Laxmikanth Test: High Court - Free MCQ with solutions for UPSC Indian Polity

The correct answer is Option D - 1, 2 and 3

Statement 1 is correct. The constitutional qualifications for appointment as a High Court judge are laid down in Article 217: the appointee must be a citizen of India and must have either held a judicial office in India for ten years or have been an advocate of a High Court for ten years. There is no separate constitutional provision to appoint a person merely on the ground of being a "distinguished" or "noted jurist" to a High Court.

Statement 2 is correct. The Constitution secures judicial independence in part by fixing the period of service through the retirement age of 62 years for High Court judges; this gives security of tenure and prevents arbitrary removal except by the prescribed impeachment process.

Statement 3 is correct. Every High Court judge, before entering upon office, must make and subscribe to the oath or affirmation administered by the Governor of the State (or a person authorised by the Governor), as provided by Article 219.

Since all three statements are constitutionally correct, the option that lists them together is the correct choice.

The correct answer is Option C - 1, 2 and 3

Statement 1 is correct because removal of a High Court judge (including the Chief Justice of a High Court) is permitted only on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity; these are the constitutionally recognised grounds and a judge cannot be removed on any other basis.

Statement 2 is correct because the motion for removal must be passed by each House of Parliament by a special majority, which means a majority of the total membership of the House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting; both Houses must approve the motion separately before the President may order removal.

Procedure details that support Statements 1 and 2: the motion to initiate inquiry must be admitted by the Speaker/Chairman and is commonly required to be introduced with the support of at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha; on admission, a three-member inquiry committee is constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 to examine the charges, and only after the committee's adverse finding can the Houses proceed to vote.

Statement 3 is correct: no High Court judge has been removed from office by the parliamentary impeachment process so far; although inquiries and allegations have arisen in the past, none has culminated in a successful removal by the prescribed procedure.

In summary, all three statements are factually accurate: removal requires findings of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, passage of the motion by the required special majority in both Houses, and historically no High Court judge has been removed under this procedure to date.

The correct answer is Option A - Only one

Statement 1 is incorrect. Appointment of a High Court judge is made by the President and requires consultation with judicial authorities such as the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court, but the Governor of the State is also consulted; it is therefore not correct to say the appointment is made solely "in consultation with the members of the judiciary."

Statement 2 is incorrect. Salaries and pensions of High Court judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, not on the Consolidated Fund of India; by contrast, the emoluments of Supreme Court judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.

Statement 3 is correct. A person who has held office as a judge of a High Court is disqualified from pleading or acting in any court or before any authority in India after retirement, a restriction intended to avoid conflicts of interest and to uphold judicial independence.

Because only Statement 3 is correct, exactly one statement is correct; hence the chosen option is consistent with this evaluation.

The correct answer is Option A - 1, 2, 3 and 4 only

Under Article 217 of the Constitution, the power of appointment of a High Court Judge is exercised by the President after consultation; therefore the President is a participant in the appointment process.

The Constitution requires consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the concerned State, and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court; these three constitutional offices are therefore correctly included among the participants.

Judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court has given the word "consultation" the practical effect that the judiciary's opinion-expressed through the collegium (with a decisive role for the Chief Justice of India)-is essential in the recommendation stage; this explains the central role of the judiciary in selections while preserving the formal consultative role of the Governor and the Chief Justice of the High Court.

The Chief Secretary of the State and the Leader of Opposition in the State Assembly have no constitutional role in the appointment process for High Court judges under Article 217 and are therefore not participants in this appointment procedure.

Hence, only the items corresponding to the President, the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the concerned State, and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court are correctly included.

The correct answer is Option A - 1 only

Statement 1 is correct because High Courts are recognised as courts of record under Article 215, which confers on them the power to punish for contempt of the court; in practice and under the statutory framework, High Courts also have jurisdiction to deal with contempts that affect subordinate courts within their territorial jurisdiction.

Statement 2 is incorrect because the Constitution does not define the expression "contempt of court"; the concept and its categories (notably civil contempt and criminal contempt) are defined and governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and by judicial decisions, while Articles 129 and 215 only declare the Supreme Court and High Courts as courts of record and confer related powers.

Thus, on independent evaluation of the two statements, only Statement 1 is correct and Statement 2 is incorrect.

The correct answer is Option C - Both 1 and 2

Under Article 222 of the Constitution, the President may transfer a judge from one High Court to another after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, so the constitutional text supports the first statement.

Judicial interpretation and administrative practice have developed the consultation requirement into a collective process: transfers are ordinarily initiated and recommended by the Chief Justice of India after consultation within the collegium, and the executive acts on that recommendation.

The collegium, as clarified by the judicial decisions culminating in the Third Judges case (1998), consists of the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges; its concurrence and consultation with the chief justices of the concerned High Courts form the accepted procedure for transfers.

Because the Constitution requires consultation with the Chief Justice of India and judicial practice requires collegium concurrence (with transfers being for public interest and not punitive), both statements are correct.

The correct answer is Option B - Only two

Statement 1 is correct: Article 224 of the Constitution provides for the appointment of Additional Judges to a High Court when there is a temporary increase in business or accumulation of arrears; such appointments are for a period not exceeding two years. There is no corresponding provision for appointing additional judges to the Supreme Court.

Statement 2 is incorrect: the ages of judicial retirement are fixed by the Constitution and are not determined by the President. A judge of a High Court retires on attaining the age of sixty-two years (constitutional provision under Article 217), while a judge of the Supreme Court retires on attaining the age of sixty-five years. These are statutory constitutional ages, not matters decided by the President.

Statement 3 is correct: Article 222 empowers the President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, to transfer a judge from one High Court to another. This transfer power applies to High Court judges and does not apply to Supreme Court judges.

Because Statement 1 and Statement 3 are provisions that apply only to High Courts while Statement 2 is not, exactly two of the listed provisions are correct only for High Courts; hence the option stating Only two is the correct choice.

The correct answer is Option D - Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct

Statement-II is correct because the Constitution of India, in Article 214, provides that there shall be a High Court for each State.

Statement-I is factually incorrect: a separate High Court for every State does not necessarily exist in practice because the Constitution and subsequent laws permit a single High Court to have jurisdiction over more than one State or Union Territory.

Illustrative examples are the Punjab and Haryana High Court (which also serves the Union Territory of Chandigarh) and the High Court for Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. At present there are 25 High Courts in India.

Therefore, Statement-II is constitutionally correct while Statement-I is incorrect.

The subordinate courts are regulated by specific articles in the Constitution. These articles ensure proper administration and functioning: Articles 233 to 237.

Hence, Correct Answer - Option A