The Supreme Court

41. Every Judge of the Supreme Court of India is appointed by

Every Judge of the Supreme Court of India is appointed by

Join Our Telegram Channel
the Supreme Court Collegium
the Cabinet
the President of India
the Lok Sabha
This question was previously asked in
UPSC NDA-2 – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
Every Judge of the Supreme Court of India is appointed by the President of India.
Article 124(2) of the Constitution of India states that every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose.
While the appointment is formally made by the President, the process involves the Supreme Court Collegium (comprising the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court) recommending names to the government, which in turn advises the President. This system evolved through judicial pronouncements (like the Three Judges Cases) and is currently the operational method for appointing Supreme Court judges. However, constitutionally, the formal appointing authority is the President.

Subscribe on YouTube

42. The ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’ was enunciated by the Supreme Court dur

The ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’ was enunciated by the Supreme Court during the:

Subscribe on YouTube
Golak Nath case
Maneka Gandhi case
Kesavananda Bharati case
S R Bommai case
This question was previously asked in
UPSC NDA-2 – 2015
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is C) Kesavananda Bharati case.
The doctrine of ‘Basic Structure’ of the Constitution of India was enunciated by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgement of the Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case in 1973. The Court held that while the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.
– Option A (Golak Nath case, 1967): In this case, the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not abridge or take away the Fundamental Rights, which were considered transcendent and immutable. However, the concept of ‘basic structure’ was not explicitly formulated here, though the judgement laid some groundwork for limiting Parliament’s amending power.
– Option B (Maneka Gandhi case, 1978): This case significantly interpreted the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), establishing that the procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable (incorporating aspects of ‘due process’). It is not where the Basic Structure Doctrine was enunciated.
– Option D (S R Bommai case, 1994): This judgement related to the misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule) and held that the power under Article 356 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. The judgement applied the basic structure doctrine by stating that federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution. However, the doctrine itself was not *enunciated* in this case but applied.

Join Our Telegram Channel

43. Which one of the following does not fall under the jurisdiction of t

Which one of the following does not fall under the jurisdiction of the apex court of India?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Original Jurisdiction
Appellate Jurisdiction
Collegiate Jurisdiction
Advisory Jurisdiction
This question was previously asked in
UPSC NDA-1 – 2022
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is C) Collegiate Jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court of India exercises several types of jurisdictions:
1. Original Jurisdiction: Matters where the Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to hear the case directly (e.g., disputes between the Union and states, or between states).
2. Appellate Jurisdiction: The power to hear appeals against judgments of lower courts, primarily High Courts. This includes constitutional, civil, and criminal matters.
3. Advisory Jurisdiction: The power to give advice to the President of India on a question of law or fact which is of public importance, as per Article 143 of the Constitution.
Collegiate Jurisdiction is not a recognized category of jurisdiction for the Supreme Court. The term ‘collegiate’ refers to a body of judges sitting together as a bench (e.g., a division bench or a full bench), rather than a specific type of legal authority or competence to hear certain cases.
Other powers of the Supreme Court include review jurisdiction (reviewing its own judgments), writ jurisdiction (issuing writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights), and the power to transfer cases. However, ‘Collegiate Jurisdiction’ is not among the constitutional or statutory classifications of the Supreme Court’s powers.

Subscribe on YouTube

44. Who among the following determines as to whether a particular matter (

Who among the following determines as to whether a particular matter (not enumerated in any of the 3 lists) falls under the residuary power of the Parliament?

Subscribe on YouTube
Lok Sabha
Rajya Sabha
Supreme Court
President of India
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Geoscientist – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
The power to determine whether a particular matter falls under the residuary power of the Parliament, particularly in case of any dispute or ambiguity regarding the distribution of legislative powers, rests with the judiciary. The Supreme Court of India is the final interpreter of the Constitution and the division of powers.
Article 248 of the Constitution grants Parliament exclusive power to legislate on any matter not enumerated in the Union, State, or Concurrent Lists (residuary powers). However, the constitutional validity of such legislation and the determination of whether a subject is indeed ‘residuary’ is subject to judicial review.
While Parliament has the legislative competence over residuary matters, the determination of the scope and extent of these powers, and resolution of conflicts over legislative competence, is a function of the Supreme Court, which interprets the legislative lists and the overall scheme of the distribution of powers.

Join Our Telegram Channel

45. Which one of the following organizations challenged the constitutional

Which one of the following organizations challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in the Supreme Court of India ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Naz Foundation (India) Trust
Bachpan Bachao Andolan
Sambhav Foundation India
ActionAid India
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-2 – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is A) Naz Foundation (India) Trust.
Naz Foundation (India) Trust was the non-governmental organization that filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex. The Delhi High Court read down Section 377 in 2009, decriminalizing such acts. This judgment was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013 (Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. NAZ Foundation), which re-criminalized these acts. However, the Naz Foundation’s legal battle was pivotal in bringing the issue to the forefront. Subsequently, other petitions led to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in 2018 (Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India), which finally decriminalized consensual adult homosexual acts.
Bachpan Bachao Andolan is known for its work against child labour and trafficking. ActionAid India is part of a global federation working against poverty and injustice. Sambhav Foundation India is involved in various social initiatives. Only Naz Foundation is primarily associated with the legal challenge to Section 377 based on LGBTQ+ rights.

Subscribe on YouTube

46. The landmark Supreme Court judgment in the case Subhash Sharma v. Unio

The landmark Supreme Court judgment in the case Subhash Sharma v. Union of India (1991) refers to which one of the following basic features of the Constitution of India ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Judicial Review
Rule of Law
Free and fair elections
Fundamental Rights
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-2 – 2023
Download PDFAttempt Online
The judgment in Subhash Sharma v. Union of India (1991) dealt with the appointment of judges and the interpretation of Article 124(2) of the Constitution concerning the President’s obligation to consult the Chief Justice of India. The court held that the Chief Justice’s opinion was entitled to great weight and the executive could not arbitrarily disregard it. This case, while not fully establishing the collegium system (which came later in the Second Judges Case, 1993), significantly impacted the process of judicial appointments and reinforced the concept of judicial independence, which is intrinsically linked to the basic feature of Judicial Review. Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to review actions of the legislature and executive to ensure they are in accordance with the Constitution, a power essential for maintaining the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.
– The case focused on the interpretation of the ‘consultation’ process for appointing judges.
– It emphasized the need for the executive to give due regard to the Chief Justice’s recommendation.
– The ruling contributed to the evolution of the judicial appointments process, leading towards greater judicial autonomy in this matter.
While the case touches upon the principles underlying the Rule of Law (non-arbitrariness) and indirectly supports the framework protecting Fundamental Rights, its primary impact and subject matter were directly related to the functioning and independence of the judiciary itself, which is best encapsulated by the concept of Judicial Review within the given options, as Judicial Review is the mechanism through which judicial independence and the constitutional scheme are enforced.

Subscribe on YouTube

47. In the Indian judicial system, writs are issued by

In the Indian judicial system, writs are issued by

Join Our Telegram Channel
the Supreme Court only
the High Courts only
the Supreme Court and High Courts only
the Supreme Court, High Courts and Lower Courts
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-2 – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
In the Indian judicial system, the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes is vested in the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
– Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
– Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and also for ‘any other purpose’ (meaning for enforcing any other legal right).
– The five types of writs are Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto.
– The writ jurisdiction of High Courts (under Article 226) is wider than that of the Supreme Court (under Article 32) because High Courts can issue writs for the enforcement of legal rights in addition to Fundamental Rights, whereas the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction is restricted to Fundamental Rights only.
– Lower courts (District Courts, etc.) do not have the power to issue these types of writs.

Subscribe on YouTube

48. Which one of the following is not the necessary condition for the is

Which one of the following is not the necessary condition for the issue of a writ of Quo Warranto?

Join Our Telegram Channel
The office must be a public office.
The office must be created by the Statute or by the Constitution itself.
The office must not be a substantive one.
There has been a contravention of the Constitution or a Statute in appropriating such person to that office.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-2 – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
A writ of Quo Warranto is issued by a court to inquire into the legality of the claim of a person to a public office. A necessary condition for issuing this writ is that the office must be a *substantive* public office of a permanent character, created by statute or the Constitution. The office must not be merely ministerial or temporary. Therefore, the statement that “The office must not be a substantive one” is incorrect and is *not* a necessary condition.
The purpose of Quo Warranto is to prevent illegal usurpation of public office by a person.
Other necessary conditions for the issue of Quo Warranto are that the office must be a public office, it must be created by a statute or the Constitution, and the person holding the office must have entered it in contravention of the law. The applicant for the writ does not have to be the aggrieved party or claimant to the office; any person can apply.

Subscribe on YouTube

49. Which one of the following conditions laid down in the Constitution of

Which one of the following conditions laid down in the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Quo-Warranto is not correct ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
The office must be public and it must be created by a Statute
The office must be a substantive one
There has been a contravention of the Constitution or a Statute in appointing such person to that office
The appointment is in tune with a statutory provision
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-2 – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
A writ of Quo-Warranto is issued to restrain a person from holding a public office to which he is not legally entitled. Therefore, a key condition for issuing this writ is that the appointment must be *illegal* or in contravention of constitutional or statutory provisions. Option D, stating that the appointment is in tune with a statutory provision, is the opposite condition under which Quo-Warranto would be issued.
The purpose of the writ of Quo-Warranto is to prevent usurpation of a public office by an illegal appointment.
The essential conditions for issuing a writ of Quo-Warranto are: 1. The office must be public, substantive, and created by statute or Constitution. 2. The person holding the office must be in actual possession of it. 3. The appointment must be in violation of the Constitution or a statute. Options A, B, and C correctly describe conditions that, if violated by the appointment, could lead to the issuance of the writ.

Subscribe on YouTube

50. Which one of the following criteria is not required to be qualified fo

Which one of the following criteria is not required to be qualified for appointment as Judge of the Supreme Court?

Join Our Telegram Channel
At least five years as a Judge of a High Court
At least ten years as an Advocate of a High Court
In the opinion of the President, a distinguished Jurist
At least twenty years as a Sub-Judicial Magistrate
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-2 – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
Having at least twenty years as a Sub-Judicial Magistrate is not a required qualification for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
Article 124(3) of the Constitution specifies the qualifications for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
According to Article 124(3), a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he is a citizen of India and (a) has been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or (b) has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or (c) is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist. The role of a Sub-Judicial Magistrate falls under the lower judicial services and is not a qualifying criterion for appointment to the Supreme Court.

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