscribe on YouTube

18. With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements

With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements :

Subscribe on YouTube
  • Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India.
  • A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2021
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is C) Both 1 and 2.
– Statement 1 is correct. Article 128 of the Constitution of India allows the Chief Justice of India, with the previous consent of the President, to request any person who has held the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of the Federal Court (if qualified for appointment as an SC judge) to sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
– Statement 2 is correct. High Courts in India have the power to review their own judgments. This power is exercised under various provisions, including the Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure, Letters Patent establishing the High Courts, and the inherent power of the court to correct errors or prevent abuse of process. The scope and grounds for review are similar in principle to the Supreme Court’s review power under Article 137.
– The power of review is an important aspect of the judicial system, allowing courts to reconsider their own decisions on specific grounds, contributing to fairness and accuracy in the delivery of justice.

Join Our Telegram Channel

19. Consider the following statements: 1. The Constitution of India defi

Consider the following statements:

  • 1. The Constitution of India defines its ‘basic structure’ in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy.
  • 2. The Constitution of India provides for ‘judicial review’ to safeguard the citizens’ liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the Constitution is based.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Subscribe on YouTube
1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is B) 2 only.
Statement 1 is incorrect: The Constitution of India does not explicitly define its ‘basic structure’. The concept of ‘basic structure’ was propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) to limit the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The Court has, over various judgments, identified certain elements (like federalism, secularism, democracy, judicial review, etc.) as part of the basic structure, but the definition is judicial, not constitutional text.
Statement 2 is correct: The Constitution of India explicitly provides for judicial review. Articles like 13, 32, and 226 empower the higher courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) to review laws and executive actions to ensure they are in conformity with the Constitution, especially the Fundamental Rights. This power is a crucial safeguard for citizens’ liberties and helps preserve the principles upon which the Constitution is based.
Judicial review is considered a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution. It allows the judiciary to strike down laws or actions that are ultra vires the Constitution. The basic structure doctrine itself is an example of judicial review being used to preserve the fundamental framework of the Constitution.

Join Our Telegram Channel

20. With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following st

With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:

Subscribe on YouTube
  • 1. No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid.
  • 2. An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Join Our Telegram Channel
1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is D, as neither statement 1 nor statement 2 is correct.
Statement 1 is incorrect. Under the Constitution of India, High Courts have the power of judicial review (Articles 226 and 227). This power includes the jurisdiction to examine and, if found unconstitutional, declare any law, including central laws, to be constitutionally invalid, within their territorial jurisdiction. This power is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Statement 2 is incorrect. The Supreme Court of India has the power of judicial review over constitutional amendments. The landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established the “Basic Structure Doctrine,” which holds that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that alters its basic structure. The Supreme Court can therefore call into question and strike down a constitutional amendment if it violates the basic structure of the Constitution.
The power of judicial review of both High Courts and the Supreme Court serves as a crucial check on the legislative and executive branches, upholding the supremacy of the Constitution and protecting fundamental rights.

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5