Judiciary: previous-year questions
17 real UPSC Prelims questions (2011–2026) with the official answer and a clear explanation. 6 of them came in the last five papers.
How often UPSC asks this
Questions per year, counted from the official papers.
Attempt the questions
Newest papers first. Tap an option; the answer and the reason appear instantly.
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.
With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements :
- 1. Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty.
- 2. Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company.
- 3. Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Answer (d) & explanation
All three statements are correct (d). Statement 1 is right: mandamus commands a body to perform a public duty, so it does not lie against a private organisation unless that body has been given a public duty. Statement 2 is right per the key: in Praga Tools (1966), the Supreme Court held that mandamus does not lie against a company, even a government company, unless a public duty is involved. Statement 3 is right: for quo warranto, which asks "by what authority" someone holds a public office, the petitioner need not be personally affected; any member of the public can apply.
Notice the five writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto, under Articles 32 and 226. High Courts can issue writs for any legal right.
statement 2 sounds wrong because a government company feels "public". UPSC followed the line in Praga Tools.
UPSC repeats traps like this year after year. The PYQ Book gathers every trap in one place, so you see them coming. Try the free sample
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 India, consider the following statements :
- 1. Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates.
- 2. 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?
Answer (b) & explanation
Only statement 2 is correct (b). Statement 1 is wrong: under the Advocates Act, 1961, only individuals enrol as advocates, so a law firm is not an advocate. Also, corporate lawyers and patent attorneys who are enrolled are not excluded from being advocates. Statement 2 is right: under Section 7 of the Act, the Bar Council of India sets standards of legal education and recognises universities and law colleges whose degrees qualify a person to enrol.
Notice the structure: the Bar Council of India at the top and State Bar Councils below. Since 2010, new law graduates must pass the All India Bar Examination to practise. In 2023, the BCI allowed foreign law firms to practise non-litigation work in India.
one wrong word ("legal firms") inside a long statement that is otherwise plausible.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
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.
In India, Legal Services Authorities provide free legal services to which of the following type of citizens?
- 1. Person with an annual income of less than ₹ 1,00,000
- 2. Transgender with an annual income of less than ₹ 2,00,000
- 3. Member of Other Backward Classes (OBC) with an annual income of less than ₹ 3,00,000
- 4. All Senior Citizens
Select the correct answer using the code given below :
Answer (a) & explanation
Statements 1 and 2 are correct (a). Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 lists who gets free legal aid. They include members of SCs and STs, women and children, persons with disabilities, victims of trafficking or disasters, industrial workmen, people in custody, and those whose income is below a limit set by rules. When this question was set, the rules covered persons with income under ₹1 lakh (1), and some states covered transgender persons with income under ₹2 lakh (2). Statement 3 is wrong because there is no OBC category. Statement 4 is wrong because not all senior citizens are covered, only those meeting income limits in some states.
This puts Article 39A into effect. Notice NALSA, the Lok Adalats, and the Legal Aid Defense Counsel system (2022).
"All" senior citizens. Age alone does not qualify anyone for free legal aid under the Act.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
Consider the following statements :
- 1. 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.
- 2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes 'incapacity and proved misbehaviour' of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
- 3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- 4. 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 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?
Answer (c) & explanation
Only statements 3 and 4 are correct (c). Statement 1 is wrong because, under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, the Speaker or Chairman may admit or refuse the motion after consulting others. Statement 2 is wrong because the Constitution uses the words "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" but does not define them. Statement 3 is right because the detailed procedure, including a three-member inquiry committee, is in the 1968 Act. Statement 4 is right because Article 124(4) requires a special majority in each House: a majority of total membership and two-thirds of those present and voting.
No Supreme Court judge has ever been removed. Notice the cases: Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) and the 2025 motion against Justice Yashwant Varma over cash found at his home.
statement 1 reverses the Speaker's power. Refusal at the admission stage is allowed.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
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?
Answer (b) & explanation
Option (b) captures the meaning. Article 142 lets the Supreme Court pass any decree or order needed to do "complete justice" in a case before it. The stem says ordinary laws cannot limit this power, which means the Court is not constrained by laws made by Parliament when using it. Options (a), (c) and (d) are about the Election Commission, the President's emergency powers and state legislatures, which have nothing to do with Article 142. In fact the President acts on Cabinet advice even for a Financial Emergency (Article 360).
The Court has used it in the Bhopal gas settlement, the Ayodhya verdict (2019), and to grant divorce directly (2023). Notice the limit set in Supreme Court Bar Association (1998): it cannot override express statutory provisions on a subject.
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.
In India, Judicial Review implies
Answer (a) & explanation
Judicial review is the courts' power to rule on whether laws and executive orders are constitutional (a). In India, the Supreme Court and High Courts can test laws and government action against the Constitution and strike down anything that conflicts with it, mainly through Articles 13, 32 and 226. Courts do not judge the wisdom of a law (b), only whether it is valid. They do not check Bills before assent (c); only the advisory opinion route under Article 143 comes close. Reviewing its own judgements (d) is review jurisdiction under Article 137, which is different.
In Minerva Mills (1980) and L. Chandra Kumar (1997), the Supreme Court made judicial review part of the basic structure. Notice the US origin of the idea: Marbury v. Madison (1803).
(d) is "review" in the sense of Article 137, a different power with the same word.
Fell for this one? Most aspirants do. The PYQ Book puts every UPSC trap side by side, so the pattern finally clicks. Try the free sample
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
With reference to the 'Gram Nyayalaya Act', which of the following statements is/are correct?
- 1. As per the Act, Gram Nyayalayas can hear only civil cases and not criminal cases.
- 2. The Act allows local social activists as mediators/reconciliators.
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Answer (b) & explanation
Only statement 2 is correct (b). Statement 1 is wrong: under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, these village courts hear both civil and criminal cases listed in the Act's Schedules. Statement 2 is right: the Act lets the court appoint local social workers as conciliators to help parties settle disputes.
Gram Nyayalayas are set up at the intermediate panchayat level, presided over by a Nyayadhikari with the powers of a judicial magistrate. They can be mobile courts and follow simplified procedure. Notice how they aim to bring cheap, quick justice to the doorstep, reflecting Article 39A on equal justice and free legal aid, though few states have set them up.
"only civil". Most local justice schemes cover both kinds of dispute.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
Who/Which of the following is the custodian of the Constitution of India?
Answer (d) & explanation
The Supreme Court is the custodian of the Constitution (d). It interprets the Constitution, enforces Fundamental Rights under Article 32 and strikes down laws that violate it through judicial review. The President (a) swears to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution but has no power to enforce it. The Prime Minister (b) heads the executive, and the Lok Sabha Secretariat (c) is an administrative office.
In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) the Court laid down the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament's power to amend. Notice how this makes the Court the final guardian of constitutional values.
the President's oath has the words "protect and defend", which pulls you to (a).
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the Centre and the States falls under its
Answer (c) & explanation
Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes between the Union and the States, or between States (c). Such cases begin directly in the Supreme Court. Advisory jurisdiction (a) under Article 143 lets the President seek the Court's opinion. Appellate jurisdiction (b) covers appeals from High Courts, and writ jurisdiction (d) under Article 32 protects Fundamental Rights.
Disputes over inter-State river waters are excluded from Article 131 by Article 262 and go to tribunals. Notice how these jurisdictions keep the federal balance, with the Court as umpire.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in
Answer (b) & explanation
Article 124(1) fixed the Supreme Court's strength and allowed Parliament to change it by law (b). Parliament has done so through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, amended several times; the sanctioned strength is now 34, including the Chief Justice, since 2019. The President (a) appoints judges but cannot add posts. The Chief Justice (c) and the Law Commission (d) can only advise.
The original Constitution provided for eight judges in all. Notice how judicial appointments follow the collegium system that grew out of the Judges cases.
the President appoints judges but cannot add posts.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
With reference to National Legal Services Authority, consider the following statements :
- 1. Its objective is to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society on the basis of equal opportunity.
- 2. It issues guidelines for the State Legal Services Authorities to implement the legal programmes and schemes throughout the country.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer (c) & explanation
Both statements are correct (c). NALSA was set up under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which came into force in 1995. Its objective is to provide free and competent legal services to weaker sections so that no citizen is denied justice for economic or other disabilities, in line with Article 39A (1). It lays down policies and guidelines for State Legal Services Authorities, which carry out the programmes through district and taluk bodies (2). So (a), (b) and (d) fail.
Notice the structure: the Chief Justice of India is the Patron-in-Chief, and the senior-most judge after the CJI is the Executive Chairman. NALSA runs Lok Adalats, whose awards are final and cannot be appealed. Free legal aid covers women, children, SC/ST, disabled persons and people below income limits. Trap: both are routine functions, so look for no catch.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
Which of the following are included in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
- 1. A dispute between the Government of India and one or more States
- 2. A dispute regarding elections to either House of the Parliament or that of Legislature of a State
- 3. A dispute between the Government of India and a Union Territory
- 4. A dispute between two or more States
Select the correct answer using the codes given below :
Answer (c) & explanation
Disputes 1 and 4 are correct (c). Article 131 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction only in federal disputes: between the Government of India and one or more States (1), between the Centre and some States on one side and other States on the other, and between two or more States (4). Statement 2 is wrong: election disputes go first to the High Court by election petition. Statement 3 is wrong: a Union Territory is administered by the Union itself, so it is not a separate party under Article 131. So (a), (b) and (d) fail.
Notice the cases: Kerala and other states have used Article 131 against the Centre, for example over borrowing limits (2024). Inter-state river water disputes are excluded (Article 262). Trap: UTs feel like states but are not.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
What is the provision to safeguard the autonomy of the Supreme Court of India?
- 1. While appointing the Supreme Court Judges, the President of India has to consult the Chief Justice of India.
- 2. The Supreme Court Judges can be removed by the Chief Justice of India only.
- 3. The salaries of the Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India to which the legislature does not have to vote.
- 4. All appointments of officers and staffs 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?
Answer (a) & explanation
Statements 1 and 3 are correct (a). The President must consult the Chief Justice of India while appointing Supreme Court judges (Article 124(2)); under the collegium system, this consultation is effectively binding (1). Judges' salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, so Parliament does not vote on them (3). Statement 2 is wrong: judges are removed by the President after an address by both Houses with a special majority (Article 124(4)), not by the CJI. Statement 4 is wrong: Supreme Court staff are appointed by the CJI (Article 146), not by the government. So (b), (c) and (d) fail.
Notice the related safeguards: salaries cannot be cut to their disadvantage except in a financial emergency, and their conduct cannot be discussed in Parliament (Article 121). The NJAC was struck down in 2015. Trap: statement 4 reverses who appoints staff.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.