Judiciary: Supreme Court

Three of these end a judge's tenure. Under Article 217(1), a judge may resign to the President, may be removed by the President on an address of both Houses of Parliament, and vacates office on appointment to the Supreme Court or transfer to another High Court. There is no fixed term of five years: a judge serves until the age of 62 unless he leaves earlier.

Both statements are correct. Under Article 124(6), every person appointed a judge of the Supreme Court makes and subscribes an oath or affirmation before the President, or some person appointed by him for that purpose, in the form set out in the Third Schedule. In that oath the judge swears to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, to perform his duties without fear or favour, affection or ill- will, and to uphold the Constitution and the laws.

Only one. Election petitions are tried by the High Court in its original jurisdiction, under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Appeals from district courts are appellate jurisdiction. Union–State disputes fall in the Supreme Court's exclusive original jurisdiction under Article 131, and advice to the President is the Supreme Court's Article 143 function.

Two. A Supreme Court judge may leave office before 65 by resignation addressed to the President (Article 124(2)(a)) or by removal under Article 124(4) on proved misbehaviour or incapacity. There is no transfer from the Supreme Court to a High Court; transfers under Article 222 are only between High Courts. A Lok Sabha resolution alone cannot remove a judge: removal needs an address by each House with a majority of total membership and two-thirds of those present and voting, followed by the President's order.

Statement 2 is correct: a High Court's decisions bind all subordinate courts within its territorial jurisdiction, through its power of superintendence (Article 227) and the hierarchy of courts (East India Commercial Co., 1962). For other High Courts they are only persuasive. Statement 1 is incorrect: Article 141 speaks only of the law declared by the Supreme Court; no Article makes a High Court's ruling binding on courts across India. A ruling of one High Court can thus differ from another until the Supreme Court settles the point.

Three. Under Article 112(3)(d), the salaries, allowances and pensions of Supreme Court judges, and the pensions of High Court judges, are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. The salaries and allowances of High Court judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State under Article 202(3)(d), since the State pays them. The pensions are a Union charge because a High Court judge may have served in more than one State or been transferred.

Statement 2 is correct: the proviso to Article 227(3) says such rules, forms and tables must not be inconsistent with any law in force and need the previous approval of the Governor. Statement 1 is incorrect: Article 226(2), added by the 15th Amendment, 1963, lets a High Court issue writs to an authority outside its territory if the cause of action arises wholly or partly within it.

All four. Parliament may by law enlarge the Court's jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter in the Union List (Article 138(1)); confer power to issue directions, orders or writs for purposes other than those in Article 32 (Article 139); confer supplemental powers not inconsistent with the Constitution to enable the Court to exercise its jurisdiction more effectively (Article 140); and determine the salaries of judges (Article 125(1)). What Parliament cannot do is curtail the Court's jurisdiction or vary a judge's conditions of service to his disadvantage.

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.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

Only statement 2 is correct (b). Statement 1 is wrong because it was the 39th Amendment (1975), passed during the Emergency, that added Article 329A. It placed the election of the Prime Minister and Speaker beyond the courts, after the Allahabad High Court set aside Indira Gandhi's election. The Supreme Court struck down part of it in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), and the 44th Amendment (1978) removed it. Statement 2 is right because the 99th Amendment (2014) set up the National Judicial Appointments Commission. In 2015, in the Fourth Judges case, the Court struck it down for violating judicial independence, part of the basic structure.

So the collegium system continues. Notice the ongoing debate on the Memorandum of Procedure for judicial appointments.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

The Supreme Court placed the Right to Privacy under Article 21 (d). In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge Bench held that privacy is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and also flows from the freedoms in Part III. It overruled the older M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) rulings. Option (a) is wrong: Article 15 bans discrimination. Option (b) is wrong: Article 16 gives equal opportunity in public jobs. Option (c) is wrong: Article 19 lists six freedoms, such as speech.

Notice that most new rights, such as food, shelter, livelihood and a clean environment, came through Article 21. Parliament later passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

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".

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

None of the statements is correct (d). Statement 1 is wrong: Article 71(2) says acts done by the President before the election is declared void stay valid. Statement 2 is wrong: the election cannot be put off because some Assemblies stand dissolved, and under Article 71(4) the poll cannot be questioned on that ground. Statement 3 is wrong: Article 111 sets no time limit for assent. The President may give assent, withhold it, or return a non-money Bill once.

Notice the recent debate. In 2025, a Supreme Court bench set timelines for Governors in a Tamil Nadu case, but on a Presidential Reference later that year, a Constitution Bench held that courts cannot impose such fixed timelines. This is why people speak of the President's pocket veto.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

Statement I is correct but Statement II is wrong (c). Statement I is right: in cases such as Indra Sawhney (1992) and M. Nagaraj (2006), the Supreme Court held that reservation in posts under Article 16(4) must be weighed against the "efficiency of administration" under Article 335. Statement II is wrong: Article 335 only uses the phrase; it does not define it. Courts have had to give it meaning case by case.

Notice later rulings: Jarnail Singh (2018) dropped the need to show SC/ST backwardness for promotion quotas, and B.K. Pavitra (2019) said reservation does not by itself harm efficiency. The 82nd Amendment (2000) allowed relaxed qualifying marks for SC/STs in promotions, added as a proviso to Article 335.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →