All Exams >
BPSC (Bihar) >
Indian Polity for State PSC Exams >
All Questions
All questions of Supreme Court for BPSC (Bihar) Exam
Consider the following statements.1.As per Article 124, an Indian citizen with 5 years as a High Court judge or 10 years as an advocate, or a distinguished jurist, is eligible for appointment as a Supreme Court judge.2. The SC’s powers and jurisdiction can only be added and curtailed by the Parliament Which of these statements is/are correct?- a)1 Only
- b)2 Only
- c)Both of them
- d)None of them
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Consider the following statements.
1.As per Article 124, an Indian citizen with 5 years as a High Court judge or 10 years as an advocate, or a distinguished jurist, is eligible for appointment as a Supreme Court judge.
2. The SC’s powers and jurisdiction can only be added and curtailed by the Parliament
Which of these statements is/are correct?
a)
1 Only
b)
2 Only
c)
Both of them
d)
None of them
|
T.S Academy answered |
Statement 1: Correct. Article 124 of the Indian Constitution specifies the eligibility criteria for appointment as a Supreme Court judge. An individual must be an Indian citizen with at least five years of service as a High Court judge, or ten years as an advocate in a High Court, or be a distinguished jurist.
Statement 2: Incorrect. While the Parliament has the power to increase the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it cannot curtail the powers and jurisdiction that are provided by the Constitution itself.
Thus, only Statement 1 is correct. The correct answer is A: 1 Only.
Statement 2: Incorrect. While the Parliament has the power to increase the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it cannot curtail the powers and jurisdiction that are provided by the Constitution itself.
Thus, only Statement 1 is correct. The correct answer is A: 1 Only.
Consider the following pairs:1. Regulating Act of 1773: Established Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta2. India High Courts Act 1861: Created High Courts for various provinces3. Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Bill of 2019: Increased judicial strength from 31 to 344. Government of India Act 1935: Created High Courts in Bombay and MadrasHow many pairs given above are correctly matched?- a)Only one pair
- b)Only two pairs
- c)Only three pairs
- d)All four pairs
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Consider the following pairs:
1. Regulating Act of 1773: Established Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta
2. India High Courts Act 1861: Created High Courts for various provinces
3. Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Bill of 2019: Increased judicial strength from 31 to 34
4. Government of India Act 1935: Created High Courts in Bombay and Madras
How many pairs given above are correctly matched?
a)
Only one pair
b)
Only two pairs
c)
Only three pairs
d)
All four pairs
|
Upsc Toppers answered |
1. Regulating Act of 1773: Established Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta - Correct. The Regulating Act of 1773 indeed established the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta, marking the beginning of a structured judicial system in British India.
2. India High Courts Act 1861: Created High Courts for various provinces - Correct. The India High Courts Act of 1861 was responsible for creating High Courts in various provinces, replacing the Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats that existed in the Presidency towns.
3. Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Bill of 2019: Increased judicial strength from 31 to 34 - Correct. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Bill, 2019, increased the number of judges in the Supreme Court from 31 to 34, including the Chief Justice of India.
4. Government of India Act 1935: Created High Courts in Bombay and Madras - Incorrect. The Government of India Act 1935 did not create High Courts in Bombay and Madras. High Courts in Bombay and Madras were established much earlier, in 1800 and 1823 respectively, by King George III. The Government of India Act 1935 established the Federal Court of India.
Thus, three pairs are correctly matched.
Consider the following statements:1. The Chief Justice of India can appoint a judge of the High Court as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court without consulting the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.2. The President can appoint a judge of the Supreme Court as an acting Chief Justice of India if the Chief Justice of India is temporarily absent.3. The Collegium system for the appointment and transfer of judges was established through a constitutional amendment.Which of the statements given above is/are correct?- a)1 Only
- b)1 and 2 Only
- c)1 and 3 Only
- d)2 Only
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Consider the following statements:
1. The Chief Justice of India can appoint a judge of the High Court as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court without consulting the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.
2. The President can appoint a judge of the Supreme Court as an acting Chief Justice of India if the Chief Justice of India is temporarily absent.
3. The Collegium system for the appointment and transfer of judges was established through a constitutional amendment.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
a)
1 Only
b)
1 and 2 Only
c)
1 and 3 Only
d)
2 Only
|
Academic Studio answered |
1. Incorrect: The Chief Justice of India can only appoint a judge of a High Court as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court after consulting with the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned and with the previous consent of the President.
2. Correct: The President can appoint a judge of the Supreme Court as an acting Chief Justice of India if the Chief Justice of India is temporarily absent, as well as if the office is vacant or if the Chief Justice is unable to perform his duties.
3. Incorrect: The Collegium system was not established through a constitutional amendment. It was developed through a series of judicial decisions known as the "three judges cases" and has been in practice since 1998. There is no mention of the Collegium in the original Constitution or in subsequent amendments.
Therefore, the only correct statement is statement 2.
Consider the following pairs:
1. Original Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court decides disputes between the Centre and one or more states.
2. Writ Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can issue writs for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of an aggrieved citizen.
3. Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can hear appeals only in criminal matters.
4. Advisory Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can provide opinions to the President on any question of law or fact of public importance.
How many pairs given above are correctly matched?
- a)Only one pair
- b)Only two pairs
- c)Only three pairs
- d)All four pairs
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Consider the following pairs:
1. Original Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court decides disputes between the Centre and one or more states.
2. Writ Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can issue writs for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of an aggrieved citizen.
3. Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can hear appeals only in criminal matters.
4. Advisory Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can provide opinions to the President on any question of law or fact of public importance.
How many pairs given above are correctly matched?
a)
Only one pair
b)
Only two pairs
c)
Only three pairs
d)
All four pairs
|
Lohit Matani answered |
1. Original Jurisdiction: Correct. The Supreme Court has the authority to decide disputes between different units of the Indian Federation, including disputes between the Centre and one or more states.
2. Writ Jurisdiction: Correct. The Supreme Court can indeed issue writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto, and certiorari for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of an aggrieved citizen.
3. Appellate Jurisdiction: Incorrect. The Supreme Court hears appeals in constitutional, civil, and criminal matters, not just criminal matters.
4. Advisory Jurisdiction: Correct. The Supreme Court can provide opinions to the President on any question of law or fact of public importance under Article 143 of the Constitution.
Thus, pairs 1, 2, and 4 are correctly matched, but pair 3 is incorrect.
Answer: Option B
Consider the following statements.
1. The Constitution declares Delhi as the seat of the Supreme Court
2. It also authorises the CJI to appoint other place or places as the seat of the Supreme Court but with the prior approval of President.
3. He can make a decision in this regard only with the approval of the Parliament
Which of these statements are correct?
- a)1 and 2 Only
- b)2 and 3 Only
- c)1 and 3 Only
- d)All of them
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Consider the following statements.
1. The Constitution declares Delhi as the seat of the Supreme Court
2. It also authorises the CJI to appoint other place or places as the seat of the Supreme Court but with the prior approval of President.
3. He can make a decision in this regard only with the approval of the Parliament
Which of these statements are correct?
a)
1 and 2 Only
b)
2 and 3 Only
c)
1 and 3 Only
d)
All of them
|
Meera Singh answered |
1. The Constitution declares Delhi as the seat of the Supreme Court: This statement is correct. Article 130 of the Indian Constitution states, "The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint."
2. It also authorises the CJI to appoint other place or places as the seat of the Supreme Court but with the prior approval of the President: This statement is also correct. As per the same Article 130, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) has the authority to appoint other places as the seat of the Supreme Court, but only with the prior approval of the President.
3. He can make a decision in this regard only with the approval of the Parliament: This statement is incorrect. The CJI does not require the approval of the Parliament to make a decision in this regard. As mentioned in Article 130, the CJI only needs the approval of the President to appoint other places as the seat of the Supreme Court.
Consider the following statements:1.The President of India appoints the Judges of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India as per Article 124(2) of the Indian Constitution.2. The original strength of the Supreme Court was fixed at eight judges, including the Chief Justice of India.3. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is categorized into original, appellate, and advisory jurisdictions.Which of the statements given above is/are correct?- a)1 Only
- b)1 and 2 Only
- c)1 and 3
- d)All of them
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Consider the following statements:
1.The President of India appoints the Judges of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India as per Article 124(2) of the Indian Constitution.
2. The original strength of the Supreme Court was fixed at eight judges, including the Chief Justice of India.
3. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is categorized into original, appellate, and advisory jurisdictions.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
a)
1 Only
b)
1 and 2 Only
c)
1 and 3
d)
All of them
|
Pragati Banerjee answered |
Explanation of the Correct Answer
The correct answer is option 'D', meaning all the statements provided are correct. Here’s a detailed breakdown of each statement:
1. Appointment of Judges
- The President of India appoints the Judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, as per Article 124(2) of the Indian Constitution.
- This article establishes the framework for the appointment process, which involves the Prime Minister's advice and a collegium system.
2. Original Strength of the Supreme Court
- The original strength of the Supreme Court was indeed fixed at eight judges, which included the Chief Justice of India.
- This number has increased over the years, but the initial constitution set it at eight when the court was established in 1950.
3. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is categorized into three main areas: original, appellate, and advisory jurisdictions.
- Original jurisdiction allows the Supreme Court to hear cases directly, appellate jurisdiction allows it to hear appeals from lower courts, and advisory jurisdiction provides legal advice to the President.
Conclusion
- All three statements accurately reflect the provisions and historical facts regarding the Supreme Court of India.
- Therefore, the correct answer is option 'D', confirming that all statements are indeed correct.
The correct answer is option 'D', meaning all the statements provided are correct. Here’s a detailed breakdown of each statement:
1. Appointment of Judges
- The President of India appoints the Judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, as per Article 124(2) of the Indian Constitution.
- This article establishes the framework for the appointment process, which involves the Prime Minister's advice and a collegium system.
2. Original Strength of the Supreme Court
- The original strength of the Supreme Court was indeed fixed at eight judges, which included the Chief Justice of India.
- This number has increased over the years, but the initial constitution set it at eight when the court was established in 1950.
3. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is categorized into three main areas: original, appellate, and advisory jurisdictions.
- Original jurisdiction allows the Supreme Court to hear cases directly, appellate jurisdiction allows it to hear appeals from lower courts, and advisory jurisdiction provides legal advice to the President.
Conclusion
- All three statements accurately reflect the provisions and historical facts regarding the Supreme Court of India.
- Therefore, the correct answer is option 'D', confirming that all statements are indeed correct.
If the removal motion is admitted then the Speaker/Chairman constitutes a three-member committee to investigate the allegations charged against the judge. The three-member committee comprises of
1. The Chief Justice of session court
2. Senior most judge of Supreme Court
3. Chief justice of the High Court
Choose from the following options.
- a)1 and 2 Only
- b)2 and 3 Only
- c)1 and 3 Only
- d)All of them
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
If the removal motion is admitted then the Speaker/Chairman constitutes a three-member committee to investigate the allegations charged against the judge. The three-member committee comprises of
1. The Chief Justice of session court
2. Senior most judge of Supreme Court
3. Chief justice of the High Court
1. The Chief Justice of session court
2. Senior most judge of Supreme Court
3. Chief justice of the High Court
Choose from the following options.
a)
1 and 2 Only
b)
2 and 3 Only
c)
1 and 3 Only
d)
All of them
|
Ankita Kulkarni answered |
Explanation:
The correct answer is option B, which states that the three-member committee comprises the senior most judge of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the High Court.
Explanation of the committee members:
1. The Chief Justice of the session court is not a part of the three-member committee. Therefore, option A is incorrect.
2. The senior most judge of the Supreme Court is a member of the committee, which makes option B correct.
3. The Chief Justice of the High Court is also a member of the committee, which makes option B correct.
4. As all three members mentioned in option B are part of the committee, option D is also correct.
Therefore, the correct answer is option B - 2 and 3 only.
Role of the committee:
The three-member committee is constituted by the Speaker/Chairman after the removal motion is admitted. The committee's role is to investigate the allegations charged against the judge who is facing the removal motion. The committee conducts a thorough investigation, gathering evidence and testimonies to determine the validity of the allegations.
Composition of the committee:
The committee comprises the following members:
1. Senior most judge of the Supreme Court: The senior most judge of the Supreme Court holds a significant position in the committee. Being the senior most judge, they bring experience and expertise to the table. Their role is to contribute their legal knowledge and judgment in evaluating the allegations against the judge facing the removal motion.
2. Chief Justice of the High Court: The Chief Justice of the High Court is another crucial member of the committee. As the head of the High Court, they bring administrative and judicial expertise to the committee. Their role is to provide insights into the functioning of the judiciary and contribute to the decision-making process.
3. Chief Justice of the session court: Although this option is mentioned in the question, it is incorrect. The Chief Justice of the session court is not a member of the committee.
The correct answer is option B, which states that the three-member committee comprises the senior most judge of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the High Court.
Explanation of the committee members:
1. The Chief Justice of the session court is not a part of the three-member committee. Therefore, option A is incorrect.
2. The senior most judge of the Supreme Court is a member of the committee, which makes option B correct.
3. The Chief Justice of the High Court is also a member of the committee, which makes option B correct.
4. As all three members mentioned in option B are part of the committee, option D is also correct.
Therefore, the correct answer is option B - 2 and 3 only.
Role of the committee:
The three-member committee is constituted by the Speaker/Chairman after the removal motion is admitted. The committee's role is to investigate the allegations charged against the judge who is facing the removal motion. The committee conducts a thorough investigation, gathering evidence and testimonies to determine the validity of the allegations.
Composition of the committee:
The committee comprises the following members:
1. Senior most judge of the Supreme Court: The senior most judge of the Supreme Court holds a significant position in the committee. Being the senior most judge, they bring experience and expertise to the table. Their role is to contribute their legal knowledge and judgment in evaluating the allegations against the judge facing the removal motion.
2. Chief Justice of the High Court: The Chief Justice of the High Court is another crucial member of the committee. As the head of the High Court, they bring administrative and judicial expertise to the committee. Their role is to provide insights into the functioning of the judiciary and contribute to the decision-making process.
3. Chief Justice of the session court: Although this option is mentioned in the question, it is incorrect. The Chief Justice of the session court is not a member of the committee.
Consider the following statements:Statement-I:
The President can appoint a judge of the Supreme Court as an acting Chief Justice of India under specific circumstances.Statement-II:
An ad hoc judge can be appointed by the Chief Justice of India in the absence of a quorum of permanent judges in the Supreme Court.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?- a)Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, and Statement-II explains Statement-I
- b)Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
- c)Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
- d)Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Consider the following statements:
Statement-I:
The President can appoint a judge of the Supreme Court as an acting Chief Justice of India under specific circumstances.
The President can appoint a judge of the Supreme Court as an acting Chief Justice of India under specific circumstances.
Statement-II:
An ad hoc judge can be appointed by the Chief Justice of India in the absence of a quorum of permanent judges in the Supreme Court.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
An ad hoc judge can be appointed by the Chief Justice of India in the absence of a quorum of permanent judges in the Supreme Court.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
a)
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, and Statement-II explains Statement-I
b)
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
c)
Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
d)
Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct
|
K.L Institute answered |
Statement-I correctly explains that the President can appoint a judge of the Supreme Court as an acting Chief Justice of India under specific conditions like vacancy, temporary absence, or inability of the Chief Justice of India to perform duties. Statement-II complements this by mentioning the provision for appointing ad hoc judges by the Chief Justice of India when there is a lack of quorum of permanent judges in the Supreme Court. Hence, both statements are accurate, and Statement-II elaborates on the scenarios where an ad hoc judge may be appointed.
Consider the following statements.1. Special leave to appeal is granted by SC if it is satisfied that the case does not involve any question of law2. It can be passed in case of the judgment passed by a court or tribunal of armed forces Which of these statements is/are correct?- a) 1 Only
- b) 2 Only
- c) Both 1 and 2
- d) None of them
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Consider the following statements.
1. Special leave to appeal is granted by SC if it is satisfied that the case does not involve any question of law
2. It can be passed in case of the judgment passed by a court or tribunal of armed forces
Which of these statements is/are correct?
a)
1 Only
b)
2 Only
c)
Both 1 and 2
d)
None of them
|
Aarav Saini answered |
Understanding Special Leave to Appeal
Special Leave to Appeal (SLA) is a provision under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution that empowers the Supreme Court (SC) to grant appeal in certain cases. Let’s analyze the statements provided.
Statement 1: Special leave to appeal is granted by SC if it is satisfied that the case does not involve any question of law
- This statement is incorrect.
- The SC can grant special leave to appeal even if the case involves questions of law.
- The key aspect is that the SC must be satisfied that the case warrants its intervention, irrespective of whether it involves a question of law or not.
Statement 2: It can be passed in case of the judgment passed by a court or tribunal of armed forces
- This statement is correct.
- The SC has the authority to grant special leave to appeal against judgments from military courts or tribunals.
- This ensures that service members have access to the highest court for redressal of grievances.
Conclusion
Given the analysis, the correct answer is option 'A': Only the second statement is correct, while the first statement is incorrect regarding the conditions under which special leave to appeal is granted.
Special Leave to Appeal (SLA) is a provision under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution that empowers the Supreme Court (SC) to grant appeal in certain cases. Let’s analyze the statements provided.
Statement 1: Special leave to appeal is granted by SC if it is satisfied that the case does not involve any question of law
- This statement is incorrect.
- The SC can grant special leave to appeal even if the case involves questions of law.
- The key aspect is that the SC must be satisfied that the case warrants its intervention, irrespective of whether it involves a question of law or not.
Statement 2: It can be passed in case of the judgment passed by a court or tribunal of armed forces
- This statement is correct.
- The SC has the authority to grant special leave to appeal against judgments from military courts or tribunals.
- This ensures that service members have access to the highest court for redressal of grievances.
Conclusion
Given the analysis, the correct answer is option 'A': Only the second statement is correct, while the first statement is incorrect regarding the conditions under which special leave to appeal is granted.
Consider the following statements:
Statement-I:
A person appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court has to make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation before entering upon his office.
Statement-II:
The Supreme Court is primarily a court of appeal and hears appeals against the judgments of the lower courts.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?- a)Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
- b)Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
- c)Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
- d)Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer??
Consider the following statements:
Statement-I:
A person appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court has to make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation before entering upon his office.
Statement-II:
The Supreme Court is primarily a court of appeal and hears appeals against the judgments of the lower courts.
A person appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court has to make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation before entering upon his office.
Statement-II:
The Supreme Court is primarily a court of appeal and hears appeals against the judgments of the lower courts.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
a)
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
b)
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
c)
Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
d)
Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct
|
|
Anagha Patel answered |
Understanding the Statements
The question presents two statements about the Supreme Court and its judges. Let's analyze each statement in detail.
Statement-I: Oath of Office
- A person appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court indeed has to make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation.
- This is mandated by Article 124(6) of the Constitution of India, where the President administers the oath of office.
Statement-II: Role of the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court primarily serves as a court of appeal, hearing appeals against the judgments of lower courts.
- However, its jurisdiction is not limited to just appellate functions; it also has original jurisdiction in certain cases and reviews constitutional matters.
Correctness of Statements
- Both statements are correct.
- Statement-I focuses on the procedural requirement for judges, while Statement-II outlines the broader role of the Supreme Court.
Explanation of the Answer
- Option 'B' is correct because both statements are accurate; however, Statement-II does not explain Statement-I.
- They address different aspects: one pertains to the administrative process of becoming a judge, and the other to the court's function.
In conclusion, understanding these statements is essential for grasping the operational dynamics and constitutional mandates that govern the Supreme Court of India.
The question presents two statements about the Supreme Court and its judges. Let's analyze each statement in detail.
Statement-I: Oath of Office
- A person appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court indeed has to make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation.
- This is mandated by Article 124(6) of the Constitution of India, where the President administers the oath of office.
Statement-II: Role of the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court primarily serves as a court of appeal, hearing appeals against the judgments of lower courts.
- However, its jurisdiction is not limited to just appellate functions; it also has original jurisdiction in certain cases and reviews constitutional matters.
Correctness of Statements
- Both statements are correct.
- Statement-I focuses on the procedural requirement for judges, while Statement-II outlines the broader role of the Supreme Court.
Explanation of the Answer
- Option 'B' is correct because both statements are accurate; however, Statement-II does not explain Statement-I.
- They address different aspects: one pertains to the administrative process of becoming a judge, and the other to the court's function.
In conclusion, understanding these statements is essential for grasping the operational dynamics and constitutional mandates that govern the Supreme Court of India.
Chapter doubts & questions for Supreme Court - Indian Polity for State PSC Exams 2025 is part of BPSC (Bihar) exam preparation. The chapters have been prepared according to the BPSC (Bihar) exam syllabus. The Chapter doubts & questions, notes, tests & MCQs are made for BPSC (Bihar) 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests here.
Chapter doubts & questions of Supreme Court - Indian Polity for State PSC Exams in English & Hindi are available as part of BPSC (Bihar) exam.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for BPSC (Bihar) Exam by signing up for free.
Indian Polity for State PSC Exams
149 videos|673 docs|206 tests
|
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
|
Signup to see your scores
go up
within 7 days!
within 7 days!
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup