UPSC CSE Prelims
Composition and Appointment Previous Year Questions (PYQs)
Practice solved questions for Composition and Appointment with detailed step-by-step solutions, key insights, and trend analysis for UPSC CSE PRELIMS.
Solved Previous Year Questions
Filter & practice questions topic-wise
With reference to India, consider the following statements:
- Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates.
- Bar Councils have the power to lay down the rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 2 — 2 only
This question tests the understanding of provisions under the Advocates Act, 1961, regarding recognition of advocates and powers of Bar Councils. Statement 1 is incorrect as it makes sweeping generalizations that are not accurate, while Statement 2 correctly reflects the statutory powers of the Bar Council of India.
❌ Statement 1 – Incorrect: Under the Advocates Act, 1961, only individuals can be enrolled as advocates, not legal firms or corporate entities. However, corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are NOT excluded from recognition as advocates—if they are individually enrolled with a State Bar Council, they are recognized as advocates regardless of their employment status.
✅ Statement 2 – Correct: Section 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961, explicitly empowers the Bar Council of India to lay down standards of legal education in consultation with Universities and State Bar Councils, recognize Universities whose law degrees qualify for enrollment, and inspect law colleges.
📝 Short Notes: Advocates Act, 1961
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Enactment | The Advocates Act, 1961 came into force to amend and consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners |
| Who can be an Advocate | Only individuals enrolled with State Bar Councils; legal firms/corporate entities cannot be enrolled |
| Corporate Lawyers & Patent Attorneys | Not excluded from recognition; can be advocates if individually enrolled with Bar Council |
| Bar Council of India (BCI) | Apex regulatory body for legal profession and legal education in India |
| Powers under Section 7 | Lay down standards for legal education; recognize Universities; inspect law colleges; prescribe conditions for enrollment |
| State Bar Councils | Responsible for enrollment of advocates and maintaining State rolls |
| Right to Practice | Advocates can practice in any court or tribunal throughout India (All-India Bar) |
With reference to Indian Judiciary, consider the following statements:
- Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India.
- A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 1 — 1 Only
This question tests the understanding of judicial provisions under the Indian Constitution. Statement 1 is correct as per Article 128, while Statement 2 is incorrect because High Courts lack an explicit constitutional provision equivalent to Article 137 that grants review powers to the Supreme Court.
✅ Statement 1 – Correct: Article 128 empowers the Chief Justice of India to request any retired judge of the Supreme Court (or a qualified retired High Court judge) to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge, with the prior consent of the President of India.
❌ Statement 2 – Incorrect: While High Courts do possess the power to review their own judgments, this power is not equivalent to that of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's review power is explicitly granted under Article 137, whereas High Courts derive their review power from their inherent powers as Courts of Record under Article 215, not from an explicit constitutional provision. The scope and source of review powers differ between the two.
📝 Short Notes: Judicial Powers - Review and Ad-hoc Judges
| Provision | Article | Key Points |
|---|---|---|
| Ad-hoc Judges of Supreme Court | Article 128 | • CJI can request retired SC judges or qualified retired HC judges to sit as SC judges • Requires prior consent of the President • Such judges have all powers of a sitting SC judge |
| Review Power - Supreme Court | Article 137 | • Explicit constitutional provision for review • SC can review any judgment or order made by it • Subject to provisions of law and rules made under Article 145 |
| Review Power - High Courts | Article 215 | • No explicit constitutional provision like Article 137 • Derives from inherent powers as Court of Record • Limited in scope compared to Supreme Court • Based on CPC provisions and inherent powers |
| Courts of Record | Articles 129 & 215 | • Both SC and HC are Courts of Record • Can punish for contempt • Their records have evidentiary value |
The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in
Detailed Explanation:
Article 124(1) of the Constitution states that the Supreme Court shall consist of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, not more than 33 other Judges.
The power to increase the number of Supreme Court judges is vested in Parliament through legislation, not in the President, Chief Justice, or Law Commission.
🧐 Not Sure What to Study Next?
Get a personalised study plan based on your goals, time and revision needs.
Related Topics in Indian Polity
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about Composition and Appointment in UPSC CSE PRELIMS