All questions of High Court for UPSC CSE Exam

Explanation:

Judicial review is a process of reviewing the actions or decisions of the legislative, executive or administrative branch of the government by the judiciary. It is an important aspect of any democratic government that helps to maintain the balance of power between different branches of the government. The term judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution but it is an implied power of the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 and Article 226.

Authority of Supreme Court:

The authority of the Supreme Court to exercise judicial review is derived from the Constitution of India. The Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both Central and State governments.

Constitutionality:

The Supreme Court examines whether the legislation or executive order is in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution or not. If the legislation or executive order is found to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the Supreme Court may declare it as unconstitutional and void.

Scope of Judicial Review:

The scope of judicial review in India is wide and includes the following:

• Examining the constitutionality of laws


• Examining the constitutionality of executive orders


• Examining the constitutionality of administrative decisions


• Examining the constitutionality of actions of statutory bodies


• Examining the constitutionality of actions of private bodies that have public functions

Conclusion:

Judicial review is an essential component of any democratic government. It helps in maintaining the balance of power between different branches of the government. The authority of the Supreme Court to exercise judicial review is derived from the Constitution of India. The scope of judicial review in India is wide and includes a range of actions and decisions.

Appellate jurisdiction refers to the authority of a higher court to review and revise decisions made by lower courts. In the case of High Courts in India, they have appellate jurisdiction over both civil and criminal cases.

1. Appellate jurisdiction in civil cases:
- The first statement is correct. The High Court has the authority to hear appeals against the orders and judgments of the district courts, additional district courts, and other subordinate courts in civil cases.
- This means that if a party is dissatisfied with the decision of a lower court in a civil case, they can appeal to the High Court to review and potentially overturn the decision.

2. Appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases:
- The second statement is also correct. The High Court has the authority to hear appeals against judgments relating to sessions courts and additional sessions courts in criminal cases.
- This means that if a person is convicted or acquitted by a sessions court or an additional sessions court and they believe that there was an error in the judgment, they can appeal to the High Court to review the decision.

Therefore, both statements are correct, and the correct answer is option 'C' - Both 1 and 2.

Appellate jurisdiction of High Courts is an important aspect of the Indian judicial system as it ensures that there is a mechanism for reviewing and correcting errors made by lower courts. It provides an opportunity for parties to seek justice and ensure that their cases are heard fairly. The High Court plays a crucial role in maintaining the rule of law and upholding the principles of justice in civil and criminal cases.

Fixed by the President depending upon the workload.

The correct answer is option 'D' - He should be over 40 years of age.

Explanation:
To become a judge of the High Court, there are certain requirements that need to be fulfilled. These requirements are mentioned in the Constitution of India and are as follows:

a) He should be a citizen of India: This means that only Indian citizens are eligible to become judges of the High Court. This requirement ensures that the judges have loyalty and allegiance towards the country.

b) He should have held a judicial office in India for a minimum of 10 years: This requirement ensures that the candidates have sufficient experience in the field of law and have a thorough understanding of the judicial system in India.

c) He should have been an advocate of a high court for at least 10 years: This requirement ensures that the candidates have practical experience in the legal profession and are well-versed with the functioning of the high court.

d) He should be over 40 years of age: This is the requirement that is NOT needed to be a judge of the High Court. The age limit for appointment as a judge of the High Court is not specified in the Constitution of India. However, the retirement age for judges of the High Court is 62 years.

In summary, a person who wants to become a judge of the High Court must be a citizen of India, have held a judicial office in India for a minimum of 10 years, and have been an advocate of a high court for at least 10 years. The age requirement is not specified, but judges of the High Court retire at the age of 62.

Understanding the Power of Superintendence of High Courts
The statements regarding the High Court's power of superintendence over subordinate courts can be analyzed as follows:
1. No Constitutional Restriction
- The Constitution indeed grants High Courts the power of superintendence over subordinate courts without explicit restrictions.
- However, this power is not absolute and must be exercised within the framework of law and judicial principles.
2. Suo Motu and Appeals
- High Courts can exercise their power of superintendence not just through appeals initiated by parties but also suo motu, meaning on their own accord.
- This is vital for maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and correcting errors or injustices.
3. Nature of Revision
- The power of superintendence is similar to a revisionary power, allowing the High Courts to review and verify the correctness of judgments made by lower courts.
- This function ensures that legal standards are upheld and that justice is served.
Conclusion
- Based on the analysis, Statement 1 is not entirely accurate because while there are no explicit restrictions, the exercise of this power must adhere to judicial norms.
- Therefore, the correct statements are 2 and 3, making option 'D' the right choice.
In summary, the correct answer is option 'D' because statements 2 and 3 accurately reflect the nature of the High Court's power of superintendence, while statement 1 is misleading regarding its limitations.

Statement 1: The High Court has this power over all courts and tribunals including those dealing with the armed forces functioning in the state
The first statement is incorrect. The power of superintendence of the High Court does not extend to courts and tribunals dealing with the armed forces. The armed forces have their own system of military justice, which is separate from civilian courts. The High Court does not have jurisdiction over military courts and tribunals.

Statement 2: In the exercise of this power it may issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts
The second statement is correct. The High Court has the power to issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of the courts and tribunals under its superintendence. This power is derived from Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, which states that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This power allows the High Court to ensure the proper functioning of subordinate courts and tribunals.

Conclusion
In conclusion, only statement 2 is correct. The High Court has the power to issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of the courts and tribunals under its superintendence. However, the High Court does not have jurisdiction over courts and tribunals dealing with the armed forces.

It is issued by a higher court to a lower court to prohibit exceeding its jurisdiction that it is not supposed to possess. Or the Higher court directs a lower court from doing an activity which is beyond its jurisdiction

The judicial magistrate court is at the lowest in the hierarchy of criminal courts. Above it there is the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, and above that is the Session Judge's court, and the topmost authority at the district level is the High Court.