WBCS Main Judiciary & Landmark Cases Questions and Answers

Answer: (C) The Attorney General of India

Explanation: Article 76 of the Constitution establishes the Attorney General of India as the highest law officer, appointed by the President with the same qualifications required for a Supreme Court Judge. He advises the Government on legal matters and may participate (without voting) in Parliamentary proceedings.

Attorney General of India:

Answer: (B) The Berubari Union Case

Explanation: In the Berubari Union Case (1960), the Supreme Court held that the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution and therefore is not enforceable in a court of law. This view was later overturned in the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973), where the Court held that the Preamble is indeed a part of the Constitution and can be used to interpret ambiguous provisions, though it is not directly enforceable and cannot override the express provisions of the Constitution.

Judicial Interpretation Timeline:

Answer: (B) H. J. Kania

Explanation: Harilal Jekisundas Kania was the first Chief Justice of India, serving from 26 January 1950 (the day the Supreme Court of India was established) until his death in office on 6 November 1951. He had earlier served as Chief Justice of the Federal Court of India before it was replaced by the Supreme Court under the new Constitution.

First Chief Justices of India:

Answer: (B) persons who are registered in the electoral rolls relating to the village

Explanation: Under Article 243(b) of the Constitution, the Gram Sabha is defined as a body consisting of persons registered in the electoral rolls relating to a village comprised within the area of a Panchayat at the village level. It is not a body of elected representatives but a general assembly of all adult residents/voters of the village, forming the foundational unit of the Panchayati Raj system.

Gram Sabha:

Answer: (A) The Parliament of India

Explanation: Under Article 230 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of a High Court can be extended to a Union Territory by the Parliament through law. Parliament may also exclude the jurisdiction of a High Court from any Union Territory or restrict/enlarge it as it deems fit. This is distinct from the establishment of a common High Court for two or more states, which is dealt with under Article 231.

Extension of High Court Jurisdiction:

Answer: (D) Supreme Court of India

Explanation: Under Article 317 of the Constitution, a member of a State Public Service Commission can be removed by the President only on the ground of misbehaviour, and only after the Supreme Court, on reference made by the President, has held an inquiry and reported that the member ought to be removed. This safeguard ensures independence of the Public Service Commission from arbitrary executive action.

Removal of Public Service Commission Members:

Answer: (A) The Parliament of India

Explanation: Under Article 230 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of a High Court can be extended to a Union Territory by the Parliament through law. Parliament may also restrict, enlarge, or exclude the jurisdiction of a High Court in respect of a Union Territory as it deems fit.

Extension of High Court Jurisdiction:

Answer: (C) Original jurisdiction

Explanation: Under Article 131 of the Constitution, disputes between the Government of India and one or more States, or between States themselves, fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This means such disputes can be brought directly before the Supreme Court without going through any lower court, and no other court has the authority to entertain them.

Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court:

Answer: (C) Golaknath vs. State of Punjab, 1967

Explanation: In the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) case, the Supreme Court held by a majority that Parliament had no power to amend Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights. The Court ruled that a constitutional amendment under Article 368 is “law” within the meaning of Article 13(2), and therefore any amendment violating Fundamental Rights would be void. This ruling was later overturned by the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which introduced the “basic structure” doctrine instead.

Fundamental Rights & Amendment Power:

Answer: (C) Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973

Explanation: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a narrow 7-6 majority, held that Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, including Fundamental Rights, but it cannot alter or destroy the “basic structure” or fundamental framework of the Constitution. This landmark ruling overturned the earlier Golaknath decision and established the basic structure doctrine, which remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law.

Kesavananda Bharati Case:

Answer: (B) Article 141

Explanation: Article 141 of the Constitution states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. This provision establishes the doctrine of precedent (stare decisis) at the constitutional level, ensuring uniformity in the interpretation and application of law across the country’s judicial system.

Article 141:

Answer: (A) Calcutta High Court

Explanation: The Calcutta High Court exercises territorial jurisdiction over the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, even though the islands are geographically distant from West Bengal. This arrangement continues a historical administrative link, as the islands were historically administered in connection with Bengal during the colonial period.

High Courts with Extended Jurisdiction over Union Territories:

Answer: (B) The Calcutta High Court

Explanation: The Calcutta High Court, established on 1 July 1862 under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861, is the oldest High Court in India. It was followed shortly by the Bombay and Madras High Courts, both also established in 1862.

Oldest High Courts in India:

Answer: (D) Mr. X v. Hospital Z

Explanation: In Mr. X v. Hospital Z (1998), the Supreme Court held that where there is a clash between two Fundamental Rights, the right that advances public morality or public interest would alone be enforced through the process of court. The case involved a doctor disclosing a patient’s HIV-positive status, balancing the patient’s right to privacy against the right to health/life of the person he intended to marry, with the Court favouring the latter as being in the larger public interest.

Mr. X v. Hospital Z:

Answer: (B) 10 years

Explanation: Under Article 124(3) of the Constitution, a person is eligible for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court if they have been an advocate of a High Court (or of two or more such courts in succession) for at least ten years. Alternatively, a person who has been a Judge of a High Court for at least five years is also eligible.

Eligibility for Supreme Court Judge:

Answer: (C) Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab

Explanation: In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the “Right to Life” under Article 21 does not include the “Right to Die.” The Court overruled the earlier P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) view that had decriminalised attempted suicide by treating Section 309 IPC as unconstitutional, and instead held that the right to life is a natural right that cannot logically include its own extinction, though it clarified that the right to die with dignity at the end of life (passive euthanasia in terminal cases) is a separate matter.

Right to Life vs. Right to Die:

Answer: (A) Narendra v. K. Meena

Explanation: In Narendra v. K. Meena (2016), the Supreme Court held that a wife’s attempt to compel her husband to be separated from his parents amounts to mental cruelty, and can be a valid ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court emphasized that in Indian society, it is a common practice for parents to live with their married sons, and demanding separation from aged/dependent parents without valid reason causes cruelty to the husband.

Narendra v. K. Meena:

Answer: (A) Doctrine of stare decisis

Explanation: The doctrine of stare decisis, a Latin term meaning “to stand by things decided,” is the principle by which courts follow precedents set by earlier decisions on the same or similar points of law. It ensures consistency, predictability, and stability in the legal system, requiring lower courts to follow the binding decisions of higher courts, and courts generally to follow their own prior rulings unless there is strong reason to depart.

Doctrine of Stare Decisis:

Answer: (C) 227

Explanation: Article 227 of the Constitution vests every High Court with the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, except courts/tribunals constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces. This power allows the High Court to call for returns, make rules for court practice, and ensure subordinate courts function within the bounds of law.

Article 227:

Answer: (B) Sarla Mudgal v. Union Of India

Explanation: In Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995), the Supreme Court held that a Hindu husband, married under Hindu law, who converts to Islam and remarries without dissolving his first marriage, commits the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC. The Court ruled that mere conversion to Islam does not automatically dissolve a marriage solemnised under Hindu law, and the second marriage remains invalid unless the first marriage is legally dissolved under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India:

Answer: (C) Examine the Constitutional validity of the laws

Explanation: Judicial Review is the power of the Supreme Court (and High Courts) to examine the constitutional validity of legislative enactments and executive orders, and to declare them void if they are found to be inconsistent with or in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. This power acts as a check on the legislature and executive, ensuring that all laws and actions conform to constitutional mandates, particularly the Fundamental Rights.

Judicial Review:

Answer: (B) S. P. Gupta v. Union of India

Explanation: Explanation of Options:

(C) In re Presidential Reference (1998): This is known as the Third Judges’ Case. It was a presidential reference under Article 143 of the Constitution, which expanded the Supreme Court Collegium to include the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most judges.

B) S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): This case is popularly known as the “Judges’ Transfer Case” (or the First Judges’ Case). It arose out of a circular issued by the Law Minister regarding the transfer of High Court judges and the non-confirmation of additional judges. The Supreme Court primarily dealt with the executive’s power over judicial appointments and transfers, concluding that “consultation” did not mean concurrence.

(A) Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India (1993): This landmark ruling is known as the Second Judges’ Case. It overruled the S.P. Gupta decision and introduced the Collegium System, turning the requirement of “consultation” into “concurrence”.

Answer: (B) Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India

Explanation: In Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India (1973), the Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights form an inviolable part of the Constitution and, while Parliament can amend them, it cannot destroy their essence as part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution. This ruling struck a balance between Parliament’s amending power and the protection of core constitutional values, overturning the earlier Golaknath position that Fundamental Rights could not be amended at all.

Fundamental Rights as Inviolable:

Answer: (C) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Explanation: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is widely known as the “Fundamental Rights Case,” decided by a 13-judge bench — the largest ever constituted by the Supreme Court of India. The case settled the long-running debate on Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights, holding that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but could not alter its “basic structure.”

Kesavananda Bharati Case — “Fundamental Rights Case”:

Answer: (B) Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Explanation: In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996), the Supreme Court held that the Right to Shelter is a fundamental right available to every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution, as it is a basic human right necessary for civilised existence. The Court emphasized that shelter for a human being is not a mere protection of life but includes all infrastructure necessary to live in comfort and dignity, such as basic living conditions and civic amenities.

Right to Shelter:

Answer: (B) R. D. Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India

Explanation: (B) R. D. Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India (1979): In this landmark case, Justice P.N. Bhagwati propounded the “agency or instrumentality” test to determine whether a body falls under the definition of “Other Authorities” within Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court held that if a body acts as an agency or instrumentality of the government, it constitutes the “State” and is subject to Fundamental Rights obligations.

(D) Som Prakash v. Union of India (1981): This case further applied the principles of R.D. Shetty, ruling that statutory corporations like the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) qualify as the “State” under Article 12.

(A) Ujjambai v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962): In this case, the Supreme Court rejected the restrictive rule of ejusdem generis for interpreting “other authorities”, broadening the scope of Article 12 but prior to the concrete development of the instrumentality test.

(C) Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981): This case built directly upon R.D. Shetty. It codified six specific criteria (such as entire share capital held by the government, deep and pervasive state control, and public functions) to systematically analyze whether a corporation is an instrumentality of the State.

Answer: (B) Article 129

Explanation: Article 129 of the Constitution declares the Supreme Court of India to be a “Court of Record” and vests it with all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself. As a Court of Record, its decisions and proceedings are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony, and its records are admitted to have evidentiary value and cannot be questioned when produced before any court.

Article 129:

Answer: (C) 25

Explanation: At present, India has 25 High Courts. The 25th High Court was the Andhra Pradesh High Court, established in 2019 following the bifurcation of the erstwhile combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana (Hyderabad High Court), giving Telangana its own separate High Court at Hyderabad and a new one for Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.

High Courts of India:

Answer: (A) Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration

Explanation: In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978), the Supreme Court held that solitary confinement of a prisoner, especially one under sentence of death, amounts to a violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) unless imposed strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law. The Court emphasized that prisoners do not shed their fundamental rights at the prison gates and that harsh, unjustified punitive measures like solitary confinement require judicial scrutiny.

Prisoners’ Rights:

Answer: This question was cancelled by the PSC.

Answer: (B) 62 years

Explanation: Constitutional Context:

• Current Provision: According to Article 217(1) of the Constitution of India, a judge of a High Court holds office until they attain the age of 62 years. Historical Amendment: Originally, the retirement age was fixed at 60 years. It was later raised to 62 years in 1963 by the 15th Constitutional Amendment Act.
• Subordinate/District Judiciary: The retirement age has traditionally been 60 years, though the Supreme Court recently directed states to formally amend service rules to raise it to 62 years subject to suitability.
• Supreme Court Judges: Retire at the age of 65 years (under Article 124(2)).

Answer: (C) Article 142

Explanation: Article 142 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or make any order as is necessary for doing “complete justice” in any cause or matter pending before it. This is a unique and wide-ranging power that allows the Court to go beyond the strict letter of the law to ensure that justice is served in a given case, and such orders are enforceable throughout India.

Article 142 — Complete Justice:

Answer: This question was cancelled by the PSC.

Answer: (D) Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board v. Sri C. Kenchappa

Explanation: In Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. Sri C. Kenchappa (2006), the Supreme Court held that the right to access to drinking water is fundamental to life, and there is a duty on the State under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its citizens. The case dealt with land acquisition for industrial development and the need to balance industrialisation with environmental protection and access to natural resources like water.

Right to Drinking Water:

Answer: (C) Justice P. N. Bhagwati

Explanation: Justice P. N. Bhagwati, who served as the Chief Justice of India from 1985 to 1986, is widely credited (along with Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer) as the founding figure of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India. He pioneered the relaxation of the traditional rule of “locus standi,” allowing any public-spirited citizen or organization to approach the courts on behalf of those who could not do so themselves due to poverty, illiteracy, or social/economic disadvantage.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL):

Answer: (A) Article 131

Explanation: Article 131 of the Constitution confers exclusive Original Jurisdiction on the Supreme Court over disputes between the Government of India and one or more States, between the Government of India and any State(s) on one side and one or more other States on the other, or between two or more States. Such disputes can be initiated directly in the Supreme Court, and no other court has jurisdiction over them.

Article 131 — Original Jurisdiction:

Answer: (D) New Delhi

Explanation: The permanent seat of the Supreme Court of India is at New Delhi. Under Article 130 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court sits at Delhi or at such other place(s) as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, appoint from time to time, though in practice it has always functioned from Delhi.

Seat of the Supreme Court:

Answer: (A) Consolidated Fund

Explanation: Under Article 125 of the Constitution, the salaries and allowances of the Judges of the Supreme Court are charged upon (drawn from) the Consolidated Fund of India. This ensures their financial independence, as expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund is non-votable, meaning it does not require annual approval by Parliament through the usual budgetary voting process, thereby insulating judicial salaries from political pressure.

Salaries of Supreme Court Judges:

Answer: (C) 226

Explanation: Article 226 of the Constitution empowers every High Court to issue directions, orders, or writs — including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari — to any person or authority, including the government, for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose. This power is wider than the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 32, as it extends beyond just Fundamental Rights to “any other purpose” (i.e., legal rights as well).

Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction of High Court:

Answer: (A) 65 years

Explanation: Under Article 124(2) of the Constitution, a Judge of the Supreme Court holds office until they attain the age of 65 years. This retirement age is fixed constitutionally and cannot be altered by ordinary legislation, distinguishing it from the earlier retirement age structure for High Court Judges, which required a constitutional amendment to be raised from 62 to 65 years.

Retirement Age of Supreme Court Judges:

Answer: (B) Impeachment

Explanation: Under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, a Judge of the Supreme Court can be removed from office only by an order of the President, issued after an address by each House of Parliament, supported by a special majority (majority of total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting), presented in the same session, on grounds of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.” This process is commonly referred to as impeachment.

Removal of Supreme Court Judges:

Answer: (A) 1973

Explanation: The landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case was decided in 1973 by a 13-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, which by a narrow 7-6 majority propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure.

Kesavananda Bharati Case:

Answer: (B) Criminal Procedure Code

Explanation: CrPC stands for Criminal Procedure Code, which is the main legislation governing the procedure for administration of substantive criminal law in India, including the investigation of crimes, apprehension of suspected criminals, collection of evidence, and determination of guilt or innocence. The current Code of Criminal Procedure was enacted in 1973 and came into force on 1 April 1974.

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):

Answer: (A) Article 143

Explanation: Article 143 of the Constitution empowers the President of India to seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact of public importance that has arisen, or is likely to arise. The Supreme Court, after such hearing as it thinks fit, reports its opinion to the President, though the President is not bound to accept or act upon this advice, and it does not have the same binding force as a normal judicial decision.

Advisory Jurisdiction of Supreme Court:

Answer: (D) President of India

Explanation: Under Article 124(2) of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of India and other Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of India. In the case of appointing Judges other than the Chief Justice, the President is constitutionally required to consult the Chief Justice of India, and in practice, appointments are made following the recommendations of the Collegium system (comprising the CJI and senior-most judges).

Appointment of Supreme Court Judges:

Answer: (D) Regulating Act, 1773

Explanation: The Regulating Act of 1773, enacted by the British Parliament, provided for the establishment of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William, Calcutta, in 1774. This was the first Supreme Court in India during British rule, consisting of a Chief Justice and three puisne judges, and it was later followed by similar Supreme Courts at Madras (1801) and Bombay (1823), before all being replaced by High Courts under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861.

Establishment of Supreme Court at Calcutta (1774):

Answer: (A) Article 131

Explanation: Article 131 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court exclusive Original Jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between the Government of India and one or more States, between the Government of India and any State(s) on one side and one or more other States on the other side, or between two or more States. This jurisdiction is exclusive, meaning no other court in India can entertain such disputes.

Article 131 — Original Jurisdiction:

Answer: (C) Keshavananda Bharati Case, 1973

Explanation: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a narrow 7-6 majority, ruled that Parliament has wide powers under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but it cannot alter or destroy the “basic structure” or essential framework of the Constitution. This landmark ruling established the Basic Structure Doctrine, overturning the earlier Golaknath decision.

Kesavananda Bharati Case:

Answer: (C) the President asks for it

Explanation: Under Article 143 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court tenders legal advice to the President of India when the President specifically refers a question of law or fact of public importance to it for its opinion. The Court’s advisory jurisdiction is thus triggered only upon a Presidential reference, and the Court exercises discretion (under Article 143(1)) on whether to answer, except in matters covered under Article 143(2) relating to pre-Constitution treaties, where it must give its opinion.

Advisory Jurisdiction — Article 143:

Answer: (B) The Calcutta High Court

Explanation: The Calcutta High Court, established on 1 July 1862 under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861, is the oldest High Court in India, predating the Bombay and Madras High Courts, which were also established in the same year shortly afterward.

Oldest High Courts in India:

Answer: (B) He must be a citizen of India;
In the opinion of the President a distinguished jurist;
Has been a Judge of a High Court for at least five years, or
Has been an advocate of a High Court (or two or more such courts in succession) for at least ten years

Explanation: Article 124(3) of the Constitution lays down three alternative qualifications for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court: the person must be a citizen of India, and must have either been a Judge of a High Court (or High Courts in succession) for at least five years, or been an advocate of a High Court (or High Courts in succession) for at least ten years, or be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President. Notably, the assessment of “distinguished jurist” is made by the President, not by the Ministry of Law, distinguishing this option from the incorrect alternatives.

Qualifications for Supreme Court Judge — Article 124(3):

Answer: (C) The Supreme Court

Explanation: The Supreme Court of India is the final authority to interpret the Constitution. Through its power of judicial review, the Supreme Court examines the constitutional validity of laws and executive actions, and its interpretation of constitutional provisions is binding on all courts in India under Article 141. This makes it the ultimate guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

Supreme Court as Final Interpreter:

Answer: (A) Calcutta High Court

Explanation: The Calcutta High Court exercises territorial jurisdiction over the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, continuing a historical administrative connection from the colonial period when the islands were governed in association with Bengal.

High Courts with Extended Jurisdiction over Union Territories:

Answer: (D) None

Explanation: As of now, no Judge of the Supreme Court of India has ever been removed from office through impeachment. While impeachment proceedings have been initiated against a few judges — most notably Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) and Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta High Court (2011, though he resigned before Lok Sabha vote) — none has resulted in a successful removal, either due to failure to secure the required special majority in Parliament or because the judge resigned beforehand.

Impeachment of Judges in India:

Answer: (D) English

Explanation: Under the Official Languages Act, 1963 (as amended), if a Governor authorizes the use of Hindi or the official language of the State in High Court proceedings/judgments, an authoritative translation of that judgment, order, or decree must also be provided in English. This is because Article 348 of the Constitution mandates that all proceedings in High Courts shall be in English unless the State legislature, with the President’s consent, provides otherwise, and English remains the authoritative text for legal certainty.

Language of High Court Judgments:

Answer: (B) the President, on the basis of a resolution passed by the Parliament by two-thirds majority in each House of Parliament

Explanation: Under Article 217 read with Article 124(4), a Judge of a High Court can be removed from office during their tenure only by an order of the President, issued after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a special majority (majority of total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting), presented in the same session, on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. This is the same impeachment process applicable to Supreme Court Judges.

Removal of High Court Judges:

Answer: (B) Andhra Pradesh High Court

Explanation: The Andhra Pradesh High Court, established in 2019 following the bifurcation of the combined Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court (which had been at Hyderabad), is the 25th High Court of India. It is located at Amaravati, while the Telangana High Court retained the original Hyderabad location.

25th High Court of India:

Answer: (A) Public Interest Litigation (PIL) refers to litigation undertaken to secure public interest and demonstrates the availability of justice to socially disadvantaged parties and was introduced by Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Justice Krishna Ayer. It is an extra judicious remedy and a part of judicial activism to enforce public interest and a vehicle to enforce rights.

Explanation: Option (A) correctly describes PIL as litigation aimed at securing public interest and access to justice for socially disadvantaged groups, pioneered by Justices P. N. Bhagwati and V. R. Krishna Iyer as part of judicial activism. The other options are incorrect: PIL can be entertained by both the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226), not exclusively by the SC; PIL is a judicial innovation and is not explicitly enshrined in the Constitution; and PIL has, in fact, significantly helped address environmental grievances and benefited disadvantaged groups, contrary to option (D).

Public Interest Litigation (PIL):

Answer: (C) All doubts arising out of or in connection with the election of a President shall be inquired into and decided by the Supreme Court whose decision shall be final under the Constitution of India.

Explanation: This statement, while largely accurate in substance, is the “not true” option likely because it omits or misstates a specific constitutional nuance under Article 71 — the actual constitutional provision states that such doubts and disputes are inquired into and decided by the Supreme Court, but Article 71(3) allows Parliament to regulate by law any matter relating to or connected with such an election, meaning the process is not solely governed by an absolute, unqualified finality clause as the statement implies. The other three statements (A, B, D) are correct descriptions of the Supreme Court’s appellate position, the express presence of judicial review in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court’s status as a Court of Record with contempt powers respectively.

Presidential Election Disputes:

Answer: (A) The Parliament of India

Explanation: Under Article 230 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of a High Court can be extended to a Union Territory by the Parliament through law. Parliament may also restrict, enlarge, or exclude the jurisdiction of a High Court in respect of a Union Territory as it deems fit.

Extension of High Court Jurisdiction:

Answer: (C) Doctrine of severability

Explanation: The Doctrine of Severability, derived from Article 13 of the Constitution, provides that when a part of a statute is found to be unconstitutional or invalid (e.g., for violating Fundamental Rights), only that invalid part is struck down, provided it can be separated from the rest of the Act without affecting its overall scheme. If the valid and invalid parts are so intertwined that they cannot be separated, the entire Act is declared void.

Doctrine of Severability:

Answer: (B) Balaji v. State of Mysore

Explanation: (B) M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962): In this landmark case, the State of Mysore issued an order reserving 68% of seats in engineering and medical colleges for backward classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes. A 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down this order, explicitly stating that “excessive reservation would be a fraud on the Constitution”.

The Court held that Article 15(4) is a special provision meant to advance weaker sections but cannot swallow the general rule of equality. It was in this very case that the Supreme Court first introduced the principle that, speaking generally, reservation quotas should be kept below 50%.

(D) Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Famously known as the Mandal Case, the 9-judge bench upheld the 27% quota for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and formalized the 50% reservation ceiling introduced by M.R. Balaji as a binding rule of law.

(A) Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (1999): This case focused on the application of the “Catch-Up Rule” regarding seniority of general category candidates versus promoted reserved category candidates.

(C) Devdasan v. Union of India (1964): In this ruling, the Supreme Court struck down the “Carry Forward Rule” implemented by the government because it resulted in 68% of vacancies being reserved in a particular year, breaching the reasonable limits established in M.R. Balaji.

Answer: (C) E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu

Explanation: In E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), Justice P. N. Bhagwati propounded the “new concept of equality,” holding that equality is a dynamic concept and that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality under Article 14. He introduced the doctrine that where an act is arbitrary, it is implicitly unequal, thereby expanding Article 14 beyond the traditional “reasonable classification” test to include protection against arbitrary state action.

E. P. Royappa Case:

Answer: (C) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Explanation: In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are not mutually exclusive but are interconnected, and together they aim to ensure reasonableness and fairness in any law that seeks to deprive a person of their life or personal liberty. This case established the “golden triangle” doctrine, ruling that any procedure established by law under Article 21 must also be fair, just, and reasonable, and must not violate Articles 14 and 19.

Maneka Gandhi Case:

Answer: (C) Golaknath v. State of Punjab

Explanation: In Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court held by a majority that a constitutional amendment made under Article 368 is “law” within the meaning of Article 13(2), and therefore, if such an amendment abridges or takes away any Fundamental Right, it would be void. This overturned the earlier view in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh cases, which had held that amendments were not “law” under Article 13 and thus could validly affect Fundamental Rights.

Amendment as “Law” under Article 13:

Answer: (D) Keshavananda Bharti v. State Kerala

Explanation: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), Chief Justice S. M. Sikri expressed the view that the Preamble of the Constitution is of extreme importance and that the Constitution should be read and interpreted in light of the grand and noble vision expressed in the Preamble. This was a significant departure from the earlier Berubari Union case (1960), where the Supreme Court had held that the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution.

Preamble’s Importance — Judicial View in Kesavananda Bharati:

Answer: (B) colourable legislation

Explanation: The doctrine of colourable legislation is based on the maxim “what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.” It applies when a legislature, lacking the competence to enact a law on a particular subject directly, attempts to achieve the same result indirectly by camouflaging the law under the guise of its legislative competence on another subject. Courts examine the “substance” of the legislation rather than its outward form or label to determine if this doctrine applies.

Doctrine of Colourable Legislation:

Answer: (A) original jurisdiction

Explanation: Under Article 131 of the Constitution, disputes between the Government of India and one or more States fall within the exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This jurisdiction allows such disputes to be brought directly before the Supreme Court, and no other court has the authority to entertain them.

Original Jurisdiction — Article 131:

Answer: (D) cannot be reduced during the term of their office except during financial emergency

Explanation: Under Article 125(2) of the Constitution, the salaries and allowances of Supreme Court Judges cannot be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment, except during a Financial Emergency declared under Article 360. This provision safeguards judicial independence by ensuring judges’ financial security is not subject to arbitrary reduction by the executive or legislature during their tenure, with the sole exception being a genuine national financial crisis.

Salaries of Supreme Court Judges:

Answer: (A) High Court’s power of superintendence

Explanation: Article 227 of the Constitution vests every High Court with the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, except courts/tribunals constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces. This power enables the High Court to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals function within the bounds of law and do not exceed or abuse their jurisdiction.

Article 227:

Answer: (B) Article 141

Explanation: Article 141 of the Constitution states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. This provision establishes the doctrine of precedent (stare decisis) at the constitutional level, ensuring uniformity in the interpretation and application of law throughout the judicial system.

Article 141:

Answer: (A) the Parliament by law

Explanation: Under Article 138 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as conferred by Parliament, may be enlarged by Parliament by law, with respect to any matter in the Union List. Additionally, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can also be enlarged by the Government of India and the Government of any State, through special agreement, in matters not enumerated in the Union List (Article 138(2)), but the base provision under 138(1) is enlargement by Parliament through law.

Article 138 — Enlargement of Supreme Court Jurisdiction:

Answer: (A) Asha Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir

Explanation: In Asha Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, the Supreme Court ruled that if the advice or recommendation of the Public Service Commission is not accepted by the government, the reasons for not accepting such advice have to be communicated to the Legislature. This ensures a check on arbitrary executive action and promotes transparency and accountability when departing from the Commission’s expert recommendations on matters like recruitment and disciplinary proceedings.

Public Service Commission :

Answer: (B) in the High Court from where he has retired

Explanation: Under Article 220 of the Constitution, a retired permanent Judge of a High Court is prohibited from pleading or acting in any court or before any authority in India, except the Supreme Court and the other High Courts, specifically the High Court from which they retired. This restriction is meant to prevent a retired judge from using their prior position and influence to unduly benefit litigants in the very court where they previously held judicial office.

Restriction on Practice by Retired High Court Judges:

Answer: (A) Golaknath v. State of Punjab

Explanation: The doctrine of prospective overruling was first evolved by Justice K. Subba Rao (then Chief Justice) in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967). Under this doctrine, a new ruling that overturns a previous legal position applies only prospectively (to future cases), while transactions and actions already concluded under the old law remain unaffected and valid. This was applied to prevent chaos, as the Court held that Fundamental Rights could not be amended, but did not disturb the validity of constitutional amendments already made prior to the judgment.

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling:

Answer: (D) Parliament

Explanation: Under Article 247 of the Constitution, Parliament may by law establish additional courts for the better administration of laws made by Parliament with respect to any matter enumerated in the Union List. This provision allows Parliament to create specialized courts at the Union level as needed, distinct from the regular High Court and subordinate court structure, in order to ensure efficient enforcement of Union laws.

Article 247 — Additional Courts:

Answer: (C) original jurisdiction

Explanation: Under Article 131 of the Constitution, disputes between two or more States fall within the exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Such disputes can be brought directly before the Supreme Court, and no other court in India has the authority to entertain them.

Article 131 — Original Jurisdiction:

Answer: (A) Article 310

Explanation: The Doctrine of Pleasure, under Article 310 of the Constitution, provides that members of the defence services, civil services of the Union, or civil services of a State hold office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor, as the case may be. This means such officials can be dismissed at will without assigning any cause, though this power is subject to the procedural safeguards provided under Article 311.

Doctrine of Pleasure:

Answer: (A) Consolidated Fund of India

Explanation: Under Article 112(3), any sum required to satisfy a judgment, decree, or award of any court or arbitral tribunal against the Government of India is classified as “charged expenditure” on the Consolidated Fund of India. This means such payments are not subject to a vote in Parliament and are automatically payable, ensuring that court judgments against the government are honoured without political interference or delay.

Charged Expenditure — Judgment/Decree/Award:

Answer: (D) Colourable legislation

Explanation: The doctrine of colourable legislation is based on the maxim “what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.” It applies when a legislature, lacking competence to enact a law on a particular subject directly, attempts to achieve the same result indirectly by disguising the law under the cover of its legislative competence on another subject. Courts look at the substance and true nature of the legislation, not its outward form or label, to determine if this doctrine applies.

Doctrine of Colourable Legislation:

Answer: (B) 5

Explanation: Under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, the minimum number of judges required to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, or for hearing any reference under Article 143 (Presidential reference for advisory opinion), shall be five. Such a bench is commonly referred to as a Constitution Bench.

Constitution Bench:

Answer: (D) 65 years

Explanation: Under Article 124(2) of the Constitution, a Judge of the Supreme Court holds office until they attain the age of 65 years. This retirement age is fixed constitutionally and applies uniformly to all Supreme Court Judges, including the Chief Justice of India.

Retirement Age of Supreme Court Judges:

Answer: (A) original jurisdiction

Explanation: Under Article 131 of the Constitution, disputes between two or more States fall within the exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Such disputes can be brought directly before the Supreme Court, and no other court in India has the authority to entertain them.

Article 131 — Original Jurisdiction:

Answer: (A) In re Keshwananda Bharti

Explanation: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that the Preamble is a “basic feature” of the Constitution. This ruling established that the Preamble, being part of the Constitution and reflecting its fundamental values and philosophy, is itself protected by the Basic Structure Doctrine and cannot be amended in a manner that destroys its essential character.

Preamble as Basic Feature:

Answer: (D) Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India

Explanation: In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993), commonly known as the Second Judges Case, the Supreme Court held that primacy should be given to the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, formed in consultation with a collegium of senior judges, in the matter of appointment and transfer of High Court and Supreme Court judges. This case reversed the earlier First Judges Case position, which had given primacy to the executive’s opinion, and established the Collegium system.

Judges Transfer/Appointment Cases:

Answer: (D) Golaknath v. State of Punjab

Explanation: The doctrine of prospective overruling was first evolved by Chief Justice K. Subba Rao in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967). Under this doctrine, a new ruling that overturns a previous legal position applies only prospectively (to future cases), while past transactions and actions concluded under the old law remain unaffected and valid, thereby preventing legal and administrative chaos.

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling:

Answer: (C) P. B. Sawant, J

Explanation: In the S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case, Justice P. B. Sawant, delivering one of the leading opinions, observed that democracy and federalism are essential features of the Constitution and form part of its basic structure. This landmark case laid down guidelines restricting the misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule) and affirmed that secularism, democracy, and federalism are integral to the Constitution’s basic framework.

S. R. Bommai Case:

Answer: (C) Golaknath v. State of Punjab

Explanation: In Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court held by a majority that a constitutional amendment made under Article 368 is “law” within the meaning of Article 13(2), and therefore, if such an amendment abridges or takes away any Fundamental Right, it would be void. This overturned the earlier view in the Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh cases, which had held that amendments were not “law” under Article 13.

Amendment as “Law” under Article 13:

Answer: (C) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Explanation: In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are not mutually exclusive but are interconnected, and together they aim to ensure reasonableness and fairness in any law that seeks to deprive a person of their life or personal liberty. This case established the “golden triangle” doctrine, ruling that any procedure established by law under Article 21 must also be fair, just, and reasonable.

Maneka Gandhi Case:

Answer: (B) E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu

Explanation: In E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), Justice P. N. Bhagwati propounded the new concept of equality under Article 14, holding that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality and that where an act is arbitrary, it is implicitly unequal. This expanded Article 14 beyond the traditional “reasonable classification” test to include protection against arbitrary state action.

E. P. Royappa Case:

Answer: (D) Nilabeti Behera v. State of Orissa

Explanation: In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to proceedings under Article 32 (or Article 226) for compensation awarded to victims of violation of Fundamental Rights by the State, particularly custodial death. The Court distinguished this public law remedy of compensation from private law remedies in tort, holding that sovereign immunity is not a valid defence when a citizen’s Fundamental Rights have been violated by state instrumentalities.

Nilabati Behera Case:

Answer: (B) 3, 2, 1

Explanation: The correct chronological sequence is A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), followed by A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (1976), followed by Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). Gopalan initially gave a narrow, literal interpretation to Article 21; A.D.M. Jabalpur (the infamous Habeas Corpus case, during the Emergency) held that the right to life and personal liberty could be suspended during a national emergency; and Maneka Gandhi finally overruled the narrow approach, expanding Article 21 to require fair, just, and reasonable procedure.

Chronology of Personal Liberty Cases:

Answer: (B) Section 14

Explanation: In A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court declared Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 as ultra vires (unconstitutional). This section prohibited a detained person from disclosing the grounds of their detention in any court, which the Court found to be an unreasonable restriction violating constitutional protections. However, applying the doctrine of severability, only this section was struck down, while the rest of the Act was upheld as valid.

A. K. Gopalan Case — Preventive Detention Act, 1950:

Answer: (D) V. V. Shiva prasad v. K. Venkateswarlu

Answer: (B) Golak Nath v. State of Punjab

Explanation: Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) primarily dealt with the question of whether Parliament has the power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368, and is not centrally related to the “doctrine of separation of powers.” In contrast, the other options — State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, Union of India v. Sankalchand, and Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu & Kashmir — each substantively engaged with the separation of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary.

Separation of Powers:

Answer: (C) Both (A) and (B)

Explanation: The principle that Article 74(1) is mandatory, and therefore the President cannot exercise executive power without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, was observed by the Supreme Court in both Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) and U. N. R. Rao v. Indira Gandhi (1971). Both cases reinforced that the President is a constitutional/nominal head who must act on the binding advice of the Council of Ministers, a principle further cemented by the 42nd and 44th Constitutional Amendments.

President’s Duty to Act on Ministerial Advice:

Answer: (A) Kehar Singh v. Union of India.

Explanation: (A) Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1988): This historic case arose from the trial of Kehar Singh, who was convicted of conspiracy in the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. A 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court examined the precise contours of Article 72.
The Court explicitly laid down that the President’s executive power to grant a pardon is entirely independent and distinct from judicial power. It ruled that courts cannot review the presidential order on its merits. The role of the judiciary is strictly limited to examining the area, scope, and procedural adherence of the power to ensure it was not exercised arbitrarily, maliciously, or on completely irrelevant considerations.

Answer: (A) The President of India

Explanation: Under Article 143 of the Constitution, only the President of India is competent to seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact of public importance. This is a discretionary power vested solely in the President, and neither the Prime Minister, a State Government, nor the Parliament can directly invoke this advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Advisory Jurisdiction:

Answer: (B) 1980’s

Explanation: The concept of “Judicial Activism” gained significant currency in India during the 1980s, a period marked by the expansion of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), relaxation of the rule of locus standi, and a more proactive judiciary addressing issues of social justice, environmental protection, and human rights. Judges like P. N. Bhagwati and V. R. Krishna Iyer played pioneering roles in this era, using epistolary jurisdiction and expansive interpretations of Fundamental Rights (especially Article 21) to address societal grievances.

Judicial Activism in India:

Answer: (A) Sankari Prasad v. UOI

Explanation: The first Constitutional Amendment (which inserted Articles 31A and 31B, and the Ninth Schedule, primarily to protect land reform laws) was challenged in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951). The petitioners argued that a constitutional amendment under Article 368 was “law” within the meaning of Article 13(2), and since it abridged Fundamental Rights (particularly the Right to Property), it should be void. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that “law” under Article 13 refers only to ordinary legislation, not constitutional amendments, and thus upheld the validity of the amendment.

Shankari Prasad Case:

Answer: (B) The Supreme Court

Explanation: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it is preserved and protected by the Supreme Court of India through its power of judicial review. The Supreme Court acts as the final interpreter and guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that all laws and executive actions conform to constitutional provisions, and that the basic structure of the Constitution remains inviolable against any attempts at destructive amendment.

Supreme Court as Guardian of the Constitution:

Answer: (D) Parliament in 1986.

Explanation: The Mechanism: According to Article 124(1) of the Constitution of India, the power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court is vested exclusively in Parliament via ordinary legislative amendment. To execute this, the legislature enacted the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.
The 1986 Amendment: Through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986, Parliament significantly expanded the sanctioned strength of the apex court from 17 judges to 25 judges (excluding the Chief Justice of India). This historical benchmark corresponds to the choice provided in standard constitutional law multiple-choice test papers.

Answer: (D) A. Krishna Iyer

Explanation: The Statement: This famous observation was made by Sir Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar (often abbreviated or alternative-printed as A. Krishna Iyer / Alladi Krishna Iyer in various state examination question papers).
The Meaning: As a distinguished jurist and a vital member of the Constituent Assembly’s Drafting Committee, he praised the vast jurisdiction designed for the apex court. He emphasized that the Supreme Court of India is uniquely powerful because it acts simultaneously as a federal court (similar to the US Supreme Court) and as a final, absolute court of appeal for civil and criminal matters (similar to the British House of Lords).

Answer: (A) Gopalan case

Explanation: In A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court struck down Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, which prohibited a detained person from disclosing the grounds of detention to any court. While the Court upheld the broader constitutionality of preventive detention laws under the narrow, literal interpretation of Article 21 prevailing at the time, it struck down this specific provision as an unreasonable restriction, applying the doctrine of severability to keep the rest of the Act intact.

A. K. Gopalan Case — Preventive Detention Act:

Answer: (C) Right, authority and jurisdiction.

Explanation: According to Article 73(1)(b) of the Constitution of India, the executive power of the Union extends explicitly to:

“…the exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Government of India by virtue of any treaty or agreement.”

International Treaties: Clause (1)(b) specifically ensures that when the Government of India enters into foreign treaties, accords, or international agreements, it automatically holds the structural right, authority, and jurisdiction to enforce and execute those commitments inside the country.

Scope: Article 73 outlines the boundaries of the Union’s executive powers. It makes the executive power co-extensive with the legislative power of Parliament (meaning the government can execute administration on matters where Parliament can make laws).

Answer: (A) exclusively by the Collegium of the Supreme Court of India

Explanation: Following the Second and Third Judges Cases (1993, 1998), High Court judges in India are appointed through the Collegium system, wherein the recommendations effectively originate from and are finalized by the Collegium of the Supreme Court (in consultation with the Collegium of the concerned High Court), with the President formally issuing the appointment. The attempt to replace this system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, reaffirming exclusive primacy of the judicial collegium in the appointment process.

Appointment of High Court Judges:

Answer: (A) Supreme Court

Explanation: Under Article 124(3) of the Constitution, a person who is a distinguished jurist, in the opinion of the President, can be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court, even without having served as a High Court Judge or advocate for the prescribed number of years. This is a special, alternative qualification route distinct from the judicial/advocacy experience routes, though it has rarely been used in practice.

Jurist Appointment to Supreme Court:

Answer: (D) The Governor

Explanation: Under Article 163(2) of the Constitution, if any question arises as to whether a matter is one in which the Governor is required by or under the Constitution to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor cannot be called into question on the ground that they ought or ought not to have acted in their discretion. This provision gives the Governor the final say in determining the scope of their own discretionary powers, subject to limited judicial review in cases of mala fide exercise.

Governor’s Discretionary Power — Article 163:

Answer: (D) The Directive Principles contained in Article 39(b), (c) supersede the fundamental rights.

Explanation: The Minerva Mills Case (1980): The Supreme Court struck down this sweeping expansion as unconstitutional, ruling that the “harmony and balance” between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is a core part of the basic structure.

The 25th Amendment (1971): This amendment introduced Article 31C, establishing a “shield”: if the government passed a law to implement the socialist principles under Article 39(b) (distribution of material resources) or Article 39(c) (prevention of concentration of wealth), that law could not be struck down for violating the Fundamental Rights under Article 14 (Equality) or Article 19 (Freedoms).

The 42nd Amendment (1976): Parliament attempted to expand this shield significantly by declaring that laws implementing any or all Directive Principles (DPSPs) would supersede Fundamental Rights.

Answer: (C) Head Masters v. UOI.

Explanation: In the landmark case of West Bengal Head Masters’ Association v. Union of India (AIR 1983 Cal 448), the Calcutta High Court systematically evaluated the exact constitutional nature and legal strength of the Fundamental Duties introduced under Article 51A (Part IV-A).

The Court enunciated several core principles that now serve as standard constitutional jurisprudence:

Interpretative Tool for Ambiguity: Most importantly, the bench clarified that while they are non-enforceable on their own merits, they do not remain completely legally dead. The judiciary holds a constitutional obligation to use Fundamental Duties as a guiding framework to interpret ambiguous statutes or verify the validity and reasonableness of restrictive laws passed by Parliament.

Non-Enforceability by Writs: Fundamental duties are explicitly non-justiciable. Because they do not automatically create direct public legal obligations or specific individual entitlements, a citizen cannot file a writ petition (such as a Writ of Mandamus) to compel their performance or seek a punitive legal sanction for non-compliance.

Promotion via Constitutional Methods: The court ruled that these duties cannot be legally forced upon a person by judicial command; they are intended to be promoted through educational, persuasive, and state-backed constitutional methods.

Answer: (B) Section 303

Explanation: Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribed a mandatory death sentence for murder committed by a person already under a sentence of life imprisonment, was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983). A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud struck down Section 303, holding that by removing all judicial discretion and barring any consideration of mitigating circumstances, the section was arbitrary under Article 14 and imposed an unjust, unfair and unreasonable procedure under Article 21. After this ruling, such murders fell under Section 302, where the death penalty became discretionary and reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases.

Mithu v. State of Punjab:

Answer: (A) exercise of legislative power of the Parliament

Explanation: Under Article 32(3) of the Constitution, Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise, within the local limits of its jurisdiction, all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under Article 32(2) for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights conferred by Part III, without prejudice to the Supreme Court’s own powers under clauses (1) and (2). This provision allows Parliament, through ordinary legislative action, to decentralize the enforcement of Fundamental Rights to other courts.

Article 32(3) — Empowering Other Courts:

Answer: (A) 26th Amendment

Explanation: The 26th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 abolished the Privy Purses and privileges granted to former rulers of princely states, which had been guaranteed at the time of their accession to the Indian Union. This amendment inserted Article 363A into the Constitution, which explicitly derecognized former rulers and terminated the privy purses, overriding the earlier Supreme Court judgment in R. C. Cooper v. Union of India / Madhav Rao Scindia case that had struck down a Presidential Order attempting to do the same.

26th Amendment:

Answer: (C) Both (A) And (B)

Explanation: The concept of the basic structure of the Constitution, first propounded in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), was further elaborated and strengthened in both Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980). In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the Court struck down a constitutional amendment (39th Amendment) that sought to place the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial scrutiny, holding it violated free and fair elections as part of the basic structure. In Minerva Mills, the Court further held that the limited amending power itself, along with the harmonious balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, forms part of the basic structure.

Elaboration of Basic Structure Doctrine:

Answer: (C) examine the constitutional validity of the laws

Explanation: Judicial Review is the power of the Supreme Court (and High Courts) to examine the constitutional validity of legislative enactments and executive orders, and to declare them void if found inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. This power acts as a check on the legislature and executive, ensuring conformity with constitutional mandates, particularly the Fundamental Rights, and is itself considered part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution.

Judicial Review:

Answer: (B) S. R. Bommai Case

Explanation: In S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court laid down landmark guidelines curbing the arbitrary use of Article 356 (President’s Rule) by the Union Government to dismiss state governments. The Court held that the proper forum to test the majority of a government is the floor of the Assembly (floor test), not the subjective satisfaction of the Governor, and that the exercise of power under Article 356 is subject to judicial review.

S. R. Bommai Case — Article 356:

Answer: (B) There are provisions that a retired judge of Supreme Court and High Courts can sit and act as judge of Supreme Court.

Explanation: Under Article 128 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of India may, with the previous consent of the President, request a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, or a retired Judge of a High Court duly qualified for appointment as a Supreme Court Judge, to sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Such a judge, when so sitting, enjoys the same jurisdiction, powers, and privileges as a sitting Supreme Court Judge, but is not obligated to accept the request.

Article 128 — Ad-hoc/Retired Judges Sitting in Supreme Court:

Answer: (C) Doctrine of Severability

Explanation: Article 13 of the Constitution states that laws inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights shall be void “to the extent of such inconsistency.” This phrase is the constitutional basis for the Doctrine of Severability, under which only the invalid or inconsistent part of a statute is struck down, while the remaining valid portion continues to operate, provided the valid and invalid parts are separable.

Doctrine of Severability:

Answer: (C) Five

Explanation: Under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, the minimum number of judges required to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, or for hearing any reference under Article 143 (Presidential reference for advisory opinion), shall be five. Such a bench is commonly known as a Constitution Bench.

Constitution Bench — Minimum Strength:

Answer: (A) Is a Court of record and has a power to punish for its contempt

Explanation: Under Article 129 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of India is declared to be a “Court of Record” and possesses all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself. As a Court of Record, its proceedings and decisions are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony, and its records have evidentiary value that cannot be questioned when produced before any court.

Article 129:

Answer: (B) 26 Judges including the Chief Justice of India.

Explanation:

• The 1986 Cap: This specific question is sourced from a historical state public service examination paper based on the amendments made by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986.
• The Math: In 1986, Parliament increased the court’s maximum strength to 25 other judges plus 1 Chief Justice of India, bringing the total combined figure exactly to 26 judges. Therefore, option (B) represents the correct structural framing of that legislative era.

Evolution of Supreme Court Strength: While (B) is the intended answer for this exam question, Parliament has since increased the structural capacity multiple times under Article 124(1) to manage case backlogs:

Current Status: The statutory cap stands at 38 total judges (1 Chief Justice of India and 37 other judges).

• 1950 (Original): 1 CJI + 7 other judges = 8 total.
• 1977: 1 CJI + 17 other judges = 18 total.
• 1986: 1 CJI + 25 other judges = 26 total.
• 2008: 1 CJI + 30 other judges = 31 total.
• 2019: 1 CJI + 33 other judges = 34 total.

Answer: (A) Article 310

Explanation: The Doctrine of Pleasure, under Article 310 of the Constitution, provides that members of the defence services, civil services of the Union, or civil services of a State hold office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor, as the case may be. This means such officials can, in principle, be dismissed without assigning cause, though this power is subject to the procedural safeguards provided under Article 311.

Doctrine of Pleasure:

Answer: (D) Article 136

Explanation: The Supreme Court retains its jurisdiction over decisions of Administrative Tribunals under Article 136, which grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant Special Leave to Appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India. This was affirmed in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), where the Court held that while Tribunals can exercise judicial review, their decisions remain subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the High Court or under Article 136 by the Supreme Court, since judicial review is part of the basic structure.

Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction over Tribunals:

Answer: (B) 42nd Amendment.

Explanation: The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act (1976): This sweeping amendment inserted a brand new part into the Indian Constitution—Part XIV-A, titled “Tribunals”.The Articles Added: This part contains two primary articles designed specifically to bypass regular court delays for highly specialized disputes:

Article 323B: Empowers Parliament or State Legislatures to create Tribunals for other matters, specifically including revenue matters, tax assessments, foreign exchange, labor disputes, land reforms, and essential commodities to accelerate socio-economic progress.

Article 323A: Empowers Parliament to establish Administrative Tribunals to handle disputes concerning the recruitment and service conditions of public servants (such as the Central Administrative Tribunal or CAT).

Answer: (D) Part VI Chapter 5

Explanation: High Courts are constituted as Constitutional Courts under Part VI (dealing with “The States”) of the Constitution, specifically under Chapter V, which comprises Articles 214 to 231 and deals with “The High Courts in the States.” This Part and Chapter establish the framework for the composition, jurisdiction, powers, and functioning of High Courts across India.

High Courts — Constitutional Placement:

Answer: (C) 25 (in 2019)

Explanation: Currently, India has 25 High Courts, as noted with the parenthetical reference “(in 2019)” in the question itself, marking when this count was reached following the establishment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2019 after the bifurcation of the combined Andhra Pradesh-Telangana High Court.

High Courts of India:

Answer: (B) The senior most judge of the Supreme Court is appointed as the Chief Justice of India

Explanation: By long-standing convention (not an explicit constitutional mandate), the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court is appointed as the Chief Justice of India, formally by the President under Article 124(2). This convention of seniority was firmly established and reaffirmed following the controversy over supersession in the 1970s, and has been consistently followed since, ensuring predictability and insulating the process from political interference in most cases.

Appointment of Chief Justice of India:

Answer: (C) Above 40 years of age

Explanation: Under Article 124(3) of the Constitution, there is no minimum age criterion prescribed for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court. The actual qualifications require citizenship of India, and either being a Judge of a High Court for at least five years, or an advocate of a High Court for at least ten years, or being a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President — age is not a listed criterion at all.

Eligibility Criteria for Supreme Court Judge — Article 124(3):

Answer: (B) Golaknath Case 1967

Explanation: In Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court, by a majority of 6:5, held that Fundamental Rights, by their very nature, could not be abridged or taken away by any constitutional amendment made under Article 368, since such an amendment would be “law” within the meaning of Article 13(2). This ruling effectively held that Fundamental Rights were beyond the amending power of Parliament altogether, a position later modified by the Kesavananda Bharati case, which allowed amendment of Fundamental Rights but protected the “basic structure.”

Golaknath Case — Fundamental Rights Beyond Amendment: