All questions of Supreme Court for UPSC CSE Exam

The President of India appoints Attorney General of India .

Establishment of the Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court of India was established in the year 1950.

Constitutional Provision
The establishment of the Supreme Court of India is provided for in Part V, Chapter IV of the Constitution of India. Article 124 to 147 deal with the organization, independence, jurisdiction, and powers of the Supreme Court.

Composition
The Supreme Court of India consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of 34 other judges. The President of India appoints the judges of the Supreme Court.

Role and Functions
1. Judicial Review: The Supreme Court of India has the power of judicial review, which allows it to review the constitutionality of laws and government actions.
2. Final Court of Appeal: The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in India. Its decisions are binding on all other courts in the country.
3. Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in protecting the fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution.
4. Interpretation of the Constitution: The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and ensures its proper implementation.

Significance
The establishment of the Supreme Court of India in 1950 marked a significant milestone in the judicial system of the country. It serves as the guardian of the Constitution and plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law in India. The Supreme Court's decisions have far-reaching implications and contribute to the development of constitutional jurisprudence in the country.

Types of Jurisdictions of the Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court of India exercises three main types of jurisdictions, making it a pivotal institution in the Indian legal framework.
1. Original Jurisdiction
- This jurisdiction allows the Supreme Court to hear cases directly without the need for the case to go through lower courts.
- It primarily deals with disputes between states or between the Union and states.
- Article 131 of the Constitution grants this power, enabling the Court to resolve significant legal matters at the outset.
2. Appellate Jurisdiction
- The Supreme Court has the authority to hear appeals against judgments from lower courts, including High Courts.
- This jurisdiction covers both civil and criminal cases, ensuring that justice is served at higher levels.
- It is governed by Articles 132, 133, and 134 of the Constitution, which outline the conditions under which appeals can be made.
3. Writ Jurisdiction
- Under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court can issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
- This jurisdiction serves as a crucial mechanism for protecting individual rights against arbitrary actions of the state.
- The Court can issue various types of writs, such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari.
In summary, the Supreme Court of India operates under three distinct jurisdictions: Original, Appellate, and Writ. Each type plays a critical role in maintaining the rule of law and safeguarding citizens' rights in the country.

Retirement Age of Supreme Court Judges

The correct answer is option 'D', which states that the retirement age of a Supreme Court judge is 65 years. In this response, we will explain the reasons behind this retirement age and the importance of having a fixed retirement age for judges.

Importance of a Fixed Retirement Age for Judges

Having a fixed retirement age for judges ensures that there is a regular turnover of judges in the judiciary. This turnover allows for fresh perspectives and ideas to be brought into the court system, ensuring that the judiciary remains dynamic and adaptable to changing times. Additionally, a fixed retirement age prevents the possibility of judges becoming too old to effectively discharge their duties, ensuring that the judiciary remains efficient and effective in delivering justice.

Reasons for Setting the Retirement Age at 65 Years

1. Age-related Decline: As individuals age, they may experience physical and cognitive decline, which can impact their ability to effectively perform their duties. By setting the retirement age at 65 years, the judiciary ensures that judges retire before age-related decline significantly affects their abilities.

2. Ensuring Independence: By retiring judges at a certain age, the judiciary ensures that judges do not serve indefinitely and become susceptible to external influences or interference. This helps maintain the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

3. Reducing Workload: The retirement age of 65 years helps manage the workload of the Supreme Court. By retiring judges at a certain age, new vacancies are created, allowing for the appointment of fresh judges and distributing the workload among a larger number of judges.

4. Uniformity: Setting a fixed retirement age ensures uniformity in the judiciary, as all judges are subject to the same retirement age. This promotes fairness and equality within the judicial system.

Conclusion

The retirement age of a Supreme Court judge is set at 65 years to ensure that judges retire before age-related decline affects their performance, maintain the independence of the judiciary, manage the workload effectively, and promote uniformity within the judicial system. This fixed retirement age allows for the infusion of new perspectives and ideas, ensuring that the judiciary remains efficient and effective in delivering justice.

Violation of a fundamental right
The Supreme Court has the power to issue a writ of mandamus in cases where there has been a violation of a fundamental right. This powerful legal remedy is used to compel a public authority to perform its statutory duty or to correct a wrongful act if it has failed to do so. Here is why the Supreme Court can issue a writ of mandamus in the case of a violation of a fundamental right:
- Protection of fundamental rights: Fundamental rights are guaranteed by the Constitution of India and are considered sacrosanct. Any violation of these rights can be challenged in the Supreme Court through the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
- Ensuring accountability: By issuing a writ of mandamus, the Supreme Court can hold public authorities accountable for their actions and ensure that they uphold the rights of citizens as enshrined in the Constitution.
- Upholding the rule of law: The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law in the country. By issuing a writ of mandamus in cases of fundamental rights violations, the Court sends a strong message that such violations will not be tolerated.
- Setting legal precedent: The Supreme Court's decisions on writs of mandamus in cases of fundamental rights violations serve as legal precedent for future cases. This helps in shaping the legal landscape and ensuring consistency in the application of legal principles.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's power to issue a writ of mandamus in cases of violation of fundamental rights is essential for protecting the rights of citizens and upholding the rule of law in the country.

First Chief Justice of India

The first Chief Justice of India was H.J. Kania. He held this prestigious position from 1950 to 1951.

Background

H.J. Kania was a prominent lawyer and judge in pre-independence India. He had a distinguished legal career before being appointed as the Chief Justice of India.

Contribution

As the first Chief Justice of India, H.J. Kania played a crucial role in shaping the judicial system of the newly independent country. He laid the foundation for the Indian judiciary to uphold the principles of justice, equality, and rule of law.

Legacy

H.J. Kania's tenure as the first Chief Justice of India set a high standard for the judiciary in the country. His commitment to upholding the Constitution and ensuring justice for all has had a lasting impact on the Indian legal system.

Conclusion

H.J. Kania's appointment as the first Chief Justice of India marked a significant milestone in the history of the Indian judiciary. His dedication to the principles of justice and integrity continues to inspire generations of legal professionals in the country.

Interpretation of the Constitution in the Supreme Court

Number of Judges Required:
- The correct answer is option 'B', which is five judges.
- When a case involving the interpretation of the Constitution comes before the Supreme Court, it is necessary to have a larger bench to ensure a diverse range of perspectives and expertise.

Reasoning:
- The Constitution of India is a complex and comprehensive document that requires in-depth analysis and understanding.
- Having a bench of five judges ensures a more thorough examination of the constitutional provisions and principles involved in the case.
- The collective wisdom of five judges enhances the quality of the decision-making process and helps in arriving at a well-reasoned judgment.

Significance:
- The interpretation of the Constitution is a crucial aspect of the Supreme Court's role in upholding the rule of law and protecting the fundamental rights of citizens.
- By requiring a bench of five judges for such cases, the Supreme Court ensures that important constitutional issues are deliberated upon with the utmost care and attention to detail.
In conclusion, when it comes to cases involving the interpretation of the Constitution, a bench of five judges is required in the Supreme Court to ensure a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the legal issues at hand.