Consider the following statements regarding Executive control over investigative agencies:
1. The Central Bureau of Investigation derives its investigative authority from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946.
2. Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act provides for the consent of the State Government before the agency conducts investigations within its jurisdiction.
3. The Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997) judgment established the requirement for the Central Vigilance Commission to exercise superintendence over the CBI.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the CBI was established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, which provides its legal mandate. Statement 2 is correct because Section 6 of the DSPE Act mandates that the CBI must obtain 'general' or 'specific' consent from the concerned State Government before investigating a crime within its territory. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court in the Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997) case directed that the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) should be given statutory status to exercise superintendence over the CBI's functioning to ensure its independence from executive interference.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial appointments and the Collegium system:
1. The First Judges Case of 1981 held that the executive possesses the final authority in judicial appointments, and this interpretation was later codified in the 42nd Amendment Act to ensure administrative consistency.
2. The Third Judges Case in 1998 expanded the composition of the Supreme Court Collegium to include the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most puisne judges.
3. The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act sought to replace the Collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission, which was later struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the First Judges Case (1981) did grant primacy to the executive, but this was never codified in the 42nd Amendment; rather, it was overruled by the Second Judges Case (1993) which established the Collegium system. Statement 2 is correct as the 1998 Third Judges Case expanded the Collegium to a five-member body consisting of the CJI and the four senior-most puisne judges. Statement 3 is correct because the 99th Amendment Act (2014) introduced the NJAC to replace the Collegium, but the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 2015, upholding the primacy of the judiciary in appointments.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Basic Structure regarding separation of powers:
1. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati verdict relied on the 1967 Golaknath judgment to define the separation of powers, which was later codified in the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976.
2. The 1975 Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case dealt with the validity of the 39th Amendment, which sought to exclude the election of the Prime Minister from judicial scrutiny under Article 329A.
3. In the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala judgment, the Supreme Court identified the separation of powers as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) judgment explicitly identified the separation of powers as a core component of the basic structure. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 42nd Amendment (1976) actually attempted to curtail judicial review and concentrate power in the executive, rather than codifying the separation of powers. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while the 39th Amendment did seek to insulate the Prime Minister's election from judicial review, the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case struck it down precisely because it violated the basic structure, specifically the principle of free and fair elections and the separation of powers, rather than just being a simple validity check.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of Parliamentary Committees in executive scrutiny:
1. The Committee on Privileges, which consists of 15 members in the Lok Sabha, investigates cases of breach of privilege and provides recommendations for the suspension of the Prime Minister.
2. The Committee on Petitions, which traces its origin to the 1952 Rules of Procedure, allows members of the public to submit representations regarding the functioning of the Supreme Court.
3. The Business Advisory Committee, chaired by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, allocates time for the discussion of government legislative business and coordinates the legislative calendar with the Rajya Sabha Chairman.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Committee on Privileges has 15 members in Lok Sabha but lacks the authority to recommend the suspension of the Prime Minister. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Committee on Petitions cannot entertain representations regarding the functioning of the Supreme Court, as the judiciary is outside its purview. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the Business Advisory Committee is chaired by the Speaker, it is responsible for allocating time for government business in the Lok Sabha specifically and does not coordinate the legislative calendar with the Rajya Sabha Chairman.
Consider the following statements regarding Legislative privilege and Judicial review:
1. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 modified Article 105 to clarify that parliamentary privileges are those that existed at the time of the commencement of the Constitution.
2. Article 361 provides for the protection of the President and Governors, and the Supreme Court in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment extended this immunity to cover all legislative actions taken within the House.
3. In the Keshav Singh case of 1965, the Supreme Court held that legislative privilege does not extend to the protection of fundamental rights of citizens against the legislature.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the 44th Amendment Act (1978) amended Article 105 to define parliamentary privileges by referencing those existing at the time of the Constitution's commencement, pending codification. Statement 3 is correct because the 1965 Keshav Singh case established that legislative privileges are subject to the fundamental rights of citizens, meaning the judiciary can review actions if they violate constitutional guarantees. Statement 2 is incorrect because while Article 361 provides immunity to the President and Governors, the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) focused on the basic structure doctrine and did not extend blanket immunity to all legislative actions, which remain subject to judicial review.
Consider the following statements regarding Independence of the Judiciary and Article 121/211:
1. Article 121 mirrors the protections granted to the Comptroller and Auditor General, extending similar immunity from legislative scrutiny to the Election Commissioners during their tenure.
2. Article 121 of the Constitution prohibits any discussion in Parliament regarding the conduct of a Judge of the Supreme Court in the discharge of his duties, except when an address is presented to the President for his removal.
3. Article 211 of the Constitution provides that no discussion shall take place in the Legislature of a State with respect to the conduct of any Judge of the High Court in the discharge of his duties.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statements 2 and 3 are correct as Articles 121 and 211 explicitly restrict parliamentary and state legislative discussions on the conduct of Supreme Court and High Court judges, respectively, except during impeachment proceedings. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 121 pertains solely to the judiciary; there is no constitutional provision that extends this specific immunity from legislative scrutiny to Election Commissioners, whose conditions of service are regulated by separate statutes.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of Comptroller and Auditor General in executive oversight:
1. The salary and other service conditions of the Comptroller and Auditor General are determined by Parliament through the Comptroller and Auditor General (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971.
2. The Comptroller and Auditor General submits three audit reports relating to the accounts of the Union to the President, who causes them to be laid before each House of Parliament.
3. Article 148 of the Constitution provides for the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India by the President under his hand and seal.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the CAG (DPC) Act, 1971, enacted by Parliament under Article 148, defines the service conditions and salary, which is equivalent to a Judge of the Supreme Court. Statement 2 is correct because the CAG submits three audit reports-on appropriation accounts, finance accounts, and public undertakings-to the President, who then presents them to Parliament. Statement 3 is correct as Article 148 mandates that the CAG be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal, ensuring their independence from the executive.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional limitations on the power of judicial review:
1. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 restored the power of the Supreme Court to adjudicate on the validity of central laws, and it simultaneously removed the appellate jurisdiction of the High Courts in election petitions.
2. The Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case of 1980 defined the scope of judicial review, and it affirmed the power of the legislature to expand its amending authority through the insertion of Article 368(4) and (5).
3. Article 368 of the Constitution grants the Parliament the power to amend any provision, and the 24th Amendment Act of 1971 established that the President is bound to provide assent to constitutional amendment bills.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the 42nd Amendment (not 44th) curtailed judicial review, while the 43rd and 44th Amendments restored it, and the 42nd Amendment actually transferred election petitions to special tribunals, not High Courts. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Minerva Mills case struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, declaring that the Parliament cannot expand its amending power to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the 24th Amendment made it mandatory for the President to assent to constitutional amendment bills, Article 368 does not grant the Parliament the power to amend 'any' provision, as the basic structure doctrine limits this authority.
Consider the following statements regarding Delegated legislation and Executive accountability:
1. The Committee on Subordinate Legislation of the Lok Sabha was first constituted in 1953 to scrutinize the powers delegated by Parliament to the executive.
2. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced Article 323A, which provides for the establishment of administrative tribunals to oversee the validity of delegated executive orders.
3. The 1951 Delhi Laws Act case established the doctrine of constitutional silence, which allows the executive to modify existing primary legislation through subordinate notifications.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Committee on Subordinate Legislation was indeed constituted in 1953 to ensure the executive does not exceed the rule-making powers delegated by Parliament. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 323A, introduced by the 42nd Amendment, relates to the adjudication of disputes concerning public service matters, not the oversight of delegated legislation. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1951 Delhi Laws Act case actually established the 'doctrine of conditional legislation' and set strict limits on the executive's power to modify primary laws, rejecting the idea of unbridled executive discretion.
Consider the following statements regarding Parliamentary sovereignty vs Constitutional supremacy:
1. In the context of the 1950 Supreme Court judgment in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, the court adopted the American doctrine of 'due process of law' to limit the legislative competence of the Parliament.
2. The 1950 Constitution of India incorporates the British model of Parliamentary Sovereignty, and the 42nd Amendment of 1976 provided the legislature with the power to amend any part of the Constitution without judicial interference.
3. The 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan proposed a federal structure for India, and the subsequent 1947 Indian Independence Act granted the Constituent Assembly the power to override the judiciary in matters of constitutional interpretation.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because in A.K. Gopalan (1950), the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the 'due process of law' doctrine in favor of the narrower 'procedure established by law'. Statement 2 is incorrect as India follows Constitutional Supremacy, not Parliamentary Sovereignty, and the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) established that the 'Basic Structure' cannot be amended, overriding 42nd Amendment provisions. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Indian Independence Act of 1947 did not grant the Constituent Assembly power to override the judiciary; instead, the Constitution itself established the judiciary as the final interpreter of the law, a role reinforced by the doctrine of judicial review.
Consider the following statements regarding Parliamentary sovereignty vs Constitutional supremacy:
1. The 1935 Government of India Act functioned as a precursor to the present constitutional framework, yet it lacked the feature of judicial review over the legislative acts of the Imperial Parliament.
2. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala judgment established the Basic Structure doctrine, which serves as a limitation on the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.
3. Under the United States Constitution, the principle of judicial review was formally established in the 1803 Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, reinforcing the supremacy of the Constitution over legislative acts.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct because the 1935 Act established a federal structure but maintained the Imperial Parliament's ultimate authority, precluding judicial invalidation of its statutes. Statement 2 is correct as the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) limited the Parliament's constituent power under Article 368 by mandating that amendments cannot alter the Constitution's basic structure. Statement 3 is correct because Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the judiciary's power to declare legislative acts unconstitutional, cementing the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
Consider the following statements regarding Separation of functions between Executive and Legislature in Parliamentary system:
1. Article 75(3) of the Indian Constitution establishes the principle of collective responsibility, providing that the Council of Ministers remains accountable to the Lok Sabha for its administrative actions.
2. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 modified the scope of judicial review, though the subsequent Minerva Mills judgment of 1980 reaffirmed the doctrine of basic structure regarding the separation of powers.
3. Under the provisions of the 1951 Representation of the People Act, a person holding an office of profit under the Government of India faces disqualification from being chosen as a member of either House of Parliament.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 75(3) mandates that the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, a hallmark of the parliamentary executive's accountability. Statement 2 is correct because the 42nd Amendment sought to curtail judicial review, but the Minerva Mills case (1980) struck down these provisions, ruling that limited amending power and judicial review are essential features of the basic structure. Statement 3 is correct as Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alongside Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution, explicitly disqualifies individuals holding an 'office of profit' to prevent executive influence over the legislature.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial appointments and the Collegium system:
1. The Collegium system for the appointment of judges was formally introduced following the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the 1993 Advocates-on-Record Association case.
2. Article 124(2) of the Constitution provides that the President shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as the President deems necessary.
3. The Second Judges Case of 1993 established the primacy of the Chief Justice of India in the appointment process of Supreme Court judges.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct: Statement 1 and 3 are accurate as the 1993 Second Judges Case (Advocates-on-Record Association case) formally established the Collegium system, shifting primacy from the executive to the judiciary. Statement 2 correctly reflects the original text of Article 124(2), which mandates presidential appointment of Supreme Court judges after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as deemed necessary. Since all statements align with constitutional provisions and landmark judicial precedents, there are no incorrect statements.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach:
1. The 2014 National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in the 2015 Fourth Judges Case for violating the independence of the judiciary.
2. The 1993 Second Judges Case led to the creation of the Collegium system, which governs the appointment and transfer of judges in the higher judiciary.
3. Article 142 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to pass decrees or orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act in 2015, citing that executive interference in judicial appointments violates the basic structure doctrine of judicial independence. Statement 2 is correct because the 1993 Second Judges Case established the Collegium system, shifting the primacy of judicial appointments from the executive to the Chief Justice of India and senior-most judges. Statement 3 is correct as Article 142 provides the Supreme Court with plenary power to pass any order necessary for 'complete justice,' a provision frequently cited in debates regarding the boundaries between judicial activism and overreach.
Consider the following statements regarding Legislative privilege and Judicial review:
1. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced Article 194 to define the privileges of State Legislatures and established the primacy of legislative immunity over judicial review.
2. Article 105 of the Indian Constitution confers specific powers, privileges, and immunities upon the Houses of Parliament and their members.
3. The Supreme Court in the M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha case of 1959 ruled that the fundamental rights of citizens under Article 19 are subordinate to the privileges of the House as codified in the 1950 Rules of Procedure.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as Article 105 explicitly defines the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament and its members. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 194 was part of the original Constitution (1950), not introduced by the 42nd Amendment, and legislative privilege does not override judicial review. Statement 3 is incorrect because while the M.S.M. Sharma case held that privileges prevail over Article 19(1)(a), it did not base this on the 1950 Rules of Procedure, but rather on the fact that Article 194(3) granted legislatures the same powers as the British House of Commons at that time.
Consider the following statements regarding Article 50 and Directive Principles of State Policy:
1. The Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973 identified the separation of powers as a basic feature of the Constitution, specifically citing the inclusion of Article 50 in the Preamble.
2. The Government of India Act, 1935, contained a specific schedule that provided for the separation of the judiciary from the executive in the provinces, which served as the template for Article 50.
3. Article 50 is classified under Part IV of the Constitution, which provides for the judicial review of executive actions in cases involving the violation of fundamental rights.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 50 is not mentioned in the Preamble; while the Kesavananda Bharati case did identify separation of powers as a basic feature, it did not cite the Preamble for Article 50. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Government of India Act, 1935, did not contain a specific schedule for judicial separation; rather, Article 50 was inspired by the DPSP objective to separate the judiciary from the executive in public services. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while Article 50 is in Part IV, it is a Directive Principle and not a provision for judicial review, which is instead derived from Articles 13, 32, and 226.
Consider the following statements regarding Independence of the Judiciary and Article 121/211:
1. Article 122 provides that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question, and this provision acts as a procedural bar that prevents the Supreme Court from reviewing the internal committee reports of the legislature.
2. The 1968 Judges Inquiry Act outlines the procedural framework for the removal of judges, and it provides for the automatic suspension of a judge upon the introduction of a removal motion in the Lok Sabha.
3. Under the provisions of Article 124(4), the removal of a Supreme Court Judge follows a process initiated by a motion supported by a special majority of each House of Parliament.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct because Article 124(4) mandates that a judge can only be removed by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a special majority (a majority of the total membership and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting). Statement 1 is incorrect because while Article 122 bars courts from inquiring into parliamentary proceedings on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure, it does not grant immunity to substantive unconstitutionality or illegal actions. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, does not provide for the automatic suspension of a judge upon the introduction of a removal motion; the process is rigorous and requires the motion to be admitted by the Speaker/Chairman and investigated by a three-member committee before it can be put to a vote.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Pith and Substance in legislative competence:
1. The 1994 S.R. Bommai case expanded the application of the doctrine of Pith and Substance to include judicial review of the Governor's report under Article 356 regarding the breakdown of constitutional machinery.
2. The doctrine of Pith and Substance was incorporated from the Australian Constitution into the Government of India Act 1919 to settle disputes between the provincial and central governments over taxation powers.
3. The 1980 judgment in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab reaffirmed that if the pith and substance of an Act falls within the legislative competence of the enacting legislature, the Act remains valid even if it incidentally touches upon topics in another list.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct because the doctrine of Pith and Substance ensures that if a law's true nature falls within the enacting legislature's competence, it remains valid despite incidental encroachment on other lists. Statement 1 is incorrect because the S.R. Bommai (1994) case dealt with the judicial review of the proclamation of President's Rule under Article 356, not the doctrine of Pith and Substance. Statement 2 is incorrect because the doctrine was evolved by the Privy Council to interpret the British North America Act, 1867, and was subsequently adopted in the Government of India Act, 1935, not 1919, to resolve federal legislative conflicts.
Consider the following statements regarding Ordinance making power and legislative encroachment:
1. The Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar judgment of 2017 established that an ordinance promulgated by the President has the same legal force as an Act of Parliament, allowing it to amend the basic structure of the Constitution.
2. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 repealed the entirety of Article 123, shifting the ordinance-making authority of the President to the discretionary power of the Prime Minister's Office.
3. Under the provisions of Article 213, the Governor of a state possesses the authority to promulgate ordinances even when the state legislative assembly is in session, provided the Chief Minister approves the draft.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) ruled that an ordinance cannot bypass the basic structure of the Constitution and must be re-promulgated only in exceptional circumstances. Statement 2 is incorrect as Article 123 remains a vital constitutional provision, and the 44th Amendment only ensured that the satisfaction of the President regarding the need for an ordinance is subject to judicial review. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under Article 213, a Governor can only promulgate an ordinance when the state legislature is not in session, and the power is exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, not at the sole discretion of the Chief Minister.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Checks and Balances:
1. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced the provision for the President to return a bill for reconsideration, which serves as a mechanism for the executive to balance the legislative output of the Parliament.
2. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, established under Article 148, reports directly to the Supreme Court to ensure that executive expenditure aligns with the budgetary allocations passed in the 1950 Finance Act.
3. Under the Tenth Schedule added in 1985, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha holds the authority to disqualify members, a function that serves as a judicial check on the legislative process of party-switching.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the President's power to return a bill for reconsideration (suspensive veto) was introduced by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, not the 42nd. Statement 2 is incorrect as the CAG reports to the President (under Article 151), not the Supreme Court, and audits expenditure based on constitutional and statutory provisions, not the 1950 Finance Act. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Speaker's power to disqualify members under the Tenth Schedule is a quasi-judicial function within the legislative domain, not a judicial check, and it is subject to judicial review by the courts as established in the Kihoto Hollohan case.
Consider the following statements regarding Relationship between Article 142 and legislative domain:
1. The 1998 judgment in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India established that Article 142 cannot be used to bypass substantive statutory provisions or legislative enactments.
2. The power under Article 142 is exercisable by the Supreme Court only when there is a vacuum in the law or when existing statutes are insufficient to provide complete justice.
3. The 1993 judgment in the Indra Sawhney case utilized Article 142 to define the criteria for the creamy layer, which subsequently replaced the legislative definition provided in the 1992 OBC Reservation Act.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) clarified that Article 142 is supplementary and cannot override express statutory provisions. Statement 2 is correct because the Court has consistently held that its plenary power is intended to fill legislative gaps or 'legal vacuums' to ensure complete justice where existing laws are silent. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) judgment did not rely on Article 142 to replace a legislative act; rather, it directed the government to identify the 'creamy layer' based on social, economic, and other factors, which the government subsequently implemented through executive notifications.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of Comptroller and Auditor General in executive oversight:
1. The office of the Comptroller and Auditor General was established under the Government of India Act 1919, and the first Auditor General of India was appointed in 1921 to report directly to the Secretary of State for India.
2. The Comptroller and Auditor General conducts the audit of the accounts of the Reserve Bank of India and the Life Insurance Corporation of India, as per the provisions of the Companies Act 2013 regarding government-owned financial institutions.
3. The Comptroller and Auditor General is empowered by Article 149 to audit the receipts and expenditure of bodies or authorities substantially financed from the Consolidated Fund of a State, a power extended by the 1976 amendment to the Audit Act.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because while the office was created under the 1919 Act, the first Auditor General was appointed in 1921 to report to the Governor-General, not the Secretary of State. Statement 2 is incorrect as the CAG does not audit the RBI or LIC; these entities have their own statutory audit mechanisms, and the CAG's jurisdiction over government companies is governed by the CAG (DPC) Act, 1971, not the Companies Act 2013. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1976 amendment to the CAG (DPC) Act removed the CAG's responsibility for maintaining accounts, and the power to audit bodies substantially financed by the Consolidated Fund is derived from the original 1971 Act, not a 1976 amendment.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Basic Structure regarding separation of powers:
1. The 1993 Second Judges Case introduced the collegium system for judicial appointments, which was subsequently validated by the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act to ensure executive participation in the process.
2. The 1980 Minerva Mills v. Union of India judgment established that the limited amending power of Parliament is itself a basic feature of the Constitution.
3. In the 2015 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India case, the court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act as it undermined the independence of the judiciary.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act sought to replace the collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which was rejected by the Supreme Court, not validated. Statement 2 is correct as the Minerva Mills (1980) judgment affirmed that the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is limited, and this limitation is a basic feature. Statement 3 is correct because the 2015 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association case struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act, ruling that executive involvement in judicial appointments violated the basic structure principle of judicial independence.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional status of Separation of Powers in India:
1. The Constituent Assembly adopted the Draft Constitution in 1949, which incorporated the Montesquieu model of separation of powers as a formal chapter in Part III.
2. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced the concept of judicial review into the Constitution, thereby establishing the structural separation of powers between the Supreme Court and the Parliament.
3. Article 74 provides for a Council of Ministers to aid and advise the President, a provision derived from the 1935 Government of India Act that formalizes the complete independence of the executive from the legislature.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
All three statements are incorrect because the Indian Constitution does not follow the rigid Montesquieu model of separation of powers, but rather a system of checks and balances where the executive is part of the legislature. Statement 1 is false as there is no formal chapter on separation of powers in Part III; Statement 2 is incorrect because judicial review is a basic feature derived from the Constitution itself and not introduced by the 42nd Amendment; and Statement 3 is wrong because Article 74 mandates a parliamentary system where the executive is collectively responsible to the legislature, contradicting the idea of complete independence.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Pith and Substance in legislative competence:
1. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment established the doctrine of Pith and Substance as a component of the basic structure, limiting the power of Parliament to amend the distribution of legislative powers.
2. The doctrine of Pith and Substance is derived from Article 254 of the Constitution, which provides for the inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States.
3. Under the Seventh Schedule, the doctrine of Pith and Substance allows the State Legislature to enact laws on matters in the Union List if the primary objective of the legislation relates to public order under Entry 1.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
The Doctrine of Pith and Substance is a judicial interpretative tool used to determine the true nature of legislation when its subject matter overlaps between the Seventh Schedule lists, not a component of the Basic Structure doctrine established in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case. It is derived from the interpretation of Articles 246 and the Seventh Schedule to resolve legislative conflicts, rather than Article 254, which specifically addresses repugnancy between central and state laws. Furthermore, the doctrine does not grant states the power to legislate on Union List subjects; it merely ensures that if a law's 'pith and substance' falls within a legislature's assigned list, it remains valid even if it incidentally encroaches upon another list.
Consider the following statements regarding Delegated legislation and the doctrine of ultra vires:
1. The doctrine of ultra vires serves as a judicial check on delegated legislation, whereby rules formulated by the executive are invalidated if they exceed the scope defined by the parent Act of 1947.
2. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment clarified that the power of delegated legislation is a component of the basic structure, thereby limiting the ability of the Parliament to restrict judicial review over executive rules.
3. The doctrine of 'occupied field' in Indian administrative law prevents the state legislature from enacting rules on concurrent list subjects if the Parliament has already delegated rule-making power to a central authority.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the doctrine of ultra vires ensures executive rules remain within the authority granted by the parent statute, though the reference to '1947' is illustrative of the enabling Act. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Kesavananda Bharati judgment established the 'basic structure' doctrine regarding constitutional amendments, not delegated legislation, and judicial review of such rules is derived from Articles 32 and 226. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 'occupied field' doctrine relates to the repugnancy between central and state laws under Article 254, rather than restricting the delegation of rule-making powers to central authorities.
Consider the following statements regarding Executive control over investigative agencies:
1. The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946 includes provisions for the appointment of the CBI Director by a committee led by the President of India, following the 2013 Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act.
2. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, encompasses the power of the Enforcement Directorate to initiate investigations, and the agency functions under the administrative control of the Ministry of Law and Justice.
3. The Central Vigilance Commission was granted statutory status by the 1964 Santhanam Committee report, which serves as the primary oversight body for all personnel in the Indian Administrative Service.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the CBI Director is appointed by a high-level committee chaired by the Prime Minister, not the President. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Enforcement Directorate operates under the administrative control of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, not the Ministry of Law and Justice. Statement 3 is incorrect because while the Santhanam Committee recommended the establishment of the CVC, it was granted statutory status only through the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, and it oversees vigilance matters rather than serving as the primary disciplinary body for all IAS personnel.
Consider the following statements regarding Article 50 and Directive Principles of State Policy:
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, serves as the primary legislative instrument through which the separation of the judiciary from the executive was implemented across all Indian states.
2. The Directive Principles of State Policy, including Article 50, are enforceable by the Supreme Court under Article 32, allowing citizens to seek writs for the separation of powers.
3. Article 50 provides for the administrative control of the High Courts over the subordinate judiciary, ensuring that executive officers perform no judicial functions in civil matters.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, formally separated the judiciary from the executive by transferring judicial powers from executive magistrates to judicial magistrates. Statement 2 is incorrect because Directive Principles of State Policy are non-justiciable under Article 37 and cannot be enforced by the Supreme Court via Article 32. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 50 mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State, whereas administrative control of High Courts over subordinate courts is governed by Article 235.
Consider the following statements regarding Legislative privilege and Judicial review:
1. Article 122 provides that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question in any court on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
2. Under Article 212, courts are restricted from inquiring into the validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
3. The Supreme Court in the Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) judgment affirmed that the power of the legislature to punish for contempt is subject to judicial review.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Article 122 and Article 212 explicitly bar courts from inquiring into the validity of proceedings in Parliament and State Legislatures, respectively, based on procedural irregularities, ensuring the internal autonomy of the houses. In the landmark Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) case, the Supreme Court ruled that while legislative proceedings are protected from procedural challenges, the exercise of legislative privileges-such as the power to punish for contempt-is subject to judicial review if it violates fundamental rights or constitutional provisions. All three statements are factually accurate representations of the constitutional framework and established judicial precedents regarding the separation of powers.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach:
1. The 1976 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act introduced Article 32A, which empowered the Supreme Court to determine the constitutional validity of state laws, a provision later repealed by the 44th Amendment.
2. The 1981 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India judgment established the primacy of the Chief Justice of India in judicial appointments, formalizing the procedure that remained unchanged until the 99th Constitutional Amendment.
3. The term 'Judicial Activism' was first introduced in the United States by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in a 1947 Fortune magazine article.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined 'judicial activism' in a 1947 Fortune magazine article. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 32A, introduced by the 42nd Amendment, actually restricted the Supreme Court's power by barring it from considering the constitutional validity of state laws, a restriction removed by the 43rd (not 44th) Amendment. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 1981 S.P. Gupta case (First Judges Case) established the primacy of the Executive in appointments; it was the 1993 Second Judges Case that shifted primacy to the Chief Justice of India.
Consider the following statements regarding Executive control over investigative agencies:
1. The Director of Enforcement is appointed under the provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, for a tenure of up to two years.
2. The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, empowers the central government to constitute special courts for the trial of scheduled offences.
3. The Supreme Court of India in the 2021 Common Cause v. Union of India case examined the extension of tenure for heads of central investigative agencies.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the CVC Act, 2003, mandates the appointment of the ED Director for a minimum tenure of two years, which can be extended annually up to five years. Statement 2 is correct because the NIA Act, 2008, specifically empowers the Central Government to designate or constitute Special Courts for the speedy trial of scheduled offences. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court, in the 2021 Common Cause v. Union of India judgment, upheld the validity of the ordinances allowing the extension of tenure for the ED and CBI directors beyond two years, provided it is done in public interest for a maximum of five years.
Consider the following statements regarding Relationship between Article 142 and legislative domain:
1. In the 2018 case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court utilized Article 142 to regulate the sale of BS-IV compliant vehicles after the statutory deadline.
2. The Supreme Court in the Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991) case clarified that the powers under Article 142 are supplementary to the existing legislative framework.
3. Under the provisions of Article 142, the Supreme Court established the Special Investigation Team in the 2002 Gujarat riots case, which functioned as a permanent legislative body under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2018) to prohibit the sale of BS-IV vehicles beyond the April 1, 2020 deadline to address environmental concerns. Statement 2 is correct because, in the Union Carbide case (1991), the Court affirmed that Article 142 powers are supplementary and meant to provide 'complete justice' where existing laws are silent or insufficient, rather than to supplant legislative mandates. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the Supreme Court did appoint an SIT for the 2002 Gujarat riots, it functioned as an investigative body under judicial oversight and was never designated as a permanent legislative body under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Consider the following statements regarding Delegated legislation and the doctrine of ultra vires:
1. The principle of 'Henry VIII clause' refers to a provision in the Government of India Act 1935, which allows the executive to amend the parent statute to remove difficulties during the transition period.
2. The 42nd Amendment of 1976 introduced Article 323A, which formalizes the delegation of legislative powers to administrative tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating service matters.
3. The Committee on Subordinate Legislation, established in 1953, functions as a constitutional body that reviews the implementation of delegated rules before they are presented to the Rajya Sabha.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the 'Henry VIII clause' is a general legislative technique allowing the executive to amend primary legislation, not a specific provision of the Government of India Act 1935. Statement 2 is incorrect as Article 323A was introduced by the 42nd Amendment to establish Administrative Tribunals for service matters, but it does not formalize 'delegated legislation' in the context of rule-making powers. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Committee on Subordinate Legislation is a statutory/parliamentary committee established under the Rules of Procedure, not a constitutional body, and it scrutinizes rules after they are framed to ensure they do not exceed the authority granted by the parent Act.
Consider the following statements regarding Relationship between Article 142 and legislative domain:
1. The Supreme Court in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment held that Article 142 forms part of the basic structure, allowing the court to repeal legislative acts that conflict with constitutional principles.
2. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced the specific language of 'complete justice' into Article 142 to limit the court's interference in the legislative domain of the Parliament.
3. Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass decrees necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct because Article 142(1) explicitly grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any decree or order necessary for doing 'complete justice' in any cause or matter pending before it. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) established the 'Basic Structure' doctrine to limit Parliament's amending power, not to grant the Court the power to repeal legislative acts under Article 142. Statement 2 is incorrect because the term 'complete justice' has been part of Article 142 since the inception of the Constitution in 1950, and it was not introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional status of Separation of Powers in India:
1. Article 50 of the Constitution directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
2. Under the provisions of the 1950 Constitution, the President possesses the authority to transfer judges between High Courts, a mechanism intended to maintain the separation of powers by preventing local judicial bias.
3. The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment identified the separation of powers as a basic feature of the Indian Constitution.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 50, a Directive Principle of State Policy, mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) explicitly listed the separation of powers as a part of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while the President has the power to transfer judges under Article 222, this mechanism is primarily an administrative tool for judicial independence rather than a constitutional device specifically designed to enforce the separation of powers doctrine.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of Comptroller and Auditor General in executive oversight:
1. The administrative expenses of the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, including all salaries, allowances, and pensions, are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India.
2. Under Article 151, the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General relating to the accounts of a State are submitted to the Governor, who causes them to be laid before the State Legislature.
3. The Comptroller and Auditor General acts as the 'friend, philosopher and guide' of the Public Accounts Committee, assisting it in the examination of appropriation accounts.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 148 ensures the CAG's independence by charging all administrative expenses, including salaries and pensions, to the Consolidated Fund of India, making them non-votable. Statement 2 is correct under Article 151, which mandates that the CAG submit audit reports of state accounts to the Governor for presentation to the State Legislature. Statement 3 is correct because the CAG's audit reports are scrutinized by the Public Accounts Committee, where the CAG provides expert guidance and clarification, earning the title of 'friend, philosopher, and guide' to the committee.
Consider the following statements regarding Separation of functions between Executive and Legislature in Parliamentary system:
1. The Westminster system allows for the fusion of powers, where the Prime Minister functions as the head of the legislature, and the Cabinet holds the power to dissolve the Supreme Court under specific parliamentary procedures.
2. Under the rules of procedure in the Lok Sabha, the Speaker possesses the authority to override executive decisions during a vote of no-confidence, a practice derived from the 1921 Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms.
3. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment defined the separation of powers as a core feature of the Constitution, and it introduced a specific provision that prevents the Executive from issuing ordinances while the Parliament is in session.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because while the Westminster system features a fusion of powers, the Cabinet has no authority to dissolve the Supreme Court, which is an independent judiciary. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Speaker cannot override executive decisions during a no-confidence motion, and this process is governed by constitutional provisions rather than the 1921 Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. Statement 3 is incorrect because, although the Kesavananda Bharati case established the separation of powers as a basic structure, the prohibition on issuing ordinances while Parliament is in session is explicitly mandated by Article 123 of the Constitution, not by the judgment itself.
Consider the following statements regarding Delegated legislation and the doctrine of ultra vires:
1. Under the General Clauses Act of 1897, the executive branch holds the inherent power to frame regulations on any subject matter, provided the President issues a notification in the Official Gazette.
2. The Supreme Court in the 1951 In Re Delhi Laws Act case established that the legislature possesses the authority to delegate functions, provided the essential legislative policy remains within the primary statute.
3. The Administrative Law Reform Committee of 1964 suggested that all delegated legislation should be subject to a mandatory sunset clause, ensuring automatic expiration after five years of enactment.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as the 1951 In Re Delhi Laws Act case established the 'essential legislative functions' test, permitting delegation only if the core policy is defined by the legislature. Statement 1 is incorrect because the General Clauses Act, 1897, provides rules for interpretation and does not grant the executive inherent power to legislate on any subject. Statement 3 is incorrect because no such 1964 committee recommended a mandatory five-year sunset clause for all delegated legislation, and Indian law currently lacks such a universal statutory requirement.
Consider the following statements regarding Delegated legislation and Executive accountability:
1. Under the Statutory Orders (Special Provisions) Act of 1903, the executive is empowered to lay delegated rules before Parliament within 30 days of their notification.
2. The Supreme Court in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case observed that the power of the legislature to delegate functions is subject to the limitation that it cannot abdicate its essential legislative functions.
3. Article 13 of the Indian Constitution includes 'orders' and 'notifications' within the definition of law, thereby bringing delegated legislation under the ambit of judicial review.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Statutory Orders (Special Provisions) Act, 1903, mandates that delegated rules must be laid before Parliament within 30 days to ensure legislative oversight. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court, in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) and earlier precedents like In re Delhi Laws Act (1951), established that while delegation is permissible, the legislature cannot delegate its 'essential legislative functions' or abdicate its core law-making power. Statement 3 is correct as Article 13(3)(a) explicitly defines 'law' to include any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, etc., ensuring that all forms of delegated legislation are subject to judicial review for consistency with Fundamental Rights.
Consider the following statements regarding Contempt of Court powers and legislative immunity:
1. The Supreme Court held in the 1991 Delhi Judicial Service Association case that the inherent contempt jurisdiction of the High Courts is derived from the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, rather than Article 215.
2. The Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1956, provides immunity to media houses for reporting legislative debates, and this protection extends to the publication of expunged remarks.
3. Article 105(2) of the Constitution provides that no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as Article 105(2) grants absolute immunity to MPs for their votes and speeches within Parliament, ensuring legislative freedom. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in the Delhi Judicial Service Association case (1991) clarified that the High Court's power to punish for contempt is inherent and derived from Article 215, not merely the 1971 Act. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1956, does not protect the publication of expunged remarks, as such remarks are deemed never to have been spoken in the House.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional limitations on the power of judicial review:
1. Article 122 of the Indian Constitution prohibits the courts from inquiring into the validity of any proceedings in Parliament on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
2. Article 262 of the Constitution relates to the adjudication of inter-state water disputes, and it allows the Parliament to provide for the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts in such matters.
3. The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, added by the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985, provides for the disqualification of members on grounds of defection, and it bars the courts from examining the decision of the Speaker regarding the disqualification process.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 122 explicitly bars courts from questioning parliamentary proceedings based on procedural irregularities. Statement 2 is incorrect because, although Article 262 allows Parliament to exclude court jurisdiction, the Supreme Court in 'Kihoto Hollohan' and other rulings established that judicial review remains a basic feature of the Constitution that cannot be entirely ousted. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in the 'Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)' case struck down the provision of the Tenth Schedule that barred judicial review, holding that the Speaker's decision is subject to judicial scrutiny.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional limitations on the power of judicial review:
1. The Ninth Schedule, introduced by the First Constitutional Amendment Act in 1951, provides a protective umbrella for laws placed within it, shielding them from judicial review based on fundamental rights violations.
2. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced Article 323A and 323B, which established tribunals to exclude the jurisdiction of High Courts in specific service and tax matters.
3. Article 31C, as amended by the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971, gives precedence to Directive Principles under Article 39(b) and 39(c) over fundamental rights, limiting judicial intervention in such legislation.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the First Amendment (1951) added the Ninth Schedule to protect land reform laws from judicial review, though the Supreme Court in I.R. Coelho (2007) ruled that laws placed here after April 24, 1973, are subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure. Statement 2 is correct because the 42nd Amendment (1976) inserted Articles 323A and 323B, creating tribunals to adjudicate specific disputes and curtailing the original jurisdiction of High Courts, a move later moderated by the L. Chandra Kumar (1997) judgment. Statement 3 is correct as the 25th Amendment (1971) introduced Article 31C, which prioritizes Directive Principles under Articles 39(b) and 39(c) over Articles 14 and 19, thereby restricting the scope of judicial review for legislation enacted to implement these specific socialist goals.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of Parliamentary Committees in executive scrutiny:
1. The Committee on Subordinate Legislation, established in 1953, scrutinizes whether the powers to make regulations and bye-laws delegated by Parliament are being exercised within the scope of the parent Act.
2. The Joint Committee on Offices of Profit, which has 15 members, examines the composition and character of committees appointed by the central and state governments to determine if they hold offices of profit.
3. The Committee on Public Undertakings was created in 1964 on the recommendation of the Krishna Menon Committee to examine the reports and accounts of specified public sector enterprises.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct: the Committee on Subordinate Legislation (est. 1953) ensures delegated legislation adheres to the parent Act, the Joint Committee on Offices of Profit comprises 15 members (10 from Lok Sabha, 5 from Rajya Sabha) to scrutinize government appointments, and the Committee on Public Undertakings was established in 1964 based on the Krishna Menon Committee's recommendation to oversee the performance of PSUs. Since all statements accurately reflect the constitutional and procedural framework of Indian parliamentary oversight, there are no incorrect statements.
Consider the following statements regarding Ordinance making power and legislative encroachment:
1. In the 1987 case of D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the re-promulgation of ordinances without placing them before the legislature constitutes a fraud on the Constitution.
2. The doctrine of legislative encroachment allows the executive to issue ordinances on subjects listed in the Concurrent List, provided the state legislature has not passed a bill on the same subject within the preceding six months.
3. The 38th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1975 inserted clause (4) into Article 123, which initially sought to make the satisfaction of the President regarding the need for an ordinance final and beyond judicial review.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in D.C. Wadhwa (1987) ruled that repetitive re-promulgation of ordinances without legislative approval undermines the democratic process and constitutes a fraud on the Constitution. Statement 3 is correct because the 38th Amendment (1975) added Article 123(4) to make the President's satisfaction final and non-justiciable, a provision later repealed by the 44th Amendment (1978). Statement 2 is incorrect because there is no such 'doctrine of legislative encroachment'; the executive's ordinance-making power under Article 123/213 is co-extensive with the legislative power of Parliament/State Legislatures and is not contingent upon a six-month waiting period.
Consider the following statements regarding Ordinance making power and legislative encroachment:
1. An ordinance issued by the President ceases to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament, unless a resolution is passed by the Rajya Sabha extending its validity for an additional three months.
2. Article 123 of the Constitution empowers the President to promulgate ordinances during the recess of both Houses of Parliament, provided the circumstances necessitate immediate action.
3. The Government of India Act 1935 introduced the concept of ordinance-making for the Governor-General, which was subsequently adopted into the Indian Constitution through the 1st Amendment Act of 1951.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because Article 123 empowers the President to promulgate ordinances during the recess of Parliament when immediate action is required. Statement 1 is incorrect because an ordinance ceases to operate six weeks after reassembly unless approved by both Houses, not just the Rajya Sabha, and there is no provision for a three-month extension. Statement 3 is incorrect because the ordinance-making power was inherited directly from the Government of India Act 1935 into the original Constitution, not via the 1st Amendment Act of 1951.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional status of Separation of Powers in India:
1. Article 121 and Article 211 of the Constitution restrict the discussion in Parliament and State Legislatures regarding the conduct of any judge of the Supreme Court or High Court.
2. The doctrine of 'checks and balances' finds its origin in the 1952 Supreme Court ruling of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, which defined the functional boundaries of the three organs of the State.
3. The Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case clarified that the doctrine of separation of powers is not rigidly enforced in India, unlike in the United States.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Articles 121 and 211 expressly prohibit legislative discussion on the conduct of judges except during impeachment proceedings, ensuring judicial independence. Statement 3 is correct because the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case established that while separation of powers is a basic feature of the Constitution, it is not applied in the rigid, water-tight manner seen in the US. Statement 2 is incorrect because the doctrine of 'checks and balances' is an inherent feature of the Indian constitutional scheme rather than a principle derived from the A.K. Gopalan case, which primarily dealt with the interpretation of 'procedure established by law'.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Checks and Balances:
1. The doctrine of 'Basic Structure' emerged from the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, which allows the judiciary to initiate legislative amendments if the Parliament fails to address social welfare concerns within a five-year cycle.
2. The Public Accounts Committee, which consists of 22 members, possesses the authority to overturn executive policy decisions if the audit findings indicate a deviation from the 1951 Representation of the People Act.
3. Article 356 allows the President to dissolve a State Legislative Assembly, a power that acts as a legislative check on the executive functioning of the state government during a constitutional breakdown.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Basic Structure doctrine limits Parliament's power to amend the Constitution and does not empower the judiciary to initiate legislative amendments. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Public Accounts Committee is an advisory body that examines audit reports to ensure financial accountability and lacks the authority to overturn executive policy decisions. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 356 is an executive power exercised by the President upon the recommendation of the Union Cabinet, representing a check by the Union executive over the State executive, rather than a legislative check.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Pith and Substance in legislative competence:
1. In the State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla (1959) case, the Supreme Court held that the pith and substance of the impugned legislation regarding the use of sound amplifiers fell under Entry 31 of the Union List, despite incidental encroachment into the State List.
2. The doctrine of Pith and Substance was first applied by the Privy Council in the 1939 case of Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd to determine legislative competence under the Government of India Act 1935.
3. The Supreme Court in the 1964 case of Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan clarified that the doctrine of Pith and Substance is used to resolve conflicts between the Union List and the State List when a law overlaps with multiple entries.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla (1959) affirmed that legislation on sound amplifiers falls under Union List Entry 31 (posts, telegraphs, telephones, wireless, broadcasting), notwithstanding incidental encroachment on the State List. Statement 2 is correct because the Privy Council established the doctrine in Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd (1947, often cited as 1939 in historical context regarding the GOI Act 1935) to validate laws where the 'true nature and character' of the legislation remains within the competent legislature's domain. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court consistently utilizes this doctrine to resolve legislative overlaps by focusing on the core subject matter rather than the incidental effect of a law on entries in other lists.
Consider the following statements regarding Contempt of Court powers and legislative immunity:
1. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Attorney General of India possesses the authority to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against a judge of a High Court without the consent of the Chief Justice.
2. The Supreme Court in the 2002 Kehar Singh case clarified that the power of the President to grant pardons under Article 72 is distinct from the judicial power to punish for contempt.
3. Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was amended in 2006 to include the truth as a valid defense if the court is satisfied that it is in the public interest.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because, under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, criminal contempt proceedings against a judge require the prior consent of the Attorney General or Solicitor General, but they cannot initiate proceedings against a judge for actions performed in their judicial capacity due to the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court has consistently held that the President's pardoning power under Article 72 is an executive function distinct from the judiciary's inherent power to punish for contempt under Article 129/215. Statement 3 is correct because the 2006 amendment to Section 13 introduced 'truth' as a valid defense in contempt proceedings, provided the court finds it is bona fide and in the public interest.
Consider the following statements regarding Contempt of Court powers and legislative immunity:
1. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines civil contempt as the willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, or writ of a court.
2. Article 194(3) of the Constitution grants state legislatures the power to define their own privileges, and the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 codified these privileges into a formal statute.
3. Article 129 of the Constitution of India designates the Supreme Court as a court of record, possessing the power to punish for contempt of itself.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, explicitly defines civil contempt as the willful disobedience to any court order. Statement 3 is correct because Article 129 confers the status of a 'court of record' upon the Supreme Court, inherently empowering it to punish for contempt of itself. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while Article 194(3) pertains to legislative privileges, these privileges have never been codified into a formal statute by Parliament, and the 44th Amendment Act did not change this position.
Consider the following statements regarding Article 50 and Directive Principles of State Policy:
1. Article 50 of the Constitution directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
2. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced Article 50 into the Directive Principles to ensure that judicial appointments are managed by an independent commission.
3. The First Law Commission, chaired by Lord Macaulay in 1834, recommended the immediate separation of judicial and executive functions to align with the British model of administrative governance.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 50 is an original provision of the Constitution mandating the separation of the judiciary from the executive to ensure judicial independence. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 50 was part of the original Constitution, not added by the 42nd Amendment, and it does not mandate an independent commission for judicial appointments. Statement 3 is incorrect because the First Law Commission under Lord Macaulay focused on codifying laws rather than separating judicial and executive functions, a reform that was historically resisted by the British administration until much later.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach:
1. In the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court of India established the Basic Structure doctrine, limiting the amending power of the Parliament under Article 368.
2. The 1997 Vishaka Guidelines were formulated by the Supreme Court to address workplace harassment, drawing upon the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) ratified by India in 1993.
3. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) framework in India was pioneered by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer during the late 1970s.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment established the Basic Structure doctrine, restricting Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. Statement 3 is correct because Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer were the pioneers of PIL in the late 1970s, relaxing the rule of locus standi to ensure access to justice. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the Vishaka Guidelines were indeed formulated by the Supreme Court in 1997 to address workplace sexual harassment, India ratified CEDAW in 1993, making the statement factually accurate; therefore, all three statements are correct.
Consider the following statements regarding Parliamentary sovereignty vs Constitutional supremacy:
1. In the United Kingdom, the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty allows the legislature to enact or repeal any law, a principle famously articulated by A.V. Dicey in his 1885 work 'An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution'.
2. The 1967 Golaknath v. State of Punjab case held that the Parliament possesses the authority to amend fundamental rights, and this decision remained the prevailing legal position until the 1971 24th Constitutional Amendment was struck down.
3. The Indian Constitution establishes Constitutional Supremacy, where Article 13 empowers the judiciary to declare legislative acts void if they contravene Part III of the Constitution.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as A.V. Dicey defined Parliamentary Sovereignty in 1885, asserting that the UK Parliament can make or unmake any law without legal challenge. Statement 3 is correct because Article 13 establishes the principle of judicial review, ensuring the Constitution remains supreme over legislative acts that violate Fundamental Rights. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Golaknath case (1967) actually ruled that Parliament could NOT amend Fundamental Rights, and the 24th Amendment (1971) was enacted specifically to overturn this judgment, not struck down.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Basic Structure regarding separation of powers:
1. Article 50 of the Indian Constitution directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
2. Article 121 of the Constitution provides for the independence of the judiciary by restricting discussions in Parliament regarding the conduct of any judge of the Supreme Court, except in the context of an impeachment motion under Article 124.
3. The 1975 Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case reaffirmed that the power of judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated by a constitutional amendment.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 50, under the Directive Principles of State Policy, mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive. Statement 3 is correct because the 1975 Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case established judicial review as a basic feature of the Constitution. Statement 2 is incorrect because while Article 121 restricts discussion in Parliament regarding the conduct of a judge, it applies to both Supreme Court and High Court judges, not just the Supreme Court.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of Parliamentary Committees in executive scrutiny:
1. The Public Accounts Committee, first constituted in 1921 under the Government of India Act 1919, examines the appropriation accounts and the finance accounts of the Union government.
2. The Estimates Committee, which currently consists of 30 members elected by the Lok Sabha, is tasked with suggesting economies in public expenditure and alternative policies to bring about efficiency.
3. The Departmentally Related Standing Committees were formally established in 1993 to strengthen the oversight of the executive branch by the Parliament.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct: the Public Accounts Committee was indeed established in 1921 under the GOI Act 1919 to audit government expenditure, the Estimates Committee consists of 30 members exclusively from the Lok Sabha to ensure administrative efficiency, and the 17 Departmentally Related Standing Committees were introduced in 1993 to enhance the Parliament's legislative and financial oversight of the executive.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Checks and Balances:
1. The President of India exercises the power to grant pardons under Article 72, which functions as a constitutional check on the executive branch's judicial outcomes, provided the decision follows the advice of the Council of Ministers.
2. Article 121 of the Indian Constitution restricts parliamentary discussion regarding the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court in the discharge of their duties, except in the case of an impeachment motion.
3. The power of judicial review exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 13 is derived from the principle that the judiciary acts as a check on the legislative branch to ensure laws remain consistent with Part III of the Constitution.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 72 empowers the President to grant pardons, acting as a check on judicial finality, while being bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers per Article 74. Statement 2 is correct because Article 121 explicitly prohibits parliamentary discussion on the conduct of judges in the discharge of their duties, safeguarding judicial independence except during impeachment proceedings. Statement 3 is correct as Article 13 empowers the judiciary to declare laws void if they contravene Fundamental Rights, serving as a vital check on legislative overreach to uphold constitutional supremacy.
Consider the following statements regarding Separation of functions between Executive and Legislature in Parliamentary system:
1. The 1950 Constitution of India incorporated the American model of separation of powers, which prevents members of the executive from participating in the legislative proceedings of the Rajya Sabha.
2. The Office of Profit clause finds its origin in the Government of India Act 1935, which prohibited civil servants from serving in the Federal Assembly to ensure the independence of the judiciary.
3. Article 102 of the Constitution provides for the disqualification of members based on pecuniary interests, and the Joint Committee on Offices of Profit was established by the 1959 Act to oversee executive appointments.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because India follows the British Parliamentary model where the executive is part of the legislature, not the American model of strict separation. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Office of Profit clause aims to maintain the independence of the legislature from executive influence, not the judiciary. Statement 3 is incorrect because while Article 102 addresses disqualification, the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, defines offices that do not disqualify a member, and the Joint Committee is a parliamentary body rather than an entity established by that specific Act to oversee executive appointments.
Consider the following statements regarding Independence of the Judiciary and Article 121/211:
1. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati verdict introduced the doctrine of Basic Structure, which serves as the legal basis for the President to initiate a judicial inquiry into the conduct of High Court judges under Article 211.
2. The 1993 Supreme Court judgment in the Second Judges Case established the Collegium system, which serves as a mechanism to preserve the independence of the judiciary from executive influence in appointments.
3. Article 211 is derived from the Government of India Act 1935, which granted the Governor-General the power to override judicial conduct discussions in provincial legislatures during the colonial period.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as the 1993 Second Judges Case formalized the Collegium system to ensure judicial primacy in appointments, shielding the judiciary from executive overreach. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 211 explicitly prohibits discussions in state legislatures regarding the conduct of judges, and the Basic Structure doctrine relates to constitutional amendments, not judicial inquiries. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while Article 211 has roots in the Government of India Act 1935, its primary purpose is to uphold the separation of powers by preventing legislative interference in judicial functions, rather than granting the Governor-General override powers.
Consider the following statements regarding Delegated legislation and Executive accountability:
1. The 1967 Administrative Reforms Commission report suggested the creation of a centralized legislative drafting office, which currently serves as the final appellate body for all subordinate rules.
2. The Parliamentary Committee on Government Assurances was formed under the 1950 Rules of Procedure, and it holds the authority to repeal any executive regulation found inconsistent with the parent statute.
3. The 1935 Government of India Act contained provisions for the separation of powers, and the current framework of delegated legislation follows the specific guidelines set forth in Section 299 of that Act.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the ARC did not establish a centralized body acting as an appellate authority for rules. Statement 2 is false as the Committee on Subordinate Legislation, not the Committee on Government Assurances, scrutinizes delegated legislation, and no parliamentary committee has the power to unilaterally repeal executive regulations. Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, dealt with the execution of contracts by the Crown and the provinces, not the framework for delegated legislation.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial appointments and the Collegium system:
1. The Judicial Appointments Commission Bill of 2014 received the assent of the President on December 31, 2014, and functioned as the primary mechanism for High Court elevations until the 2015 Supreme Court verdict.
2. Under the existing Memorandum of Procedure, the Union Law Minister initiates the process for the appointment of the Chief Justice of India by seeking a recommendation from the outgoing Chief Justice.
3. The High Court Collegium consists of the Chief Justice of the respective High Court and the two senior-most judges of that court.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the NJAC Act were struck down by the Supreme Court in October 2015, meaning the NJAC never effectively functioned as the primary mechanism for appointments. Statement 2 is correct as the Memorandum of Procedure mandates that the Union Law Minister seeks the recommendation of the outgoing CJI for their successor, typically one month before retirement. Statement 3 is correct because the High Court Collegium, as established by the Second Judges Case (1993), comprises the Chief Justice of the High Court and the two senior-most puisne judges of that court.