The Supreme Court

51. Who among the following filed the Writ Petition that led to the famous

Who among the following filed the Writ Petition that led to the famous verdict of the Supreme Court of India recognising the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right?

[amp_mcq option1=”Justice P. N. Bhagwati” option2=”Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman” option3=”Justice K. S. Puttaswamy” option4=”Justice Anil R. Dave” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-1 – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy filed the Writ Petition that led to the verdict on the Right to Privacy.
The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India which unanimously declared the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution was delivered in the case of *Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.*
The case originated from a challenge to the Aadhaar scheme primarily on the grounds of privacy. The nine-judge bench unanimously held that the Right to Privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

52. Who among the following Chief Justices of India ordered the constituti

Who among the following Chief Justices of India ordered the constitution of a Special Bench called ‘Social Justice Bench’?

[amp_mcq option1=”Justice H. L. Dattu” option2=”Justice K. G. Balakrishnan” option3=”Justice R. M. Lodha” option4=”Justice Y. K. Sabharwal” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-1 – 2023
Download PDFAttempt Online
Justice R. M. Lodha, during his tenure as the Chief Justice of India, ordered the constitution of a Special Bench called the ‘Social Justice Bench’ in the Supreme Court of India.
– Justice R. M. Lodha served as the 41st Chief Justice of India from April 2014 to September 2014.
– He ordered the creation of the Social Justice Bench in September 2014 to deal specifically with cases related to social justice, such as those concerning poverty, food security, housing, sanitation, health, education, and rights of women, children, and marginalized sections.
– The objective behind constituting this bench was to ensure that such important social issues receive dedicated and consistent judicial attention.
– The Social Justice Bench was initially planned to sit every Friday.
– While the concept of specialized benches existed, the formal creation and naming of a dedicated ‘Social Justice Bench’ was initiated under Chief Justice Lodha.

53. Which of the following conditions is/are necessary for the issue of a

Which of the following conditions is/are necessary for the issue of a writ of certiorari in India?

  • 1. There should be a tribunal or an officer having legal authority to determine questions affecting rights of subjects and having a duty to act judicially.
  • 2. Such tribunal or officer has acted without jurisdiction.

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

[amp_mcq option1=”1 only” option2=”2 only” option3=”Both 1 and 2″ option4=”Neither 1 nor 2″ correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-1 – 2023
Download PDFAttempt Online
Both conditions listed are necessary for the issue of a writ of certiorari in India. A writ of certiorari is typically issued against a judicial or quasi-judicial body that exceeds its jurisdiction or commits an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
– Point 1 states that there must be a tribunal or officer with legal authority to determine rights and having a duty to act judicially. This establishes the type of body against which the writ can be issued – one that performs judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
– Point 2 states that such body has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. This is a primary ground for issuing certiorari; the body must have transgressed the limits of its legal authority.
– Other grounds for issuing a writ of certiorari include: violation of principles of natural justice, error of law apparent on the face of the record, or violation of fundamental rights.
– Certiorari is a corrective writ issued by a higher court (Supreme Court or High Courts) to quash the decision of a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority when it has acted illegally.
– It is distinct from a writ of prohibition, which is issued to prevent a lower body from exceeding its jurisdiction before it makes a decision.

54. The issue, ‘whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is violative

The issue, ‘whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India’ was decided in which one of the following cases ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India” option2=”Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan” option3=”Shayara Bano vs. Union of India” option4=”Naz Foundation vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-1 – 2022
Download PDFAttempt Online
The issue of whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was violative of Articles 21, 14, and 15 of the Constitution was directly addressed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Naz Foundation vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others in 2009. The High Court ruled that Section 377, in so far as it criminalised consensual sexual acts of adults in private, was unconstitutional and violated these fundamental rights. Although this decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013 (Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. NAZ Foundation), the Naz Foundation case was the one that first decided this specific question and held Section 377 to be violative of the mentioned articles.
The Delhi High Court in the Naz Foundation case (2009) held Section 377 IPC, to the extent it criminalized consensual same-sex acts, as violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21.
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India dealt with Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan laid down guidelines on preventing sexual harassment at the workplace. Shayara Bano vs. Union of India dealt with the constitutionality of triple talaq. The Supreme Court finally decriminalized consensual homosexual acts in the Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India case in 2018, effectively affirming the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in the Naz Foundation case.

55. The power of the Supreme Court to decide in the case of a dispute betw

The power of the Supreme Court to decide in the case of a dispute between two or more States is called

[amp_mcq option1=”original jurisdiction” option2=”inherent jurisdiction” option3=”plenary jurisdiction” option4=”advisory jurisdiction” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-1 – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
A
The power of the Supreme Court of India to resolve disputes between the Union and one or more states, or between two or more states, falls under its original jurisdiction.
Original jurisdiction means the power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, where the court reviews a decision of a lower court. The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction is exclusively for disputes of a federal nature. Advisory jurisdiction is when the President seeks the Court’s opinion on a question of law or fact.

56. Which among the following writs is issued to quash the order of a Cour

Which among the following writs is issued to quash the order of a Court or Tribunal?

[amp_mcq option1=”Mandamus” option2=”Prohibition” option3=”Quo Warranto” option4=”Certiorari” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-1 – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is D) Certiorari.
The writ of Certiorari is issued by a higher court (like the Supreme Court or a High Court) to a lower court or tribunal to quash (set aside) an order or decision made by the lower body. This writ is typically issued when the lower court or tribunal has acted without jurisdiction, in excess of its jurisdiction, in violation of the rules of natural justice, or if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. It is a curative writ issued *after* the proceedings are completed.
Mandamus is a command issued to a public authority to perform a public duty. Prohibition is issued by a higher court to stop a lower court or tribunal from proceeding with a case *before* the order is passed, usually due to lack of jurisdiction. Quo Warranto is issued to question the authority by which a person holds a public office. Certiorari is distinct as it is used to invalidate an order that has already been passed.

57. The judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the Vishakha Case perta

The judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the Vishakha Case pertains to

[amp_mcq option1=”sexual harassment in the work-place” option2=”Sati” option3=”dowry death” option4=”rape” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-1 – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the Vishakha Case pertains to sexual harassment in the work-place.
The landmark judgement by the Supreme Court of India in the Vishakha and others vs. State of Rajasthan case (1997) addressed the issue of sexual harassment of women in the workplace. In the absence of specific legislation at the time, the Court laid down detailed guidelines, known as the ‘Vishakha Guidelines’, to be followed by employers and other responsible persons or institutions to prevent and address sexual harassment. These guidelines served as the de facto law until the passing of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
The Vishakha case was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) following the brutal gang-rape of a social worker in Rajasthan who was campaigning against child marriage. While the incident itself involved rape, the PIL broadened the scope to address the systemic issue of sexual harassment faced by women in workplaces, leading to the crucial guidelines.

58. Which one of the following constitutional authorities inquires and dec

Which one of the following constitutional authorities inquires and decides in case of doubts and disputes arising out of election of the President and Vice President of India?

[amp_mcq option1=”The Supreme Court of India” option2=”The Election Commission of India” option3=”The Parliamentary Committee” option4=”The High Court of Delhi” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-1 – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Article 71(1) of the Constitution of India explicitly states that all doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of a President or Vice-President shall be inquired into and decided by the Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court in such matters is final.
The Supreme Court of India is the sole constitutional authority empowered to inquire into and decide doubts and disputes regarding the election of the President and Vice President.
The Election Commission of India is responsible for conducting the elections to the offices of President and Vice President, but it does not have the power to resolve election disputes or challenges. Such matters must be filed as an election petition directly before the Supreme Court.

59. Which of the following are the powers of the Supreme Court of India?

Which of the following are the powers of the Supreme Court of India?

  • Original jurisdiction in a dispute between the Government of India and one or more States
  • The power to hear appeals from the High Courts
  • Passing decrees and orders for doing justice in any matter before it
  • Render advice to the President of India in matters of law

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

[amp_mcq option1=”1, 2, 3 and 4″ option2=”1, 2 and 3 only” option3=”1 and 2 only” option4=”3 and 4 only” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-1 – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is correct; the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in disputes between the Government of India and one or more States (Article 131). Statement 2 is correct; the Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal and hears appeals from High Courts (Articles 132, 133, 134). Statement 3 is correct; under Article 142, the Supreme Court can pass such decrees or make such orders as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter before it. Statement 4 is correct; the Supreme Court has advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 to render advice to the President on questions of law or fact of public importance.
The Supreme Court of India possesses wide-ranging powers, including original, appellate, advisory, and review jurisdictions, as well as powers to issue writs and do complete justice.
Article 141 states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. The Supreme Court also has the power of judicial review, meaning it can examine the constitutional validity of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and State governments.

60. In which one of the following cases, the Constitutional validity of th

In which one of the following cases, the Constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Divorce) Act 1986, was upheld by the Supreme Court of India ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Muhammad Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum” option2=”Danial Latifi v. Union of India” option3=”Mary Roy v. State of Kerala” option4=”Shankari Prasad v. Union of India” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-1 – 2016
Download PDFAttempt Online
The constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001).
– The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, was enacted by the Parliament to overturn the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Shah Bano case (Muhammad Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985), which granted maintenance rights to divorced Muslim women under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
– The 1986 Act sought to limit the divorced Muslim woman’s right to maintenance from her husband primarily to the period of iddat.
– In the Danial Latifi case, the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act was challenged. The Supreme Court upheld the Act but interpreted its provisions, particularly Section 4, to mean that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to reasonable and fair maintenance from her former husband, not just during the iddat period, but for the rest of her life or until she remarries. This interpretation effectively ensured a maintenance right similar to the Shah Bano judgment, albeit within the framework of the 1986 Act.
Mary Roy v. State of Kerala (1986) was a case related to the property rights of Syrian Christian women in Kerala. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) was an early case regarding the Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights.
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5