Laxmikanth Test: Supreme Court - UPSC MCQ

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.

Statement 1: According to Article 124 of the Constitution of India, a citizen of India under 65 years of age can be recommended for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court if they meet the following qualifications:

• They have been a judge of one or more High Courts for at least five years
• They have been an advocate in a High Court for at least ten years

Statement 2: SC’s powers and jurisdiction can only be added by the Parliament and not be curtailed.

The senior-most judge of the Supreme Court is appointed as the Chief Justice of India In the Second Judges case (1993), it was declared by the Supreme Court that only the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed as a Chief Justice of India. This practice has been violated twice: in 1973 A.N. Ray was appointed as a CJI and in 1977 M.U. Beg was appointed as a CJI, despite the fact that they were not the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court at that time.

- Statement 1: Correct. The President appoints Supreme Court judges, including the Chief Justice, as per Article 124(2) of the Constitution.

- Statement 2: Correct. The original strength of the Supreme Court was one Chief Justice and seven judges as per the Constitution of 1950.

- Statement 3: Correct. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction includes original (Article 131), appellate (Articles 133-136), and advisory (Article 143) jurisdictions.In addition, Article 32 of the Constitution gives an extensive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It is empowered to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari to enforce them.

Thus, all statements are correct, making the correct answer Option D

The President of India can refer any matter that is of public importance or that which involves interpretation of Constitution to Supreme Court for advice. However, the Supreme Court is not bound to give advice on such matters and the President is not bound to accept such an advice. So, Statement 2 in wrong.

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.

The correct answer is (c) Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect. The appointment of the Chief Justice of India historically has been based on seniority rather than a strict age-based selection process. This convention was reinforced by the Second Judges Case in 1993, which established that the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court should be appointed as the Chief Justice of India.

1. Acting Chief Justice: President appoints a judge of the Supreme Court as an acting Chief Justice of India.
This is correct. The President can appoint a judge of the Supreme Court as an acting Chief Justice of India when the office of the Chief Justice of India is vacant, temporarily absent, or unable to perform duties.

2. Ad hoc Judge: Chief Justice of India can appoint a High Court judge as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court.
This is correct. The Chief Justice of India can appoint a judge of a High Court as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court for a temporary period after consulting the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned and with the previous consent of the President.

3. Retired Judges: Chief Justice of India can request a retired judge of a High Court or Supreme Court to act as a judge of the Supreme Court.
This is correct. The Chief Justice of India can request a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court (who is qualified for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court) to act as a judge of the Supreme Court for a temporary period with the previous consent of the President and the person to be appointed.

4. Collegium System: Mentioned in the original Constitution of India.
This is incorrect. The Collegium system is not mentioned in the original Constitution of India or in successive amendments. It was established through judgments in the "three judges cases" and has been in practice since 1998 for the appointment and transfer of judges in the higher judiciary.

Hence, three pairs are correctly matched.

Statement-I correctly highlights the procedure where a judge of the Supreme Court has to take an oath or affirmation before assuming office. This is a standard practice to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.
Statement-II accurately describes the role of the Supreme Court primarily as a court of appeal that hears appeals against lower court judgments. However, the two statements are independent of each other and do not explain or relate to one another. Statement-I focuses on the appointment process of judges, while Statement-II discusses the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Hence, option B is the correct answer.

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.

The oath or affirmation taken by a judge of the Supreme Court is a solemn declaration to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. This pledge underscores the judge's commitment to the foundational values of the nation and signifies their dedication to serving the country's judicial system with integrity and impartiality. It forms a crucial aspect of ensuring the proper functioning of the judiciary and upholding the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

The President can appoint a judge of the Supreme Court as an acting Chief Justice of India in scenarios such as when the office of Chief Justice of India is vacant, when the Chief Justice is temporarily absent, or when the Chief Justice is unable to perform their duties. This provision ensures the continuity of judicial functions and leadership within the Supreme Court under specific circumstances.

The three-member committee comprises (1). The Chief Justice or senior-most judge of the Supreme Court (2). Chief justice of the High Court and (3). A prominent jurist

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. So, 3 pairs are correctly matched.

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.