UPSC CSE Prelims
Supreme Court Previous Year Questions (PYQs)
Showing solved Previous Year Questions for Chapter: Supreme Court
Topic Breakdown: Scroll →
A Writ of Prohibition is an order issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts to :
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 3 — the lower court prohibiting continuation of proceedings in a case.
A Writ of Prohibition is issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts to a lower court or tribunal to prevent it from continuing proceedings in a case where it lacks jurisdiction or is acting contrary to law. It is a preventive remedy, stopping the lower court from exceeding its authority before a final decision is made.
📝 Short Notes: Writ of Prohibition
- Definition: A judicial order issued by higher courts (Supreme Court or High Courts) to lower courts or tribunals to stop proceedings in a case where the lower court is exceeding its jurisdiction.
- Nature: It is a preventive writ, meaning it stops the proceedings before the lower court makes a decision, unlike Certiorari which is issued after a decision.
- Constitutional Basis: Under Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts), writs including Prohibition can be issued for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and other purposes.
- Scope: Applies only to judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, not to administrative authorities or legislative bodies.
- Purpose: To ensure that courts and tribunals operate within their legal jurisdiction and do not violate principles of natural justice.
- Comparison with other Writs: While Prohibition prevents future action, Certiorari quashes past decisions. Mandamus compels performance of duty, while Habeas Corpus relates to personal liberty.
- Example: If a civil court begins hearing a matter that legally falls under criminal jurisdiction, a Writ of Prohibition can halt the proceedings.
| Writ Type | Purpose | When Issued | Against Whom |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prohibition | Prevent excess of jurisdiction | Before judgment (preventive) | Lower courts/tribunals |
| Certiorari | Quash unlawful orders | After judgment (curative) | Lower courts/tribunals |
| Mandamus | Compel performance of duty | When duty is not performed | Public officials/bodies |
| Habeas Corpus | Protect personal liberty | Unlawful detention | Detaining authority |
| Quo Warranto | Check usurpation of office | Illegal occupation of office | Person holding office |
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) |
Consider the following statements :
- Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.
- The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
- The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.
- In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 2 — 1, 2 and 4
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted following the H.N. Sanyal Committee's recommendations. The Constitution empowers the Supreme Court (Article 129) and High Courts (Article 215) to punish for contempt of themselves, and Parliament has legislative competence to make laws on contempt of court under Entry 77 of Union List.
✅ Statement 1 – Correct: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed pursuant to the H.N. Sanyal Committee report which examined the law relating to contempt of courts.
✅ Statement 2 – Correct: Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution expressly empower the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively to punish for contempt of themselves.
❌ Statement 3 – Incorrect: The Constitution does not define civil contempt and criminal contempt; these definitions are provided in Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
✅ Statement 4 – Correct: Parliament has the power to legislate on contempt of court under Entry 77 of the Union List (Seventh Schedule), which enabled the enactment of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
📝 Short Notes: Contempt of Court
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Provisions | Article 129 (Supreme Court) and Article 215 (High Courts) confer power to punish for contempt of themselves |
| Legislative Competence | Entry 77, Union List (Seventh Schedule) - Constitution and organization of Supreme Court and High Courts; Contempt of such courts |
| H.N. Sanyal Committee | Examined the law relating to contempt of courts; led to enactment of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 |
| Civil Contempt | Wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court (Section 2(b), 1971 Act) |
| Criminal Contempt | Publication of any matter or doing of any act which scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court (Section 2(c), 1971 Act) |
| Article 19(2) | Reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech can be imposed in relation to contempt of court |
🧐 Not Sure What to Study Next?
Get a personalised study plan based on your goals, time and revision needs.
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 |
With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
- No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid.
- An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 4 — None of the above
Both statements are incorrect. High Courts have the constitutional power to declare central laws unconstitutional under Article 226, exercising their jurisdiction to protect fundamental rights and uphold the Constitution. Similarly, while Parliament has wide amending powers, the Supreme Court can examine whether a constitutional amendment violates the 'basic structure' of the Constitution, as established in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
❌ Statement 1 – Incorrect: High Courts possess the jurisdiction to declare central laws unconstitutional if they violate constitutional provisions, particularly fundamental rights under Article 226.
❌ Statement 2 – Incorrect: The Supreme Court can review constitutional amendments and strike them down if they violate the basic structure doctrine, as established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
📝 Short Notes: Judicial Review of Laws and Constitutional Amendments
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| High Courts' Power | Can declare central and state laws unconstitutional under Articles 226 and 227; concurrent jurisdiction with Supreme Court |
| Supreme Court's Power | Can review all laws and constitutional amendments under Articles 13, 32, and 136; guardian of the Constitution |
| Basic Structure Doctrine | Established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973); Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution |
| Elements of Basic Structure | Supremacy of Constitution, rule of law, judicial review, separation of powers, federalism, secularism, sovereignty, democratic republic |
| Minerva Mills Case (1980) | Reaffirmed basic structure doctrine; struck down Clauses 4 and 5 of Article 368 inserted by 42nd Amendment |
| Judicial Independence | Both High Courts and Supreme Court act as guardians of constitutional rights; no immunity for unconstitutional laws or amendments |
Consider the following statements :
- The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
- The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 3 — 3 and 4 only
This question tests knowledge about the constitutional provisions and procedural framework governing the impeachment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts in India. Only statements 3 and 4 are correct, as they accurately describe the role of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and the constitutional voting requirements for impeachment.
❌ Statement 1 – Incorrect: The Speaker of the Lok Sabha (or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha) has the discretion to admit or reject an impeachment motion if it is not in order or is deemed frivolous, as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
❌ Statement 2 – Incorrect: The Constitution does not define or provide details of what constitutes 'incapacity and proved misbehaviour'; these terms are not explicitly defined in the Constitution.
✅ Statement 3 – Correct: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, provides detailed procedural framework for the investigation and impeachment process of Supreme Court and High Court judges.
✅ Statement 4 – Correct: Article 124(4) of the Constitution requires that an impeachment motion must be supported by a majority of the total membership of each House and by not less than two-thirds of members present and voting.
📝 Short Notes: Impeachment of Judges in India
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Provision | Article 124(4) for Supreme Court judges; Articles 217 & 218 for High Court judges |
| Grounds for Removal | 'Proved misbehaviour' or 'incapacity' (not defined in Constitution) |
| Governing Law | Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 |
| Initiation | Motion signed by at least 100 MPs (Lok Sabha) or 50 MPs (Rajya Sabha) |
| Speaker's Role | Has discretion to admit or reject the motion at the initial stage |
| Investigation | By a three-member committee (Chief Justice or SC judge, Chief Justice of HC, and an eminent jurist) |
| Voting Requirement | Majority of total membership of House + 2/3rd majority of members present and voting |
| Final Step | After approval by both Houses, President issues the order of removal |
With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 2 — The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament.
Article 142 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court plenary power to pass any decree or order necessary for doing 'complete justice' in any cause or matter pending before it. This extraordinary power is not subject to limitations or prohibitions contained in ordinary laws (statutes) enacted by Parliament. The Supreme Court has consistently held that while Article 142 cannot override express constitutional provisions, it is not restricted by statutory provisions.
Why other options are incorrect:
❌ Option 1: Article 329 places certain restrictions on court interference in electoral matters, but it does not grant the Election Commission absolute immunity from judicial review, nor does it relate to Article 142's plenary powers.
❌ Option 3: Under Article 74, the President must act on the 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers in all matters, including the declaration of Financial Emergency under Article 360; the President cannot act independently without Cabinet counsel.
❌ Option 4: This describes the federal distribution of legislative powers under the Seventh Schedule and provisions like Article 252, which governs inter-governmental legislative relations, not the Supreme Court's judicial powers under Article 142.
📝 Short Notes: Article 142 - Plenary Powers of Supreme Court
- Constitutional Basis: Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or make any order necessary for doing 'complete justice' in any cause or matter pending before it.
- Scope: This is a residuary power that supplements all other powers of the Supreme Court and can be exercised when existing legal provisions are inadequate to do complete justice.
- Not Subject to Statutory Limitations: The power under Article 142 is not constrained by ordinary laws made by Parliament, as confirmed in landmark cases like Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India.
- Constitutional Limitations Apply: While not bound by statutory laws, Article 142 cannot override express constitutional provisions or fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III.
- Examples of Use: Granting anticipatory bail in non-bailable offences, ordering inter-country adoption, dissolving marriage without the one-year waiting period, and environmental protection measures.
- Article 142(2): Empowers the Supreme Court to investigate and punish any person for contempt of itself.
In India, Judicial Review implies -
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 1 — The power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders.
Judicial Review in India refers to the power of the Judiciary to examine and determine whether laws passed by the Legislature and actions taken by the Executive are in conformity with the Constitution. If any law or executive order is found to violate constitutional provisions, the courts can declare them invalid or unconstitutional. This power is derived from Articles 13, 32, 136, 142, and 226 of the Indian Constitution and forms a critical part of the system of checks and balances, ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution and protection of fundamental rights.
Why Option 1 is Correct:
Option 1 accurately defines Judicial Review as the judiciary's power to assess the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive actions, which is the core essence of this doctrine in India.
Why Other Options are Incorrect:
❌ Option 2 – Incorrect: The Judiciary cannot question the wisdom or policy behind laws; it can only examine their constitutional validity.
❌ Option 3 – Incorrect: Judicial Review is not a pre-enactment scrutiny mechanism; courts review laws only after they are enacted and challenged.
❌ Option 4 – Incorrect: This describes the power of review or reconsideration of judgments, not Judicial Review in the constitutional sense.
Who/Which of the following is the Custodian of the Constitution of India?
Detailed Explanation:
The Supreme Court of India is the Custodian of the Constitution, safeguarding Fundamental Rights under Article 32, exercising Judicial Review under Article 13, and ensuring all laws conform to constitutional provisions.
The Court settles Centre-State disputes (Article 131), declares binding law (Article 141), enforces decrees (Article 142), and advises the President (Article 143), making it the ultimate guardian of constitutional supremacy.
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.
The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the Centre and the States falls under its
Detailed Explanation:
Article 131 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to decide disputes between the Centre and States or between States inter se.
Original jurisdiction means cases can be directly filed in the Supreme Court without going through lower courts, making it the court of first instance for such federal disputes.
Which of the following are included in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
- A dispute between the Government of India and one or more States
- A dispute regarding elections to either House of the Parliament or Legislature of a State
- A dispute between the Government of India and a Union Territory
- A dispute between two or more States
Select the correct answer using the codes given below:
Detailed Explanation:
✅ Statement 1 – Correct: Article 131 grants original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court over disputes between the Government of India and one or more States.
❌ Statement 2 – Incorrect: Election disputes regarding Parliament or State Legislature are handled by High Courts and Election Tribunals, not under Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
❌ Statement 3 – Incorrect: Union Territories are not included in Article 131; original jurisdiction covers only disputes involving States.
✅ Statement 4 – Correct: Article 131 provides original jurisdiction for disputes between two or more States.
What is the provision to safeguard the autonomy of the Supreme Court of India?
- While appointing the Supreme Court Judges, the President of India has to consult the Chief Justice of India.
- The Supreme Court Judges can be removed by the Chief Justice of India only.
- The salaries of the Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India to which the legislature does not have to vote.
- All appointments of officers and staff of the Supreme Court of India are made by the Government only after consulting the Chief Justice of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Detailed Explanation:
✅ Statement 1 – Correct: Article 124(2) mandates that the President must consult the Chief Justice of India (CJI) while appointing Supreme Court Judges, ensuring judicial say in appointments.
❌ Statement 2 – Incorrect: Supreme Court Judges can only be removed by the President through impeachment after an address by Parliament with special majority (majority of total membership + two-thirds of present and voting), not by the CJI.
✅ Statement 3 – Correct: Article 146(3) provides that salaries and allowances of Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, requiring no legislative vote, ensuring financial independence from Parliament.
❌ Statement 4 – Incorrect: Article 146(2) states that appointments of officers and staff are made by the CJI or officers appointed by the CJI, not by the Government.