Chapter 14 · Topic 14.2 · Prelims + Mains2 of 4
Judiciary: High Courts, subordinate courts and appointments
Key points
- High Courts: one per State (Art 214) or common (Art 231); 25 High Courts; Calcutta, Bombay, Madras 1862 under the 1861 Act.
- Powers: Art 226 (wider than Art 32 but not an FR), 227, 215, 235, 222. HCs can strike down Central laws (43rd Amendment restored power) (2019, d).
- Subordinate courts (Art 233–237); AIJS possible under Art 312 but not created.
- Judges cases: S.P. Gupta (1981), SCAORA (1993), reference (1998), NJAC struck down 4:1 (October 2015); 99th Amendment (2014) (2019, b).
9 PYQs 2013–2025
Prelims box: facts and traps
- The 39th, not the 44th, put the PM's election beyond courts.
High Courts and subordinate courts
Like a school’s senior teachers choosing new teachers themselves, rather than the management board.
Structure. There is a High Court for each State (Art 214), but Parliament can set up one common High Court for two or more States and a UT (Art 231). There are 25 High Courts. The first three, at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, were set up in 1862 under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861.
| Power | High Court |
|---|---|
| Writs (Art 226) | For Fundamental Rights and ‘for any other purpose’, so wider than Art 32; discretionary |
| Superintendence (Art 227) | Over all courts and tribunals in its area, except military tribunals |
| Court of record (Art 215) | Can punish for contempt of itself |
| Control over subordinate courts (Art 235) | Postings, promotions and leave of district judges and below |
| Transfer (Art 222) | The President may transfer a judge after consulting the CJI |
Prelims 2019: can a High Court strike down a Central law?
- The statement that no High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid is wrong.
- The 42nd Amendment (1976) tried to stop it (Art 226A), but the 43rd Amendment (1977) restored the power.
- And amendments to the Constitution can be called into question by the Supreme Court on the basic structure test (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).
- So neither statement is correct.
With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements : 1. No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid. 2. 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?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
Answer: (d) · UPSC official key
Subordinate courts (Art 233–237).
- District judges are appointed by the Governor in consultation with the High Court.
- Other judicial officers are chosen through the State Public Service Commission and the High Court.
- The District Judge is also the Sessions Judge in criminal cases.
- An All India Judicial Service is possible under Art 312 (as amended in 1976), but it has not been created.
Prelims trap: Art 226 is wider than Art 32 in scope, but Art 32 is itself a Fundamental Right and Art 226 is not.
What UPSC asks: Prelims: High Courts and Central laws; amendments and review (2019). Mains: All India Judicial Service; vacancies in lower courts. Next likely angle: Art 226 vs Art 32; transfer of judges (Art 222).
Appointing judges: from consultation to collegium to NJAC
| Case | Held |
|---|---|
| First Judges case: S.P. Gupta (1981) | ‘Consultation’ does not mean concurrence; the executive has primacy |
| Second Judges case: SC Advocates-on-Record Assn (1993) | Overruled S.P. Gupta; the CJI’s opinion has primacy, formed with two senior judges: the collegium is born |
| Third Judges case: Presidential reference (1998) | Collegium of the CJI and four senior-most judges for the Supreme Court; CJI and two senior-most for High Courts |
| Fourth Judges case: NJAC (2015) | Struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act, 4:1 |
The NJAC. The 99th Amendment (2014) set up a National Judicial Appointments Commission: the CJI, two senior-most judges, the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons.
- In October 2015 the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Amendment as violating the independence of the judiciary, a basic feature (statement 2 of 2019, correct).
- Statement 1 is wrong: it was the 39th Amendment (1975), not the 44th, that placed the election of the Prime Minister beyond the courts (Art 329A); the 44th Amendment removed it.
- Key: 2 only.
Consider the following statements : 1. The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review. 2. The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
Answer: (b) · UPSC official key
Mains 2017 asked to critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’. Mains 2025 asked about the evolution of the collegium system in India, compared with the USA.
- For the collegium: independence from the executive; judges are best placed to judge merit.
- Against: no written criteria, no transparency, little diversity, and ‘judges appointing judges’, unique among democracies.
- The USA: the President nominates and the Senate confirms after public hearings. The result is political, but open.
- Way forward: a finalised Memorandum of Procedure, published reasons, a secretariat, fixed timelines for government clearance.
Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.
Discuss the evolution of collegium system in India. Critically examine the advantages and disadvantages of the system of appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India and that of the USA.
What UPSC asks: Prelims: 99th Amendment struck down (2019). Mains: NJAC judgment (2017); collegium vs the USA (2025). Next likely angle: Memorandum of Procedure; diversity on the Bench.
Mains box: analysis and answer points
- 2017: NJAC judgment. 2025: collegium vs the USA.
Practice
Practice MCQs (8)
Consider the following statements about Lok Adalats:
1. No court fee is payable, and fee already paid is refunded if a pending case is settled.
2. They can be organised by State Legal Services Authorities.
3. Their award is binding on the parties.
4. They can decide non-compoundable criminal offences.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Answer (c) & explanation
Three statements are correct. Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, no court fee is charged, and fee already paid is refunded when a pending case is settled. Lok Adalats are organised by legal services authorities at every level, including State authorities, and their award binds the parties. Statement 4 is wrong: they settle only matters that can be compromised, so non-compoundable offences fall outside them.
Lok Adalats were given statutory status by the
Answer (a) & explanation
Lok Adalats began as informal forums for settling disputes amicably. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 gave them statutory status, made their awards binding, and set up the legal services authorities at national, State, district and taluk levels. The other Acts create different forums: village courts, family courts and arbitration.
Consider the following statements:
1. Gram Nyayalayas can exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction.
2. Gram Nyayalayas must strictly follow the formal rules of evidence that bind regular courts.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer (a) & explanation
Statement 1 is correct: under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, a Gram Nyayalaya has both civil and criminal jurisdiction over the matters listed in its Schedules. Statement 2 is incorrect: the Act says a Gram Nyayalaya is not bound by the strict rules of evidence and is guided instead by natural justice. It may also follow a summary procedure and try conciliation first, to keep justice quick and simple.
Consider the following statements: Statement-I: Lok Adalats can settle cases pending in courts as well as disputes at the pre- litigation stage. Statement-II: A Lok Adalat consists of serving or retired judicial officers and other persons specified by the organising authority.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
Answer (b) & explanation
Both statements are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I. Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, a Lok Adalat can take up a pending case or a dispute before it reaches court. The Act also provides that a Lok Adalat consists of serving or retired judicial officers and other persons specified. Who sits on the bench does not decide which matters it can take up.
With reference to subordinate courts under Articles 234 to 237, which one of the following statements is NOT correct?
Answer (b) & explanation
Option (b) is not correct. Article 235 vests control over district courts and courts subordinate to them, including posting, promotion and leave, in the High Court, not the State Government. The other options are correct: Article 234 covers appointments to the judicial service, Article 236 defines 'district judge' to include additional and sessions judges, and Article 237 lets the Governor extend these provisions to magistrates.
Consider the following statements:
1. An appeal lies to the District Court against an award of a Lok Adalat.
2. An award of a Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer (b) & explanation
Statement 2 is correct: under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, every award of a Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court, so it can be executed like one. Statement 1 is incorrect: the award is final and binding on all parties, and no appeal lies against it to any court. The award rests on the parties' own settlement, so there is nothing to appeal against.
Consider the following statements:
1. A Gram Nyayalaya is presided over by a Nyayadhikari appointed by the District Judge.
2. Gram Nyayalayas were established by a Constitutional Amendment.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer (d) & explanation
Both statements are incorrect. Gram Nyayalayas were set up by an ordinary law, the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, not by a constitutional amendment. Each is presided over by a Nyayadhikari, who is appointed by the State Government in consultation with the High Court, not by the District Judge. The aim is to bring cheap and quick justice to people at the grassroots level.
Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Permanent Lok Adalats have been set up to deal with disputes relating to
Answer (d) & explanation
A 2002 amendment to the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 added Chapter VI-A for Permanent Lok Adalats to handle disputes about public utility services, such as transport, postal and telephone services, power and water supply. Unlike an ordinary Lok Adalat, a Permanent Lok Adalat can decide a dispute on merits if conciliation fails, as long as it does not involve an offence.
0 / 0 correct
Prelims PYQs on this topic (8)
With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements :
- 1. 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.
- 2. 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?
Answer (a) & explanation
Only statement 1 is correct (a). Statement 1 is right: Article 128 lets the Chief Justice of India, with the President's previous consent, request a retired Supreme Court judge to sit and act as a judge again. Statement 2 turns on the words "as the Supreme Court does". Article 137 gives the Supreme Court an express power to review its own judgments. The Constitution has no matching article for High Courts, which draw review power from the Code of Civil Procedure and their status as courts of record. So UPSC treated statement 2 as wrong.
Notice the matching rule for High Courts: Article 224A lets a Chief Justice ask a retired High Court judge to sit again. The Supreme Court revived this to clear pending cases in 2021.
read statement 2 as a question about the text of the Constitution. Article 137 has no High Court twin.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
A Writ of Prohibition is an order issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts to :
Answer (c) & explanation
Prohibition stops a lower court from continuing a case (c). A writ of Prohibition is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal, telling it to stop a case it has no jurisdiction to hear. It is issued only to judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. Option (a) is wrong: it is never issued to a government officer. Options (b) and (d) are wrong: courts cannot use it against Parliament, a legislature or the government's policy.
Notice the five writs under Articles 32 and 226: Habeas Corpus (produce the person), Mandamus ("we command", to perform a duty), Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto (by what authority). Think of Prohibition as "stop before you decide", and Certiorari as "your decision is quashed".
option (a) describes mandamus in reverse. Prohibition is aimed at courts, not officers.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
Consider the following statements :
- 1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.
- 2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
- 3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.
- 4. 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?
Answer (b) & explanation
Statements 1, 2 and 4 are correct (b). Statement 1 is right: the H.N. Sanyal Committee (1963) led to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Statement 2 is right: Article 129 and Article 215 make the Supreme Court and the High Courts courts of record, with power to punish contempt of themselves. Statement 4 is right: Parliament can make laws on contempt, under Entry 77 of the Union List and Entry 14 of the Concurrent List. Statement 3 is wrong: civil and criminal contempt are defined in the 1971 Act, not in the Constitution.
Notice the 2006 amendment, which made truth a defence if in the public interest. Contempt of court is also a ground for restricting free speech under Article 19(2).
statement 3. The Constitution gives the power; the Act gives the definitions.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements :
- 1. No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid.
- 2. 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?
Answer (d) & explanation
Neither statement is correct (d). Statement 1 is wrong because High Courts can declare central laws unconstitutional under Article 226. The 42nd Amendment (1976) had added Article 226A to stop this, but the 43rd Amendment (1977) removed it and restored the power. Statement 2 is wrong because the Supreme Court can review constitutional amendments. Since Kesavananda Bharati (1973), an amendment can be struck down if it damages the basic structure. Examples include the 39th Amendment's clause on the PM's election (1975) and the 99th Amendment (NJAC, 2015).
The 42nd Amendment also tried to bar review of amendments (Article 368(4)), but Minerva Mills (1980) struck that down. Notice that judicial review itself is part of the basic structure (L. Chandra Kumar, 1997).
both statements describe the 42nd-Amendment era. That law was undone.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
Which one of the following statements is correct?
Answer (c) & explanation
Option (c) is correct. The Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President (Article 156), and the Constitution lays down no removal procedure or grounds. (a) is wrong: the 7th Amendment (1956) allows one person to be Governor of two or more States. (b) is wrong: High Court judges are appointed by the President, after consulting the CJI and the Governor (Article 217). (d) is wrong: in a UT with a legislature, such as Delhi or Puducherry, the Chief Minister is appointed by the President, not the Lt Governor.
Notice the safeguard: in B.P. Singhal (2010), the Supreme Court held that the President's pleasure is not unfettered; a Governor cannot be removed arbitrarily, and removal is open to limited judicial review. Trap: 'pleasure' tenure means no fixed procedure.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
Consider the following pairs :
| Provision in the Constitution of India | Stated under
| I. Separation of Judiciary from the Executive in the public services of the State | The Directive Principles of State Policy
| II. Valuing and preserving of the rich heritage of our composite culture | The Fundamental Duties
| III. Prohibition of employment of children below the age of 14 years in factories | The Fundamental Rights
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?
Answer (c) & explanation
All three pairs are correctly matched (c). Pair I is right: separation of the judiciary from the executive is Article 50, a Directive Principle. Pair II is right: valuing and preserving our composite culture is Article 51A(f), a Fundamental Duty. Pair III is right: no child below 14 may work in factories, mines or hazardous work under Article 24, a Fundamental Right. So options (a), (b) and (d) fail.
Notice related provisions: Article 21A gives free education for ages 6–14 (86th Amendment, 2002), and Article 51A(k) asks parents to educate their children. The Child Labour Amendment Act, 2016 banned all child labour below 14. Article 39(e) and (f) protect children too.
Article 45 (early childhood care, a DPSP) and Article 24 (a Fundamental Right) both talk about children. Keep them apart.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
Mains PYQs on this topic (1)
Write an answer
In 150 words, explain the significance of Judiciary with one recent example.
Flashcards (4)
Can a High Court declare a Central law
unconstitutional? Yes. The 43rd Amendment restored the power.
Which case created the collegium?
The Second Judges case (1993).
Which Amendment created the NJAC?
The 99th Amendment (2014), struck down in 2015.
Which Article separates the judiciary from
the executive? Art 50 (a Directive Principle).
In the news
- 25 Oct 2026Census 2027: can private teachers be made enumerators? The Census Rules amendment and Article 23
- 25 Oct 202611 crore Farmer IDs created five months early under the Digital Agriculture Mission and Agri Stack
- 25 Oct 2026Vehicle data sold for ₹5: Centre orders CERT-In audit of VAHAN, SARATHI and e-Challan portals
- 24 Oct 2026Panel to review pharma marketing code: UCPMP 2024 and why a voluntary code is not enough
Next topic · 14.3 →Judiciary: Judicial review, activism and separationSyllabus: GS-II · Separation of powers between various organs dispute redressal mechanisms and ins…