The Supreme Court

21. With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitatio

With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?

Subscribe on YouTube
The decisions taken by the Election Commission of India while discharging its duties cannot be challenged in any court of law.
The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament.
In the event of grave financial crisis in the country, the President of India can declare Financial Emergency without the counsel from the Cabinet.
State Legislatures cannot make laws on certain matters without the concurrence of Union Legislature.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
The given statement implies that the Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers under Article 142 by laws made by the Parliament.
– The statement refers to the scope of the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution. Article 142 grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any decree or order necessary for doing ‘complete justice’ in any cause or matter pending before it.
– The phrase “prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142” means that the Supreme Court’s power to do complete justice under this article is not limited by existing statutory law. The court can, in certain circumstances, deviate from the provisions of ordinary law if it deems necessary to achieve complete justice in a specific case.
– Option A is incorrect; ECI decisions can be challenged in courts under certain circumstances.
– Option C is incorrect; the power to declare financial emergency by the President requires consultation with the Cabinet.
– Option D is incorrect; this relates to the distribution of legislative powers between Union and States and concurrence is required only in specific instances mentioned in the Constitution.
– Option B accurately reflects the principle that the Supreme Court’s inherent power under Article 142 to ensure complete justice can override the constraints of ordinary statutory law when necessary.
The power under Article 142 is a discretionary power and has been used by the Supreme Court in various situations, such as ordering pavement dwellers’ rehabilitation, dissolving irretrievably broken marriages, or issuing directions to fill lacunae in existing laws. However, the Court has also cautioned against the excessive use of this power and has held that it cannot be used to supplant the law or to pass orders contrary to express provisions of substantive law.

Join Our Telegram Channel

22. Consider the following statements: 1. The motion to impeach a Judge

Consider the following statements:

Subscribe on YouTube
  • 1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
  • 2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
  • 3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
  • 4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Join Our Telegram Channel
1 and 2
3 only
3 and 4 only
1, 3 and 4
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statements 3 and 4 are correct, while statements 1 and 2 are incorrect.
– Statement 1 is incorrect. As per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, the Speaker of Lok Sabha (or Chairman of Rajya Sabha) has the power to either admit the motion for impeachment or refuse to admit it if they are of the opinion that it does not comply with the provisions of the Act or is frivolous.
– Statement 2 is incorrect. The Constitution of India (Article 124(4)) specifies that a judge can be removed only on grounds of ‘proved misbehaviour or incapacity’. However, the Constitution does not define what constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’. This has been left to be determined by Parliament through law.
– Statement 3 is correct. The procedure for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Supreme Court or High Court Judge for their removal is laid down in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
– Statement 4 is correct. Article 124(4) read with Article 368 of the Constitution specifies that an impeachment motion against a judge requires a special majority: it must be passed by each House of Parliament by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting.
No Supreme Court judge has been successfully impeached and removed from office in India so far, although impeachment proceedings have been initiated against several judges. The process involves presentation of a motion signed by 100 members of Lok Sabha or 50 members of Rajya Sabha, admission by the presiding officer, investigation by a committee, consideration of the committee’s report by Parliament, and finally, the passing of the removal motion by the prescribed special majority in both Houses.

23. In India, Judicial Review implies

In India, Judicial Review implies

Subscribe on YouTube
the power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders.
the power of the Judiciary to question the wisdom of the laws enacted by the Legislatures.
the power of the Judiciary to review all the legislative enactments before they are assented to by the President.
the power of the Judiciary to review its own judgements given earlier in similar or different cases.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is A.
Judicial Review in India refers to the power of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and State governments. If they find that a law or order violates the provisions of the Constitution, they can declare it illegal, unconstitutional, and invalid (null and void).
Judicial review is considered a basic feature of the Constitution of India. It allows the judiciary to act as the guardian of the Constitution and protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. Option B is incorrect as courts generally do not question the ‘wisdom’ or policy aspects of laws, only their legality and constitutionality. Option C is incorrect as review happens *after* enactment. Option D describes the power of the judiciary to review its own judgments, which is a different aspect from reviewing laws and executive orders for constitutionality.

Join Our Telegram Channel

24. Who/Which of the following is the custodian of the Constitution of

Who/Which of the following is the custodian of the Constitution of India?

Subscribe on YouTube
The President of India
The Prime Minister of India
The Lok Sabha Secretariat
The Supreme Court of India
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2015
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is D.
The Supreme Court of India is considered the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. It has the power of judicial review, which allows it to examine the constitutionality of laws passed by the Parliament and state legislatures and executive actions. If any law or action is found to be inconsistent with or violates the Constitution, the Supreme Court can declare it ultra vires (beyond the powers) and void. This power makes the Supreme Court the final arbiter and custodian of the Constitution.
While the President takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and Parliament is the legislative body that derives its powers from the Constitution, the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution and ensure that all branches of government act within its framework rests with the judiciary, with the Supreme Court being the highest court.

Join Our Telegram Channel

25. The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of Ind

The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in

Subscribe on YouTube
the President of India
the Parliament
the Chief Justice of India
the Law Commission
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2014
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is B) the Parliament. The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in the Parliament of India.
Article 124(1) of the Constitution of India states that the Supreme Court shall consist of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law provides for a larger number, of not more than seven other Judges. This explicitly grants Parliament the power to determine the strength of the Supreme Court beyond the initial prescribed number.
Parliament exercises this power by enacting laws, such as the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, which has been amended several times over the years to increase the number of judges as the workload of the court has grown. The most recent increase was in 2019, raising the number of judges from 31 to 34 (including the Chief Justice).

Join Our Telegram Channel

26. The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the

The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the Centre and the States falls under its

Join Our Telegram Channel
advisory jurisdiction
appellate jurisdiction
original jurisdiction
writ jurisdiction
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2014
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is C) original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of India has original jurisdiction in certain matters, which means these cases can be filed directly in the Supreme Court, bypassing lower courts.
Article 131 of the Constitution of India defines the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It states that the Supreme Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in any dispute between:
(a) the Government of India and one or more States; or
(b) the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or
(c) two or more States.
Disputes between the Centre and States fall under this category.
The Supreme Court’s other jurisdictions include:
– Appellate Jurisdiction: Hearing appeals against judgments of High Courts and other courts.
– Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143): President can seek advice on a question of law or fact of public importance.
– Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32): Issuing writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

Subscribe on YouTube

27. Which one of the following statements with regard to the impeachment o

Which one of the following statements with regard to the impeachment of a Judge of the Supreme Court of India is not correct?

Join Our Telegram Channel
A motion addressed to the President, signed by at least 100 members of both the Houses of the Parliament is delivered to the Speaker.
The motion is investigated by a Committee of three (2 Judges of the Supreme Court and a distinguished Jurist).
If the Committee finds the Judge guilty of misbehaviour or that he suffers from incapacity, the motion together with the report of the Committee is taken up for consideration in the House where the motion is pending.
The Judge will be removed after the President gives his order for removal.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2023
Download PDFAttempt Online
The incorrect statement with regard to the impeachment of a Judge of the Supreme Court of India is that a motion addressed to the President, signed by at least 100 members of both the Houses of the Parliament is delivered to the Speaker.
– Statement A is incorrect: As per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, a motion for impeachment must be signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha *or* 50 members of the Rajya Sabha. It is then delivered to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, respectively. It is not required to be signed by 100 members from *both* Houses collectively for initiation.
– Statement B is correct: If the motion is admitted by the Speaker/Chairman, a three-member committee is constituted to investigate the charges. This committee comprises two Judges of the Supreme Court and a distinguished jurist.
– Statement C is correct: If the Inquiry Committee finds the Judge guilty, the motion along with the Committee’s report is considered by the House where the motion originated.
– Statement D is correct: If the motion is passed by a special majority (two-thirds of members present and voting and a majority of the total membership) in both Houses of Parliament, an address is presented to the President. The Judge is then removed by an order of the President.
The process of impeachment of a Supreme Court Judge (or High Court Judge) is a quasi-judicial procedure. The grounds for removal are proved misbehaviour or incapacity. So far, no judge of the Supreme Court has been successfully impeached and removed, although proceedings have been initiated against some.

Subscribe on YouTube

28. Who can be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court?

Who can be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court?

Subscribe on YouTube
An advocate who has practised for at least ten years in any court
A Judge of a High Court for at least three years
A distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President of India
A person who has held a judicial office for at least fifteen years
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2021
Download PDFAttempt Online
According to the Constitution of India, a person who is, in the opinion of the President of India, a distinguished jurist can be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
– Article 124(3) of the Constitution lays down the qualifications for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court. A person must be a citizen of India and meet one of the following criteria:
a) Has been a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at least five years. (Option B is incorrect as it specifies three years).
b) Has been an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at least ten years. (Option A is incorrect as it says “any court” instead of High Court).
c) Is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist. (Option C is correct).
– Option D, holding a judicial office for fifteen years, is not a direct criterion for appointment as a Supreme Court Judge. A person holding judicial office for 10 years can be appointed as a High Court Judge, and then subsequently as a Supreme Court Judge after serving as a HC Judge for 5 years.
The provision allowing the appointment of a ‘distinguished jurist’ is intended to broaden the pool of potential candidates beyond just judges and practicing advocates. However, this provision has been rarely used in practice.

Join Our Telegram Channel

29. Which one of the following statements about the Supreme Court is not

Which one of the following statements about the Supreme Court is not correct?

Subscribe on YouTube
Under Article 129 and Article 144 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has been vested with power to punish for contempt of court.
The Supreme Court has been vested with advisory jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court may refuse to provide opinion to the President, if so asked, in certain circumstances.
Law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2021
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement A is not entirely correct. While the Supreme Court is vested with the power to punish for contempt of court under Article 129 of the Constitution (which declares it a court of record), Article 144 does not *vest* this power. Article 144 mandates all civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court, which helps in the enforcement of its orders, including those related to contempt, but the power itself is derived from Article 129. Therefore, stating that the power is vested “under Article 129 and Article 144” is inaccurate regarding Article 144.
– Article 129 makes the Supreme Court a court of record and grants it the power to punish for contempt of itself.
– Article 143 provides for the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, allowing the President to seek its opinion. The Court has discretion in whether to provide an opinion.
– Article 141 declares that law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
Statements B, C, and D are correct provisions regarding the Supreme Court’s powers and functions. The advisory jurisdiction is a unique feature, the discretion to refuse opinion is a recognized aspect of Article 143 interpretations, and the binding nature of SC judgments (doctrine of precedent) is fundamental to the Indian judicial system. The inaccuracy lies specifically in citing Article 144 as a source for vesting contempt power.

Join Our Telegram Channel

30. Which one of the following powers of the Supreme Court is also conferr

Which one of the following powers of the Supreme Court is also conferred on a High Court?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Advisory power
Power of doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before the court
Power of court of record
Power to allow/refuse Special Leave Petitions
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2021
Download PDFAttempt Online
Both the Supreme Court and the High Courts in India are courts of record. Article 129 of the Constitution states that the Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Similarly, Article 215 states that every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
– Being a ‘court of record’ means that the court’s records are admitted to be of evidentiary value and they cannot be questioned when produced before any subordinate court.
– A court of record also has the power to punish for contempt of court, which includes both civil and criminal contempt.
– Advisory power (Article 143) is exclusive to the Supreme Court. The President can seek its opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.
– The power of doing complete justice (Article 142) is exclusive to the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
– The power to allow/refuse Special Leave Petitions (Article 136) is a discretionary power vested solely in the Supreme Court to 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 in the territory of India (except military tribunals and court-martial).

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