Consider the following statements regarding Power of the Governor to frame rules for judicial service:
1. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 modified Article 234 to include the Chief Justice of India in the consultation process for framing recruitment rules for the subordinate judiciary, reflecting the increased central oversight of state judicial services.
2. The All India Judicial Service, proposed under the 116th Law Commission Report of 1986, suggests that the Governor's rule-making power under Article 234 is transferred to the Union Public Service Commission for the recruitment of district-level judicial officers.
3. Under the provisions of the State Reorganisation Act of 1956, the Governor of a newly formed state possesses the authority to frame interim rules for judicial service appointments without the prior concurrence of the High Court for a period of twelve months.
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 234 mandates consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court, not the Chief Justice of India. Statement 2 is incorrect as the 116th Law Commission Report proposed an All India Judicial Service under Article 312, but it does not transfer the Governor's rule-making power under Article 234 to the UPSC. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Constitution does not grant the Governor any such authority to bypass the mandatory consultation with the High Court for framing judicial service rules, regardless of the State Reorganisation Act.
Consider the following statements regarding Qualification criteria for appointment as a District Judge:
1. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contains the foundational criteria for the appointment of District Judges, specifying that an individual holds a law degree from a recognized university and has served as a judicial magistrate for at least three years.
2. Article 234 of the Constitution governs the appointment of District Judges, providing for a selection process conducted by the State Public Service Commission in consultation with the Governor and the Chief Justice of the High Court.
3. The Judicial Service Rules of 1952 provide for the direct recruitment of District Judges from the bar, allowing candidates who have completed five years of practice to be considered if they pass the state-level competitive examination.
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 233 of the Constitution, not the Code of Civil Procedure, governs the appointment of District Judges. Statement 2 is incorrect as Article 233 mandates that appointments are made by the Governor in consultation with the High Court, whereas Article 234 pertains specifically to the appointment of persons other than District Judges to the judicial service. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under Article 233(2), a person to be appointed as a District Judge by direct recruitment must have been an advocate or pleader for at least seven years, not five, and the process is governed by High Court rules rather than the Judicial Service Rules of 1952.
Consider the following statements regarding Validation of appointments and judgments of subordinate courts:
1. The judgment in the All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993) case established the procedure for the validation of judicial appointments made by the State Governor without High Court concurrence.
2. The 1966 Amendment Act provided that no judgment, decree, or order passed by a district judge shall be deemed invalid solely on the ground that the person was not eligible for appointment at the time of their selection.
3. Article 233A was inserted into the Constitution by the Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act, 1966, to validate certain appointments of district judges.
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 because Article 233A, inserted by the Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act, 1966, was specifically enacted to validate the appointments of district judges and their subsequent judgments, even if those appointments were made in contravention of Article 233. Statement 1 is incorrect because the All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993) case dealt with the service conditions, pay scales, and judicial independence of subordinate judiciary members, not the validation of irregular appointments made without High Court concurrence.
Consider the following statements regarding Disciplinary jurisdiction of High Courts over subordinate judiciary:
1. The power of posting and promotion of district judges under Article 233 is exercised by the Governor in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such state.
2. The administrative control granted to the High Court under Article 235 includes the power to grant leave and determine the seniority of judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary.
3. The 1976 amendment to the Constitution, through the 42nd Amendment Act, did not alter the fundamental disciplinary authority of the High Court over subordinate courts as defined in Article 235.
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 233 mandates that appointments, postings, and promotions of district judges are made by the Governor in consultation with the High Court. Statement 2 is correct because Article 235 vests the High Court with comprehensive administrative control over subordinate courts, encompassing matters like leave, seniority, and disciplinary proceedings. Statement 3 is correct because the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, while introducing significant changes to judicial review, did not diminish the High Court's plenary power of control over subordinate courts as established under Article 235.
Consider the following statements regarding Application of the Code of Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure Code:
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which replaced the 1898 Code, came into force on 1st April 1974, establishing the current framework for criminal trials in subordinate courts.
2. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court holds the power to make rules under Part X to regulate the procedure of subordinate civil courts.
3. Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, details the process of issuing and serving summons to defendants, a procedure that subordinate civil courts follow in original suits.
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 CrPC, 1973, received Presidential assent on 25 January 1974 and became operational on 1 April 1974. Statement 2 is correct because Section 122 of the CPC, 1908, empowers High Courts to make rules regulating their own procedure and that of subordinate civil courts. Statement 3 is correct as Order V of the CPC specifically governs the issuance and service of summons to defendants in civil litigation, which is a mandatory procedural requirement for subordinate courts.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional provisions under Articles 233-237:
1. Article 234 provides that appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a state are made by the Governor in accordance with rules made by him in consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court.
2. Article 233 of the Constitution provides that the appointment of district judges in any state is made by the Governor in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such state.
3. A person to be eligible for appointment as a district judge under Article 233 must have been for at least seven years an advocate or a pleader and be recommended by the High Court for appointment.
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 233 mandates that the Governor appoints district judges in consultation with the High Court, requiring candidates to have at least seven years of experience as an advocate or pleader, with a mandatory High Court recommendation. Article 234 governs the recruitment of judicial officers other than district judges, tasking the Governor with making appointments based on rules formulated in consultation with both the State Public Service Commission and the High Court. As all three statements accurately reflect the constitutional provisions stipulated under Articles 233 and 234, there are no incorrect statements.
Consider the following statements regarding Disciplinary jurisdiction of High Courts over subordinate judiciary:
1. Article 235 of the Constitution vests the control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto in the High Court of the concerned state.
2. The Supreme Court in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment established that the power of removal of a subordinate judge is a function shared equally between the Governor and the High Court.
3. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court maintains the authority to appoint the District Judge, while the State Public Service Commission conducts the recruitment for the lower judiciary.
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 235 vests the control over district courts and subordinate courts in the High Court, including matters of posting, promotion, and discipline. Statement 2 is incorrect because the power of removal or dismissal of a subordinate judge is vested solely in the Governor, acting on the recommendation of the High Court, not as a shared equal function. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under Article 233, the Governor appoints District Judges in consultation with the High Court, and the recruitment of lower judiciary is governed by Article 234, which mandates consultation with the High Court and the State Public Service Commission, not the Code of Civil Procedure.
Consider the following statements regarding Direct recruitment vs promotion quota in the judicial service:
1. The Supreme Court in the All India Judges' Association v. Union of India (1992) case directed that the recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service, i.e., the cadre of District Judges, should be 25% by promotion from the subordinate judiciary and 25% by limited competitive examination.
2. The remaining 50% of the posts in the Higher Judicial Service are filled by direct recruitment from the Bar, as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the 2002 judgment regarding the All India Judges' Association case.
3. Article 233 of the Constitution provides that appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
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 1992 All India Judges' Association judgment mandated a 25% quota for promotion and 25% for limited competitive examination for District Judges. Statement 2 is correct because the 2002 judgment in the same case reaffirmed the 50% direct recruitment quota from the Bar to ensure merit and efficiency in the Higher Judicial Service. Statement 3 is correct as it accurately reflects Article 233, which vests the power of appointment and promotion of district judges in the Governor, strictly contingent upon consultation with the respective High Court.
Consider the following statements regarding Power of the Governor to frame rules for judicial service:
1. The 1973 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure introduced significant changes to the separation of the judiciary from the executive, which impacts the operational framework under which the Governor exercises rule-making powers for subordinate judicial officers.
2. In the landmark judgment of Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1966), the Supreme Court clarified that the Governor's power to frame rules under Article 234 is subject to the constitutional requirement of consulting the High Court regarding the selection process.
3. Article 234 of the Constitution provides that appointments of persons other than the district judge to the judicial service of a State shall be made by the Governor in accordance with rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court.
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 1973 CrPC amendment completed the separation of the judiciary from the executive, defining the functional boundaries for subordinate courts. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Chandra Mohan (1966) established that the Governor's rule-making power under Article 234 is not absolute and must strictly adhere to the mandatory consultation process with the High Court. Statement 3 is correct as it accurately reflects the constitutional mandate of Article 234, which requires the Governor to frame rules for subordinate judicial appointments in consultation with both the State Public Service Commission and the High Court.
Consider the following statements regarding Concept of District Judge and Sessions Judge distinction:
1. Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides for the establishment of a Court of Session for every sessions division, to be presided over by a judge appointed by the High Court.
2. The District Judge has the power to hear appeals against the decrees and orders of the subordinate civil courts, as defined under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
3. In the hierarchy of the subordinate judiciary, the District Judge holds the administrative control over the courts of the Additional District Judges and the Munsif courts within the district.
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 Section 9 of the CrPC, 1973, mandates that the High Court establish a Court of Session for every sessions division and appoint a judge to preside over it. Statement 2 is correct because, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the District Judge serves as the principal civil court of original jurisdiction and holds appellate authority over decrees and orders of subordinate civil courts. Statement 3 is correct as the District Judge exercises both judicial and administrative control over all subordinate courts within the district, including Additional District Judges and lower-tier civil courts like Munsif or Civil Judge (Junior Division) courts.
Consider the following statements regarding Consultation process with the High Court for judicial appointments:
1. The 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure defines the hierarchy of subordinate courts, and the 1984 Amendment Act integrated the consultation process for judicial magistrates directly into the executive appointment framework of the Governor.
2. In the 2002 All India Judges' Association v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court directed that the process for recruitment of judicial officers should be conducted in coordination with the High Court to ensure the independence of the subordinate judiciary.
3. The High Court exercises administrative control over the subordinate courts in the State, including the power of posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge.
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 Constitution, under Article 234, mandates that appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial service are made by the Governor in accordance with rules framed after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court, not an executive-dominated framework. Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court in the All India Judges' Association case (2002) reinforced that the recruitment process must be conducted by the High Court or a body under its supervision to maintain judicial independence. Statement 3 is correct as it accurately reflects Article 235 of the Constitution, which vests the High Court with comprehensive administrative control over subordinate courts, including postings, promotions, and leave for judicial officers below the rank of district judge.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional provisions under Articles 233-237:
1. Article 235 grants the High Court administrative control over subordinate courts, and this power extends to the trial of cases involving members of the state legislature, as established by the 1950 judicial service rules.
2. The Governor exercises the power to appoint subordinate judicial officers under Article 234, and the list of candidates recommended by the State Public Service Commission is binding upon the High Court for the final selection process.
3. Article 237 empowers the Governor to direct by public notification that the provisions of Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution shall apply in relation to any class or classes of magistrates in the state as they apply in relation to persons appointed to the judicial service.
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 237 empowers the Governor to extend the provisions of Chapter VI to any class of magistrates. Statement 1 is incorrect because while Article 235 grants the High Court administrative control over subordinate courts, this power does not extend to the trial of cases involving legislators, which is a matter of judicial procedure, not administrative control. Statement 2 is incorrect because, under Article 234, the Governor makes appointments in consultation with both the State Public Service Commission and the High Court, and the High Court's role in the selection process is constitutionally significant and not merely a rubber stamp for the Commission's recommendations.
Consider the following statements regarding Supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227:
1. The power of superintendence under Article 227 is administrative as well as judicial in nature, extending to both subordinate courts and quasi-judicial tribunals.
2. The scope of Article 227 was significantly expanded by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, which clarified that the power of superintendence includes tribunals.
3. Article 227 of the Constitution empowers every High Court to exercise superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
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 227 confers both administrative and judicial superintendence over all courts and tribunals within a High Court's jurisdiction. Statement 2 is correct because the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, explicitly inserted the word 'tribunals' into Article 227 to remove ambiguity regarding the High Court's oversight of quasi-judicial bodies. Statement 3 is correct as it accurately reflects the constitutional provision under Article 227(1), which mandates that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
Consider the following statements regarding Application of the Code of Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure Code:
1. The Civil Procedure Code of 1908 incorporates the doctrine of res judicata in Section 11, which prevents a court from trying a suit where the matter has been decided by a Revenue Tribunal.
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contains provisions for the establishment of Nyaya Panchayats in rural areas, which function under the administrative supervision of the District Magistrate.
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, allows for the appointment of Special Judicial Magistrates under Section 13, who possess the authority to preside over cases involving the violation of municipal bylaws.
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 Section 11 of the CPC applies to courts of competent jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court has clarified that 'court' under this section does not include Revenue Tribunals. Statement 2 is incorrect as the CrPC, 1973 does not contain provisions for Nyaya Panchayats; these are established under specific State legislations, not the central criminal code. Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 13 of the CrPC empowers the High Court to appoint Special Judicial Magistrates for particular cases, but this authority is vested in the High Court, not the District Magistrate, and the section does not specifically limit their jurisdiction to municipal bylaws.
Consider the following statements regarding Disciplinary jurisdiction of High Courts over subordinate judiciary:
1. In the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shirish Kumar Rangrao Patil (1997), the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's authority to hold disciplinary proceedings against subordinate judges.
2. The 1950 Constitution, as originally drafted, provided for the establishment of a National Judicial Service Commission to oversee the disciplinary actions of subordinate courts across all states.
3. The disciplinary jurisdiction of the High Court encompasses the power to initiate departmental inquiries against members of the judicial service.
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 the 1997 Shirish Kumar case upheld the High Court's constitutional power under Article 235 to exercise control over subordinate courts, including disciplinary proceedings. Statement 3 is correct because Article 235 vests the 'control' over district courts and subordinate courts in the High Court, which includes the power to initiate and conduct departmental inquiries. Statement 2 is incorrect because the original 1950 Constitution contained no provision for a National Judicial Service Commission; such a body is a proposed reform to centralize judicial appointments and has never been part of the constitutional framework.
Consider the following statements regarding Consultation process with the High Court for judicial appointments:
1. The 1950 Constitution initially placed the power of appointment for subordinate judicial officers under the State Public Service Commission, and the 1956 States Reorganisation Act transferred this authority to the High Court.
2. Article 233 of the Constitution provides that appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
3. Article 235 provides for the control of the High Court over district courts, and the 1966 Delhi High Court Act extended this supervisory jurisdiction to include the appointment of administrative staff within the subordinate judiciary.
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 233 mandates that the Governor appoints district judges in consultation with the High Court. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Constitution originally vested the power of appointment of subordinate judicial officers in the Governor, not the State Public Service Commission, and the 1956 Act did not transfer this authority. Statement 3 is incorrect because while Article 235 grants the High Court administrative control over subordinate courts, the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, did not introduce this specific provision regarding administrative staff appointments.
Consider the following statements regarding Reporting and inspection duties of High Courts regarding subordinate courts:
1. The District Judge conducts annual inspections of the subordinate courts and submits a report to the Governor of the state, who then forwards these findings to the High Court for final approval.
2. The 1950 Constitution provides for the establishment of a Judicial Inspection Commission, which operates under the High Court to monitor the performance of subordinate courts and report to the Law Ministry.
3. The High Court delegates the inspection of subordinate courts to the State Public Service Commission, which evaluates the judicial performance of lower court judges based on the 1950 constitutional guidelines.
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, under Article 235 of the Constitution, the administrative control over subordinate courts is vested exclusively in the High Court, not the Governor, Law Ministry, or Public Service Commission. The High Court itself conducts inspections of subordinate courts through its judges or designated officers, and no constitutional provision establishes a 'Judicial Inspection Commission' or mandates the involvement of the State Public Service Commission in evaluating judicial performance.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the High Court in the transfer and posting of judges:
1. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced the provision for the creation of an All-India Judicial Service, which currently oversees the inter-state transfer of district judges to ensure judicial uniformity.
2. Under the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908, the High Court maintains the authority to appoint judges to the Small Causes Courts, while the State Law Commission handles the periodic review of their transfer policies.
3. Article 235 of the Constitution vests the control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto in the High Court, including the posting and promotion of persons belonging to the judicial service of a State.
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 235 vests the control over district courts and subordinate courts, including matters of posting, promotion, and discipline of judicial officers, exclusively in the High Court. Statement 1 is incorrect because the All-India Judicial Service has not been created yet, and the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 did not establish such a service. Statement 2 is incorrect because the High Court exercises administrative control over all subordinate courts under Article 235, and the State Law Commission has no constitutional or legal authority to oversee the transfer policies of judges.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between judicial and ministerial staff administration:
1. The separation of the judiciary from the executive, as envisioned in Article 50, implies that the District Magistrate retains authority over the ministerial staff of the subordinate criminal courts to facilitate inter-departmental coordination.
2. The High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 extends to the appointment of ministerial staff, who are classified as members of the State Judicial Service for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
3. Article 229 of the Constitution provides that the administrative expenses of the High Court, including salaries and allowances of officers and servants, are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State.
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 229 mandates that the administrative expenses of the High Court, including staff salaries, are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State. Statement 1 is incorrect because, under the separation of powers and Article 50, the District Magistrate has no authority over the ministerial staff of subordinate courts, as the High Court exercises control over all subordinate courts under Article 235. Statement 2 is incorrect because ministerial staff are not classified as members of the State Judicial Service; the latter is exclusively reserved for judicial officers (judges and magistrates) who perform judicial functions.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the State Public Service Commission in judicial recruitment:
1. Article 235 of the Constitution empowers the State Public Service Commission to exercise administrative control over subordinate courts, including matters of posting, promotion, and grant of leave to judicial officers.
2. The 1973 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure established the State Public Service Commission as the authority for regulating the service conditions and promotion criteria for judicial magistrates across all states.
3. The recruitment process for the subordinate judiciary involves a joint board consisting of the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission, who hold equal voting rights in the final selection process.
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 235 vests administrative control over subordinate courts exclusively in the High Court, not the State Public Service Commission (SPSC). Statement 2 is incorrect as the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not regulate service conditions or promotion criteria for judicial officers; these are governed by State Judicial Service Rules framed under Article 234. Statement 3 is incorrect because the recruitment of District Judges is handled by the High Court, while the recruitment of lower judiciary is conducted by the SPSC in consultation with the High Court, with no provision for a joint board with equal voting rights.
Consider the following statements regarding Direct recruitment vs promotion quota in the judicial service:
1. The 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure introduced the separation of the judiciary from the executive, and it established a uniform 60:40 ratio for direct recruitment and promotion across all High Courts in India.
2. Under Article 234 of the Constitution, appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State are made by the Governor in accordance with rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court.
3. The Law Commission of India in its 116th Report recommended that the recruitment to the post of District Judge be conducted by the Union Public Service Commission to ensure national standards in judicial appointments.
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 234 mandates that the Governor appoints judicial officers (other than District Judges) based on rules framed in consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court. Statement 1 is incorrect as the separation of the judiciary from the executive is mandated by Article 50 of the Constitution, and there is no uniform 60:40 ratio prescribed by the CrPC for judicial appointments. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 116th Law Commission Report recommended the creation of an All India Judicial Service (AIJS) to be conducted by a central body, not specifically the UPSC, to ensure uniform standards.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the State Public Service Commission in judicial recruitment:
1. The High Court exercises the power to conduct the preliminary screening for subordinate judicial officers, while the State Public Service Commission retains the final authority to determine the merit list for appointments under Article 233.
2. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced the provision for the Governor to consult the State Public Service Commission regarding the recruitment of District Judges, aligning judicial appointments with civil service standards.
3. Article 234 of the Constitution of India provides that appointments of persons other than the district judge to the judicial service of a State shall be made by the Governor in accordance with rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
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 234 mandates that the Governor must consult both the State Public Service Commission (SPSC) and the High Court to frame rules for recruiting judicial officers below the rank of District Judge. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 233 vests the power of appointment and posting of District Judges exclusively in the Governor, in consultation with the High Court, with no role for the SPSC. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 42nd Amendment did not introduce this provision; Article 233 has always required consultation with the High Court for District Judge appointments, and the SPSC is not involved in the recruitment of District Judges.
Consider the following statements regarding Supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227:
1. Under Article 227(2), a High Court may call for returns from such courts and make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts.
2. The power of superintendence under Article 227 was originally derived from Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915, and the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, formally transferred this authority to the Supreme Court to ensure uniformity in judicial administration.
3. The power of superintendence under Article 227 is distinct from the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court and is not limited by the technical rules of procedure found in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
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 227(2) explicitly empowers High Courts to frame rules and prescribe forms for subordinate courts to regulate their practice. Statement 3 is correct because the power of superintendence is an extraordinary administrative and judicial power that is wider than appellate jurisdiction and is not constrained by the rigid procedural technicalities of the CPC. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the power was indeed derived from Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915, the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, did not transfer this authority to the Supreme Court; the power of superintendence over subordinate courts remains vested exclusively with the High Courts under the Constitution.
Consider the following statements regarding Administrative control of High Courts over subordinate courts:
1. Article 235 of the Constitution of India vests the control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto in the High Court, including the posting and promotion of persons belonging to the judicial service of a State.
2. The power of the High Court to oversee the subordinate judiciary extends to the inspection of district courts, a practice that gained statutory recognition through the High Courts Act of 1861 to ensure uniformity in judicial administration.
3. The High Court exercises administrative control over subordinate courts under Article 227, which empowers it to call for returns from such courts and settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts.
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 235 explicitly vests the control over district courts and subordinate courts in the High Court, encompassing matters of posting, promotion, and grant of leave. Statement 3 is correct because Article 227 confers administrative and supervisory jurisdiction upon High Courts, including the power to call for returns and regulate fees for officers of subordinate courts. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while High Courts do inspect subordinate courts, this practice is derived from their constitutional authority under Articles 235 and 227 rather than the Indian High Courts Act of 1861, which primarily dealt with the establishment and jurisdiction of High Courts during the colonial era.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between judicial and ministerial staff administration:
1. The administrative control of the High Court over subordinate courts is limited to judicial officers, while the ministerial staff remains under the direct purview of the State Governor as per the 1950 Rules of Business.
2. The appointment of ministerial officers in the subordinate courts is governed by the State Judicial Service Rules, which categorize these employees as judicial officers for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings.
3. The subordinate courts follow the service rules of the State Secretariat for their ministerial staff, a practice standardized by the 1976 amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure.
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, under Article 235 of the Constitution, the High Court exercises complete administrative control over both judicial officers and ministerial staff of subordinate courts. Statement 1 is false as the High Court, not the Governor, holds this power; Statement 2 is incorrect because ministerial staff are distinct from judicial officers and are governed by specific state-level subordinate court staff rules rather than Judicial Service Rules; Statement 3 is false as ministerial staff are governed by High Court-framed rules under Article 229, not by the State Secretariat or the Code of Civil Procedure.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the High Court in the transfer and posting of judges:
1. In the landmark judgment of State of West Bengal vs. Nripendra Nath Bagchi (1966), the Supreme Court clarified that the control vested in the High Court is comprehensive and includes the power to hold inquiries into the conduct of subordinate judges.
2. The appointment of persons to be district judges in any State is made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State, as per Article 233.
3. The High Court exercises administrative control over the subordinate judiciary, which encompasses the power to grant leave, determine seniority, and oversee the transfer of judicial officers within the state cadre.
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 Nripendra Nath Bagchi (1966) ruled that the High Court's control over subordinate courts under Article 235 is comprehensive, extending to disciplinary inquiries. Statement 2 is correct because Article 233 mandates that the Governor appoints district judges in consultation with the High Court, a process involving both judicial and administrative vetting. Statement 3 is correct as Article 235 vests the High Court with administrative control over the subordinate judiciary, including the authority to manage postings, transfers, and service conditions, ensuring judicial independence from the executive.
Consider the following statements regarding Concept of District Judge and Sessions Judge distinction:
1. The High Court appoints the District Judge from the judicial service of the State, and this appointment process follows the guidelines established by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976.
2. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, defines the territorial limits of a sessions division, and these boundaries are adjusted by the State Government through a notification in the Official Gazette.
3. The power to impose a sentence of death is vested in the Sessions Judge, although such a sentence is subject to confirmation by the concerned High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
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 under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a Sessions Judge can pass any sentence authorized by law, including death, provided it is confirmed by the High Court. Statement 1 is incorrect because the appointment of District Judges is governed by Article 233 of the Constitution, which mandates consultation with the High Court, not the 42nd Amendment. Statement 2 is incorrect because the power to alter the limits of sessions divisions lies with the State Government in consultation with the High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, not the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Consider the following statements regarding Appellate jurisdiction of District Courts over lower tribunals:
1. Article 233 of the Constitution of India governs the appointment of District Judges, who preside over the principal court of original and appellate jurisdiction in a district.
2. Appeals from the decisions of the Rent Controller are heard by the District Judge acting as an appellate authority under the specific provisions of the State Rent Control Acts.
3. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 allows an appeal to the District Court against the direction of the authority appointed under Section 15, provided the claim amount exceeds three hundred rupees.
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 233 empowers the Governor to appoint District Judges, who serve as the principal court of original and appellate jurisdiction in a district. Statement 2 is correct because State Rent Control Acts typically designate the District Judge or an Additional District Judge as the appellate authority for orders passed by the Rent Controller. Statement 3 is correct as Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, explicitly mandates that an appeal against a direction under Section 15 lies to the District Court, provided the total sum directed to be paid exceeds three hundred rupees.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial independence and the separation of powers at the district level:
1. The High Court exercises the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, and this power includes the authority to audit the annual budgetary allocations of the district administration.
2. The District and Sessions Judge functions as the principal court of original jurisdiction in the district, and the administrative oversight of the subordinate courts is shared between the High Court and the District Magistrate as per the 1898 Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The Law Commission of India in its 14th Report suggested the creation of an All India Judicial Service to ensure uniformity in the subordinate judiciary, a proposal that was subsequently enacted by Parliament through the 1960 Judicial Service 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 Article 227 grants High Courts administrative and judicial superintendence over subordinate courts, but this does not extend to auditing the budgetary allocations of the district administration, which remains an executive function. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive, ensuring the District and Sessions Judge exercises complete administrative control over the subordinate judiciary, excluding the District Magistrate. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the 14th Law Commission Report recommended an All India Judicial Service, no such Act was ever passed by Parliament to implement it.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional provisions under Articles 233-237:
1. Article 236 defines the expression 'district judge' to include judges of a city civil court, additional district judge, joint district judge, assistant district judge, chief judge of a small cause court, chief presidency magistrate, and sessions judge.
2. The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto, including the posting and promotion of persons belonging to the judicial service, is vested in the High Court under Article 235.
3. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced Article 233A to validate certain appointments of district judges made before the commencement of the Constitution, which were previously challenged in the Supreme Court.
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 Article 236 provides an exhaustive definition of 'district judge' encompassing various judicial roles. Statement 2 is correct because Article 235 grants the High Court administrative control over subordinate courts, including matters of posting, promotion, and disciplinary action. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 233A was inserted by the 20th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1966, not the 42nd Amendment, to validate appointments of district judges that were previously declared void due to procedural irregularities.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial independence and the separation of powers at the district level:
1. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced Article 323A and 323B, which facilitate the establishment of administrative tribunals to adjudicate disputes relating to the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State.
2. Article 233 of the Constitution provides that appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
3. The District Judge exercises administrative control over the subordinate judiciary in the district, and the power to transfer judicial officers within the district is vested in the State Law Ministry under the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure.
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 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, inserted Part XIV-A, including Articles 323A and 323B, to establish administrative tribunals for public service disputes. Statement 2 is correct because Article 233 mandates that the Governor must appoint, post, and promote district judges in consultation with the concerned High Court, ensuring judicial oversight. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under Article 235, the High Court exercises complete administrative control over the subordinate judiciary, including the power of transfer, rather than the State Law Ministry.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the State Public Service Commission in judicial recruitment:
1. Under the Judicial Officers Protection Act of 1850, the State Public Service Commission is designated as the primary body responsible for conducting disciplinary inquiries against members of the subordinate judiciary.
2. The Constitution provides that the Governor appoints members of the subordinate judiciary based on the competitive examination results published by the State Public Service Commission, bypassing the need for consultation with the High Court.
3. The recruitment of District Judges is governed by the rules formulated by the State Public Service Commission, which functions as the advisory body to the Supreme Court for all judicial appointments in the state.
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 Constitution mandates that the High Court, not the State Public Service Commission, exercises control over the subordinate judiciary, including disciplinary matters and recruitment. Under Article 233, the Governor appoints District Judges in consultation with the High Court, and Article 234 requires the Governor to make appointments to the judicial service (other than District Judges) in accordance with rules framed after consultation with both the High Court and the State Public Service Commission. The Judicial Officers Protection Act of 1850 provides immunity to judges for acts done in good faith and does not assign disciplinary authority to the State Public Service Commission.
Consider the following statements regarding Qualification criteria for appointment as a District Judge:
1. The appointment of a person to be a District Judge in any State is made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
2. Article 233 of the Constitution of India specifies that a person shall be eligible for appointment as a District Judge if they have been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader.
3. A person already in the service of the Union or of the State is eligible for appointment as a District Judge if they have been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.
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 233 of the Constitution mandates that the Governor appoints District Judges in consultation with the High Court, ensuring judicial independence in the selection process. A candidate must have at least seven years of experience as an advocate or pleader to be eligible, and if they are already in government service, they must additionally be recommended by the High Court for the appointment. All three statements are accurate reflections of the constitutional provisions governing the subordinate judiciary, as no statement contains factual errors.
Consider the following statements regarding Administrative control of High Courts over subordinate courts:
1. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced Article 233A to validate the appointments of district judges made by the Governor in consultation with the State Public Service Commission prior to the commencement of the Constitution.
2. The Governor of a State acts in consultation with the High Court regarding the appointment of persons to the judicial service, a process that follows the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in the All India Judges Association case of 1992.
3. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court maintains the power to transfer cases from a subordinate court to itself, a provision that was formally integrated into the judicial framework following the Law Commission's 14th Report.
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 233A was inserted by the 20th Amendment Act of 1966, not the 42nd, to validate appointments of district judges made by Governors without consulting the High Court. Statement 2 is incorrect because, under Article 234, the Governor makes appointments to the judicial service (other than district judges) in consultation with the High Court and the State Public Service Commission, not solely based on the All India Judges Association case. Statement 3 is incorrect because the power of the High Court to transfer cases is derived from Article 228 of the Constitution and Section 407 of the CrPC, which are independent of the Law Commission's 14th Report.
Consider the following statements regarding Appointment process of District Judges by the Governor:
1. Under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Governor possesses the authority to appoint a person as a district judge upon the direct nomination of the State Law Minister.
2. The term 'district judge' under Article 236 includes judges of a city civil court, additional district judges, joint district judges, and assistant district judges.
3. In the case of Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. (1966), the Supreme Court held that the Governor cannot appoint as district judges persons from outside the judicial service and the bar.
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 Article 233 of the Constitution mandates that the Governor appoints district judges in consultation with the High Court, not the State Law Minister. Statement 2 is correct as Article 236 explicitly defines 'district judge' to include judges of city civil courts, additional district judges, joint district judges, and assistant district judges. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. (1966) ruled that the Governor cannot appoint persons as district judges from outside the judicial service or the bar, ensuring the independence of the judiciary.
Consider the following statements regarding Appellate jurisdiction of District Courts over lower tribunals:
1. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is associated with the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court over arbitral awards, allowing parties to file an appeal within ninety days of receiving the final order.
2. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 includes provisions for the District Court to hear appeals against decrees of nullity, and it identifies the High Court as the secondary appellate authority for all matrimonial disputes.
3. The District Judge is empowered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to hear appeals against the orders of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal where the compensation amount exceeds five thousand rupees.
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 Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 allows appeals to the High Court (not District Court) against claims tribunal orders exceeding five thousand rupees, making the statement technically incorrect in its jurisdictional assignment. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 generally allows for setting aside an award under Section 34 rather than a standard appeal, and the limitation period for such applications is three months, not ninety days. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stipulates that appeals against decrees and orders lie directly to the High Court, not the District Court, which acts as the court of original jurisdiction in these matters.
Consider the following statements regarding Appointment process of District Judges by the Governor:
1. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced the requirement for the Governor to consult the State Public Service Commission alongside the High Court for the initial recruitment of district judges.
2. The Governor exercises the power of appointing district judges in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
3. Article 233 of the Constitution of India provides that the appointment of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State.
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.
Article 233 mandates that the Governor appoints, posts, and promotes district judges in consultation with the High Court, making statements 2 and 3 correct. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Constitution requires consultation solely with the High Court for such appointments, and the 42nd Amendment did not introduce a requirement for the State Public Service Commission's involvement in the appointment of district judges.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between judicial and ministerial staff administration:
1. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the administrative oversight of the ministerial staff in the Court of Sessions is vested in the State Law Ministry to ensure parity with executive branch employees.
2. The recruitment rules for ministerial staff in subordinate courts are formulated by the State Public Service Commission, reflecting the constitutional mandate for uniform judicial service standards across all districts.
3. The District Judge exercises disciplinary control over the ministerial staff under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which grants the High Court original jurisdiction over subordinate court 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.
All three statements are incorrect because, under Article 235 of the Constitution, the administrative control over subordinate courts, including the recruitment and disciplinary oversight of ministerial staff, is vested exclusively in the respective High Courts, not the State Law Ministry or Public Service Commissions. The District Judge exercises administrative and disciplinary control over ministerial staff as an extension of the High Court's superintendence, rather than under the Code of Civil Procedure or Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, recruitment rules and staff management are matters of judicial independence and High Court regulation, ensuring the judiciary remains insulated from executive interference.
Consider the following statements regarding Validation of appointments and judgments of subordinate courts:
1. The Supreme Court in the Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. (1966) case clarified that the Governor's power of appointment under Article 233 is subject to consultation with the High Court.
2. Under Article 235, the High Court exercises administrative control over subordinate courts, including the posting and promotion of persons belonging to the judicial service of a State.
3. Article 237 allows the Governor to apply the provisions of Chapter VI of the Constitution to any class of magistrates in the State, following a resolution passed by the State Legislative Council.
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 in Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. (1966) established that the Governor's power to appoint district judges under Article 233 is not absolute and requires mandatory consultation with the High Court. Statement 2 is correct because Article 235 vests the High Court with comprehensive administrative control over subordinate courts, encompassing matters of posting, promotion, and disciplinary action. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 237 empowers the Governor to extend the provisions of Chapter VI to magistrates through a public notification, not a resolution passed by the State Legislative Council.
Consider the following statements regarding Reporting and inspection duties of High Courts regarding subordinate courts:
1. The High Court exercises administrative control over the subordinate judiciary, which includes the power to transfer district judges as per the guidelines laid down in the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the High Court maintains the authority to inspect the records of subordinate courts to ensure procedural uniformity in civil litigation.
3. Article 227 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court to call for returns from subordinate courts and to settle tables of fees for the sheriff and clerks.
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 235 of the Constitution vests the High Court with administrative control over subordinate courts, including the power to transfer district judges in accordance with the CrPC. Statement 2 is correct because Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, empowers High Courts to make rules regulating their own procedure and that of subordinate civil courts to ensure uniformity. Statement 3 is correct as Article 227 explicitly grants High Courts the power of superintendence over all courts within their jurisdiction, including the authority to call for returns and prescribe tables of fees for clerks and officers.
Consider the following statements regarding Jurisdictional hierarchy of civil and criminal subordinate courts:
1. Article 233 of the Constitution of India provides for the appointment of District Judges by the Governor of a state in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such state.
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides for the establishment of Metropolitan Magistrate courts in cities with a population exceeding one million, and these courts operate under the direct administrative supervision of the Ministry of Law and Justice.
3. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced Article 233A to validate the appointments of district judges made prior to the commencement of the Constitution, which also granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over subordinate judicial appointments.
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 233 mandates the Governor to appoint District Judges in consultation with the High Court. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while Metropolitan Magistrate courts are established for cities with populations exceeding one million, they operate under the administrative control of the respective High Court, not the Ministry of Law and Justice. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 233A was inserted by the 20th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1966 to validate certain appointments, and it does not grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over subordinate judicial appointments.
Consider the following statements regarding Administrative control of High Courts over subordinate courts:
1. Article 234 provides that appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial service are made by the Governor in accordance with rules framed by the State Legislature after consultation with the High Court.
2. The administrative jurisdiction of the High Court over subordinate courts includes the power to conduct disciplinary inquiries against judicial officers, a procedure that was refined by the Judicial Officers Protection Act of 1850.
3. The High Court possesses the authority to issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of subordinate courts, as outlined in the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 and the subsequent 1976 amendment.
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 234 specifies that appointments are made by the Governor in accordance with rules framed by the Governor himself after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court, not the State Legislature. Statement 2 is incorrect as the High Court's disciplinary power is derived from Article 235 of the Constitution, while the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, provides immunity to judicial officers for acts done in good faith, not a framework for disciplinary inquiries. Statement 3 is incorrect because the High Court's power to issue general rules and prescribe forms for subordinate courts is derived from Article 227 of the Constitution, which grants the High Court powers of superintendence over all courts within its jurisdiction, rather than being a provision of the Civil Procedure Code.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the State Government in the creation of subordinate courts:
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, grants the State Government the authority to establish a Court of Session in every judicial district, following a mandatory recommendation from the Supreme Court Collegium.
2. Article 233 of the Constitution empowers the Governor of a state to appoint, post, and promote district judges in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such state.
3. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced provisions for the creation of Fast Track Courts, which function under the direct administrative oversight of the State Law Ministry.
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 233 mandates that the Governor appoints district judges in consultation with the High Court. Statement 1 is incorrect because, under Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State Government establishes a Court of Session in consultation with the High Court, not the Supreme Court Collegium. Statement 3 is incorrect because Fast Track Courts were established based on the recommendations of the 11th Finance Commission in 2000, not the 42nd Amendment, and they function under the administrative control of the respective High Courts, not the State Law Ministry.
Consider the following statements regarding Jurisdictional hierarchy of civil and criminal subordinate courts:
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, establishes the Court of Session as the highest criminal court in a sessions division, presided over by a judge appointed by the High Court.
2. Under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Court of the District Judge possesses both administrative control over subordinate civil courts and appellate jurisdiction over decrees passed by courts of lower pecuniary limit.
3. The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, defines the hierarchy of civil courts in several states and provides for the appointment of Additional District Judges who possess the same original jurisdiction as the District Judge but lack appellate powers.
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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, mandates that the High Court appoints a judge to preside over the Court of Session, which is the highest criminal court in a sessions division. Statement 2 is correct because the District Judge exercises both administrative superintendence over subordinate civil courts and appellate jurisdiction over decrees passed by courts with lower pecuniary limits under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, Additional District Judges are empowered to discharge any of the functions of a District Judge, including the exercise of appellate jurisdiction when assigned by the District Judge or the High Court.
Consider the following statements regarding Jurisdictional hierarchy of civil and criminal subordinate courts:
1. Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, governs the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents a subordinate court from trying any suit in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit.
2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in a district is empowered under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to pass any sentence authorized by law except a sentence of death or imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years.
3. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, allows for the transfer of suits between subordinate courts by the District Court under Section 24, and this power extends to the withdrawal of criminal cases pending before a Chief Judicial Magistrate.
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 Section 11 of the CPC, 1908, codifies the principle of res judicata to prevent the re-litigation of issues already decided by a competent court. Statement 2 is correct because, under Section 29 of the CrPC, 1973, a Chief Judicial Magistrate is authorized to pass any sentence except death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding seven years. Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 24 of the CPC applies exclusively to civil proceedings; the power to transfer criminal cases is governed by Section 407 and Section 408 of the CrPC, which are distinct from the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
Consider the following statements regarding Power of the Governor to frame rules for judicial service:
1. The Government of India Act 1935 established the initial framework for provincial judicial services, and Section 254 of that Act serves as the direct legal precursor that allows the Governor to appoint judicial officers without consulting the High Court.
2. Article 235 vests the control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto in the High Court, and this provision effectively overrides the Governor's rule-making power regarding the disciplinary proceedings of judicial officers appointed under Article 234.
3. The District Judges, as defined under Article 236, include judges of city civil courts, additional district judges, joint district judges, and chief presidency magistrates, whose appointments are governed by Article 233 rather than the rules framed under Article 234.
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 236 defines 'District Judge' to include these judicial roles, and their appointments are specifically governed by Article 233 (appointment by the Governor in consultation with the High Court), not the general rules under Article 234. Statement 1 is incorrect because Section 254 of the Government of India Act, 1935, explicitly mandated that the Governor must consult the High Court before making appointments to the judicial service. Statement 2 is incorrect because while Article 235 grants the High Court control over subordinate courts, this power does not override the Governor's rule-making authority under Article 234 regarding the recruitment and initial conditions of service; rather, the two articles operate in their respective constitutional spheres.
Consider the following statements regarding Concept of District Judge and Sessions Judge distinction:
1. Article 233 of the Constitution of India provides for the appointment of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State by the Governor in consultation with the High Court.
2. The District Judge exercises both judicial and administrative powers in the district, while the Sessions Judge is the highest judicial authority for criminal cases within the same territorial jurisdiction.
3. When presiding over civil cases, the official is designated as the District Judge, and when presiding over criminal cases, the same individual is designated as the Sessions Judge.
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 233 mandates the Governor to appoint, post, and promote district judges in consultation with the State High Court. Statement 2 is correct because the official holds dual roles: as District Judge, they exercise administrative control over the district judiciary, and as Sessions Judge, they serve as the highest criminal court in the district. Statement 3 is correct because the same judicial officer performs these distinct functions under different designations depending on whether they are adjudicating civil or criminal matters.
Consider the following statements regarding Qualification criteria for appointment as a District Judge:
1. Under the provisions of Article 233, the eligibility criteria for a District Judge include the condition that the candidate is not already in the service of the Union or the State, unless they have practiced as an advocate for the prescribed seven-year period.
2. The power of appointment, posting, and promotion of District Judges in any State is vested in the Governor, subject to the recommendation of the High Court under Article 233(2).
3. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced the requirement for a minimum of ten years of legal practice for District Judge candidates, aligning the subordinate judiciary with the qualifications of High 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 incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 233 mandates that a person not already in government service must have been an advocate for at least seven years to be eligible for appointment as a District Judge. Statement 2 is correct because the Governor appoints District Judges in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State, as per Article 233(1). Statement 3 is incorrect because the seven-year practice requirement is a constitutional provision under Article 233(2) and was not introduced by the 42nd Amendment, nor does it align with the ten-year practice requirement applicable to High Court judges under Article 217.
Consider the following statements regarding Consultation process with the High Court for judicial appointments:
1. The 1976 Forty-Second Amendment Act introduced Article 233A, which validated the appointments and postings of certain district judges made before the commencement of the amendment despite procedural irregularities in the consultation process.
2. The Supreme Court in the 1993 Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh judgment clarified that the consultation process with the High Court is a condition precedent to the validity of the appointment of a district judge.
3. Under Article 234, appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State are made by the Governor in accordance with rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court.
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 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, inserted Article 233A to validate appointments of district judges made prior to the amendment that were challenged due to procedural lapses in consultation. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1966) established that 'consultation' with the High Court is mandatory and a condition precedent for the validity of appointments under Article 233. Statement 3 is correct as Article 234 explicitly mandates that the Governor must consult both the State Public Service Commission and the High Court when making appointments to the judicial service of the state for positions other than district judges.
Consider the following statements regarding Validation of appointments and judgments of subordinate courts:
1. The District Judges (Validation of Appointments) Act, 1963, serves as the primary legislative instrument for regularizing the promotion of subordinate judges in Union Territories.
2. Article 234 provides that appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State are made by the Governor in accordance with rules framed by the State Public Service Commission.
3. The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, introduced Article 233A to grant retrospective immunity to judicial officers appointed before the commencement of the Constitution in 1950.
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 1963 Act specifically validated appointments of district judges made in certain States, not Union Territories. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 234 mandates that such appointments are made by the Governor in accordance with rules framed by the Governor in consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court, not the Commission alone. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 233A was inserted by the Twentieth Amendment Act, 1966, to validate certain appointments and judgments of district judges that were challenged due to procedural irregularities in their initial selection.
Consider the following statements regarding Supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227:
1. The Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) held that the High Court's power under Article 227 is a constitutional power that cannot be curtailed by any legislative enactment.
2. Article 227(3) allows the High Court to settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates, and pleaders practicing therein.
3. The High Court does not exercise the power of superintendence under Article 227 over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
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 Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) affirmed that Article 227 confers a constitutional power of superintendence that cannot be abridged by legislative statutes. Statement 2 is correct because Article 227(3) explicitly empowers High Courts to regulate fees for sheriffs, clerks, officers, and legal practitioners within their subordinate courts. Statement 3 is correct as Article 227(4) specifically excludes courts or tribunals constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces from the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction.
Consider the following statements regarding Appellate jurisdiction of District Courts over lower tribunals:
1. Under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a District Court exercises appellate jurisdiction over decrees passed by a Court of Civil Judge Junior Division.
2. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 encompasses the power of the District Court to review awards passed by Labour Courts, functioning as the primary appellate forum for all collective bargaining settlements.
3. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for an automatic right of appeal to the District Court against all interlocutory orders passed by the Court of Small Causes established under the 1887 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 incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because Section 96 of the CPC, 1908, explicitly provides for an appeal from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such court. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not designate the District Court as the primary appellate forum for Labour Court awards; instead, such awards are generally final and can only be challenged via writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, stipulates that decisions of Small Cause Courts are final, and there is no automatic right of appeal against their orders or decrees, except for limited revisionary powers exercised by the High Court.
Consider the following statements regarding Reporting and inspection duties of High Courts regarding subordinate courts:
1. The Supreme Court of India maintains the power to inspect subordinate courts directly under the 1950 Constitution, while the High Courts oversee the appointment of judicial magistrates in accordance with the 1976 Amendment.
2. The power of the High Court to inspect subordinate courts is derived from the constitutional framework established in 1950, which vests the superintendence of all courts within its jurisdiction to the High Court.
3. The High Court issues general rules and prescribes forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of subordinate courts under the authority granted by Article 227(2) of the Constitution.
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 2 is correct because Article 227 vests the High Court with the power of superintendence over all courts within its jurisdiction, a provision present since the 1950 Constitution. Statement 3 is correct as Article 227(2) explicitly empowers the High Court to make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of subordinate courts. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court does not possess the power to inspect subordinate courts directly; furthermore, the appointment of judicial magistrates is governed by the Governor in consultation with the High Court under Article 234, not solely by the 1976 Amendment.
Consider the following statements regarding Application of the Code of Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure Code:
1. The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, introduced the system of alternative dispute resolution under Section 89, which the Supreme Court upheld in the Salem Advocate Bar Association case of 2005.
2. Section 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides that the Act extends to the whole of India, except for certain provisions which do not apply to the State of Nagaland or tribal areas.
3. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governs the procedure of civil courts in India and was last amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002.
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 while Section 89 was introduced by the 1999 Amendment, it was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2003) case, not 2005. Statement 2 is correct as Section 1(2) of the CrPC explicitly exempts the State of Nagaland and tribal areas from the application of its provisions, except for those relating to chapters VIII, X, and XI. Statement 3 is correct because the CPC, 1908, remains the primary procedural law for civil courts, with the 2002 Amendment Act being the most recent significant legislative overhaul of its provisions.
Consider the following statements regarding Appointment process of District Judges by the Governor:
1. A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State is eligible to be appointed a district judge if they have been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader.
2. The recommendation for the appointment of a district judge is made by the High Court, and the Governor follows this recommendation in the appointment process.
3. Article 233A validates the appointments of, and judgments, decrees, or orders delivered by, certain district judges before the commencement of the Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act, 1966.
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 under Article 233(2), which mandates a minimum of seven years of practice as an advocate or pleader for direct recruitment. Statement 2 is correct as Article 233 requires the Governor to make appointments in consultation with the High Court, and judicial precedents establish that the Governor cannot appoint a person not recommended by the High Court. Statement 3 is correct because Article 233A was inserted by the 20th Amendment Act, 1966, to retrospectively validate appointments and judgments of district judges whose appointments were previously challenged for procedural irregularities.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the State Government in the creation of subordinate courts:
1. The separation of the judiciary from the executive, as envisioned in Article 50, implies that the State Government retains the power to appoint judicial magistrates in cases where the High Court has not yet been established.
2. The Gram Nyayalayas Act of 2008 allows the State Government to establish mobile courts in consultation with the District Collector, who oversees the administrative functioning of these local bodies.
3. The power to transfer a district judge from one judicial district to another is exercised by the State Governor, who acts upon the advice of the State Cabinet to ensure uniform judicial administration.
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 234 mandates that appointments of persons other than district judges are made by the Governor in accordance with rules framed after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court, not based on the absence of a High Court. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, requires the State Government to establish Gram Nyayalayas in consultation with the respective High Court, not the District Collector. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under Article 233 and 235, the power to post, promote, and transfer district judges is vested exclusively in the High Court, and the Governor plays no role in these administrative judicial transfers.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the State Government in the creation of subordinate courts:
1. The administrative control over the subordinate courts, including the posting and promotion of persons belonging to the judicial service of a state, is vested in the High Court under Article 235.
2. The appointment of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a state is regulated by the Governor in accordance with rules framed by the State Public Service Commission in consultation with the High Court.
3. Under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the State Government holds the power to appoint additional district judges, provided the candidate has served as an advocate for at least seven years.
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 235 vests the control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto in the High Court, encompassing matters of posting, promotion, and discipline. Statement 2 is incorrect because, under Article 234, the Governor makes appointments to the judicial service (other than district judges) in accordance with rules framed by the Governor himself after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court, not by the Commission. Statement 3 is incorrect because the appointment of district judges (including additional district judges) is governed by Article 233, which mandates that the Governor appoints them in consultation with the High Court, and the eligibility requirement is seven years of practice as an advocate, a power vested in the Constitution rather than the Civil Procedure Code.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the High Court in the transfer and posting of judges:
1. The power of the High Court under Article 235 includes the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a subordinate judicial officer and to impose penalties, subject to the constitutional safeguards provided under Article 311.
2. Article 234 of the Constitution provides for the recruitment of persons other than district judges to the judicial service, which is conducted by the State Public Service Commission in coordination with the Governor without High Court consultation.
3. The Supreme Court in the All India Judges Association case (1993) established that the executive branch retains the final authority in the transfer of subordinate judges to prevent administrative bias within the High Court registry.
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 Article 235 vests the control over subordinate courts in the High Court, which includes disciplinary jurisdiction, provided the procedures align with Article 311 safeguards. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 234 mandates that appointments to the judicial service (other than district judges) must be made by the Governor in accordance with rules framed after consultation with both the State Public Service Commission and the High Court. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Supreme Court, notably in the All India Judges Association case, affirmed that the High Court holds exclusive control over the posting and transfer of subordinate judicial officers to ensure judicial independence from the executive.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial independence and the separation of powers at the district level:
1. Article 234 of the Constitution governs the recruitment of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State, involving the State Public Service Commission and the Governor in a process that mirrors the Union Public Service Commission procedures for central services.
2. The separation of the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State is directed by Article 50, which serves as a justiciable provision enabling the High Court to oversee the financial autonomy of district courts through the State Consolidated Fund.
3. Under the provisions of the 1950 Constitution, the Governor holds the authority to confirm the probation of a district judge after receiving a recommendation from the State Judicial Academy, which functions as an autonomous body under the Supreme Court of India.
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 234 mandates consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court, not a process mirroring the UPSC. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 50 is a Directive Principle of State Policy (non-justiciable) and does not grant the High Court authority over the State Consolidated Fund. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under Article 233, the appointment and posting of district judges are vested in the Governor in consultation with the High Court, not a State Judicial Academy.
Consider the following statements regarding Direct recruitment vs promotion quota in the judicial service:
1. The Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission (2008) judgment established the specific timeline for judicial recruitment and transferred the authority for conducting district judge examinations from the High Courts to the State Administrative Tribunals.
2. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 modified Article 233 to include provisions for the creation of an All-India Judicial Service, which currently governs the recruitment of judges in all subordinate courts.
3. The Judicial Officers Protection Act of 1850 provides the legal framework for the promotion quota of subordinate judges, ensuring that seniority is the primary factor in elevating civil judges to the rank of District and Sessions Judge.
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 Malik Mazhar Sultan (2008) mandated a strict recruitment timeline, it did not transfer authority to State Administrative Tribunals, as High Courts retain constitutional control over subordinate judiciary recruitment under Article 233. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 233 was not modified by the 42nd Amendment to create an All-India Judicial Service; rather, Article 312 provides for the creation of such a service by Parliament, which has not yet been enacted. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, provides immunity to judges for acts done in their judicial capacity, whereas promotion quotas are governed by state-specific Judicial Service Rules framed under Article 234, not this Act.