Consider the following statements regarding Appellate Jurisdiction in Constitutional Matters:
1. The Supreme Court in the 1955 case of Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Rao clarified that the appellate jurisdiction under Article 132 is not restricted to constitutional questions arising from the final order but extends to those arising from any judgment or decree of the High Court.
2. The 42nd Amendment of 1976 introduced Article 134A, which provides for the procedure for granting a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court, and this amendment shifted the power of granting such certificates from the trial court to the Supreme Court registry.
3. Article 133 of the Constitution governs appellate jurisdiction in civil matters and allows for an appeal to the Supreme Court if the High Court certifies that the case involves a question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, a provision added by the 44th Amendment in 1978.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court interpreted Article 132 to include any judgment, decree, or final order of a High Court involving a substantial question of law. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 134A was introduced by the 44th Amendment (not 42nd) to formalize the procedure for High Courts to grant certificates for appeal, not the Supreme Court registry. Statement 3 is incorrect because the requirement for a 'substantial question of law of general importance' in civil matters under Article 133 was established by the 30th Amendment Act of 1972, not the 44th Amendment.
Consider the following statements regarding Enforcement of Fundamental Rights:
1. Under Article 139, Parliament possesses the authority to confer on the Supreme Court the power to issue directions, orders, or writs for purposes other than those mentioned in Article 32.
2. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 restored the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights even during a national emergency.
3. In the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment, the Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review under Article 32 constitutes a basic feature of the Constitution.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 139 empowers Parliament to enlarge the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction for purposes beyond Fundamental Rights. Statement 2 is correct because the 44th Amendment (1978) amended Article 359 to ensure that the right to move the court for the enforcement of Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during a National Emergency. Statement 3 is correct as the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) established judicial review under Article 32 as a 'basic feature' of the Constitution, which cannot be abrogated by Parliament.
Consider the following statements regarding Appellate Jurisdiction in Civil Matters:
1. Before the 1972 Amendment, the appellate jurisdiction in civil matters was based on the pecuniary value of the subject matter of the dispute in the court of first instance and the High Court.
2. Under the Civil Procedure Code, the appellate bench of the High Court provides a final determination on facts, and the Supreme Court hears civil appeals based on the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
3. The Supreme Court Rules of 1966 define the procedure for civil appeals, noting that the High Court maintains the power to review its own certificate once the appeal is admitted by the Supreme 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 the 30th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1972 abolished the pecuniary limit (previously Rs. 20,000) for civil appeals to the Supreme Court, shifting the focus to substantial questions of law. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Supreme Court generally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. Statement 3 is incorrect because once a High Court grants a certificate of fitness for appeal, it becomes functus officio regarding that certificate and cannot review or revoke it.
Consider the following statements regarding Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 vs Article 226:
1. High Courts have the authority to issue writs against the Supreme Court of India if a petitioner demonstrates that a judicial order has infringed upon their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14.
2. Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs to any person or authority including the President of India, provided the grievance relates to a violation of a fundamental right specified in Part III.
3. The writ of Prohibition is issued by a higher court to a lower court to prevent it from exceeding its jurisdiction, a procedural mechanism that was formally adopted from the French legal system in 1952.
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: Statement 1 is false because High Courts lack jurisdiction to issue writs against the Supreme Court, which is the apex judicial body. Statement 2 is false as Article 361 grants the President immunity from the jurisdiction of any court for acts done in the exercise of their powers. Statement 3 is false because the writ of Prohibition is a common law remedy derived from the English legal system, not the French system, and has been part of Indian jurisprudence since the inception of the Constitution.
Consider the following statements regarding Appellate Jurisdiction in Constitutional Matters:
1. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 is described as discretionary and plenary, and the 1950 Rules of the Supreme Court established the initial framework for special leave petitions, which are now processed under the 2013 Rules without the need for a High Court certificate.
2. The 24th Amendment of 1971 modified the scope of judicial review regarding constitutional amendments, and it included a clause that prevents the Supreme Court from entertaining appeals under Article 132 if the constitutional question pertains to the validity of an amendment passed by a two-thirds majority.
3. Section 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, outlines the conditions for appeals to the Supreme Court in civil cases, and it provides that an appeal lies against any interlocutory order if the High Court determines that the order involves a significant question of law regarding constitutional interpretation.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because while Article 136 is discretionary, the 2013 Rules did not remove the requirement for a High Court certificate; rather, Article 136 is an extraordinary power independent of the certificate process. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 24th Amendment did not include any clause restricting the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under Article 132 regarding constitutional amendments. Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 109 of the CPC does not provide for appeals against interlocutory orders based on constitutional interpretation; instead, appeals to the Supreme Court in civil matters are governed by Article 133 of the Constitution, which requires a substantial question of law of general importance.
Consider the following statements regarding Transfer of cases under Article 139A:
1. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced Article 139A to ensure that the Attorney General of India has the power to initiate the transfer of constitutional matters between different High Courts.
2. Article 139A was inserted into the Constitution of India by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 to facilitate the transfer of cases from High Courts to the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court can exercise its power under Article 139A to transfer criminal trials from a subordinate court in one state to a subordinate court in another state upon the recommendation of the Law Commission.
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 139A was indeed inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, to empower the Supreme Court to transfer cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law from one or more High Courts to itself. Statement 1 is incorrect as Article 139A does not grant the Attorney General the power to initiate transfers; the Supreme Court exercises this power either on its own motion or on an application by the Attorney General or a party to the case. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 139A pertains specifically to the transfer of cases between High Courts or to the Supreme Court, whereas the transfer of criminal cases between subordinate courts is governed by Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), not the Law Commission's recommendations.
Consider the following statements regarding Appellate Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters:
1. Article 134(1)(a) of the Constitution allows an appeal to the Supreme Court if the High Court has reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death.
2. Under the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules of 2013, a petition for special leave to appeal in criminal matters is processed by the Registrar, and such petitions are listed before a bench of at least three judges for the preliminary hearing.
3. The Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in criminal matters extends to cases involving the interpretation of the Seventh Schedule, and the court can review factual findings if the High Court has ignored evidence presented under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.
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 134(1)(a) grants an automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court if a High Court reverses an acquittal and imposes a death sentence. Statement 2 is incorrect because, under the Supreme Court Rules, special leave petitions (SLPs) are typically heard by a bench of two judges, not three. Statement 3 is incorrect because the appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters is strictly defined by Articles 134 and 136; it does not extend to the Seventh Schedule (which concerns legislative power distribution) nor does it allow for a general review of factual findings unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice.
Consider the following statements regarding Power of Judicial Review under Article 13:
1. Article 13(3)(a) defines the term 'law' to include ordinances, orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, notifications, and customs or usages.
2. The Supreme Court in the 1967 Golaknath case held that constitutional amendments are laws within the meaning of Article 13.
3. The doctrine of severability allows the court to strike down only the offending portion of a statute while maintaining the validity of the remaining provisions.
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 13(3)(a) provides an inclusive definition of 'law' covering all legislative and executive instruments. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) case ruled that constitutional amendments under Article 368 are 'laws' and thus subject to judicial review if they violate Fundamental Rights, a position later modified by the 24th Amendment and the Kesavananda Bharati case. Statement 3 is correct as the doctrine of severability (or separability) ensures that if a part of a statute is unconstitutional, only that specific part is struck down, provided the remaining part can function independently.
Consider the following statements regarding Special Leave Petition under Article 136:
1. Under the provisions of Article 136, the Supreme Court possesses the authority to entertain an appeal even if the High Court has refused to grant a certificate of fitness for appeal under Article 134A.
2. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced the specific terminology of 'Special Leave Petition' into the text of Article 136 to replace the earlier phrasing of 'special leave to appeal' used in the 1950 draft.
3. The scope of Article 136 is wide enough to include the decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal, as established by the Supreme Court in the 2015 judgment of Union of India v. Parashotam Dass.
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 because Article 136 is a plenary power that allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment or order, regardless of whether a High Court has refused a certificate of fitness. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Parashotam Dass (2015), affirmed that it has jurisdiction under Article 136 to entertain appeals against decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal. Statement 2 is incorrect because the term 'Special Leave Petition' was not introduced by the 42nd Amendment; Article 136 has used the phrase 'special leave to appeal' since the inception of the Constitution in 1950.
Consider the following statements regarding Jurisdiction regarding Election Disputes of President and Vice-President:
1. Under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Supreme Court functions as the primary appellate body for election petitions involving members of the Union Cabinet.
2. The 11th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1961 modified the process for presidential elections, allowing the Election Commission to adjudicate disputes if the Supreme Court is in recess.
3. The Supreme Court registry receives election petitions for the Vice-President within sixty days of the declaration of results, a timeline established by the 44th Amendment to the Constitution.
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 71 of the Constitution, all doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of the President or Vice-President are inquired into and decided by the Supreme Court of India exclusively, not the Representation of the People Act or the Election Commission. The 11th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1961 actually clarified that the election of the President or Vice-President cannot be challenged on the ground of any vacancy in the appropriate electoral college, and there is no provision for the Election Commission to adjudicate these disputes during a recess. Furthermore, the timeline for filing election petitions is governed by the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, which mandates that petitions must be presented within thirty days of the publication of the result, not sixty days.
Consider the following statements regarding Appellate Jurisdiction in Civil Matters:
1. Article 135 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction over matters previously handled by the Federal Court, including civil appeals where the amount involved exceeds ten thousand rupees as per the 1935 Act.
2. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced the provision for a certificate of fitness to appeal, which replaced the previous system of automatic appeals based on the valuation of the suit.
3. Article 133 of the Constitution provides that an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any judgment or decree in a civil proceeding of a High Court if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct because Article 133 mandates that a civil appeal lies to the Supreme Court only if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance that needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 135 relates to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court under existing law, but it does not specify a ten-thousand-rupee valuation; that was a feature of the pre-constitutional regime replaced by the current certification requirement. Statement 2 is incorrect because the requirement for a certificate of fitness was established by the original Constitution under Article 133, not by the 42nd Amendment, which primarily altered other aspects of judicial review.
Consider the following statements regarding Enforcement of decrees and orders under Article 142:
1. Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
2. The enforcement of decrees or orders passed under Article 142 extends to the entire territory of India as provided by the constitutional framework.
3. Article 142 provides for the inherent power of the Supreme Court to review its own judgments, a provision introduced through the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971.
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 142(1) grants the Supreme Court plenary power to pass orders necessary for 'complete justice' in any pending matter. Statement 2 is correct because the Constitution explicitly mandates that such decrees or orders are enforceable throughout the territory of India. Statement 3 is incorrect because the power of the Supreme Court to review its own judgments is derived from Article 137, not Article 142, and it was part of the original Constitution, not introduced by the 25th Amendment.
Consider the following statements regarding Power of Judicial Review under Article 13:
1. Article 13(1) of the Constitution declares that all pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Part III shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency.
2. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment affirmed that Article 13(4) provides the judiciary with the authority to review constitutional amendments based on the doctrine of implied limitations.
3. The doctrine of eclipse, as established in the 1955 Bhikaji Narain Dhakras case, prevents pre-constitutional laws from being dead ab initio.
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 13(1) mandates that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of such inconsistency. Statement 3 is correct because the Doctrine of Eclipse, established in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955), holds that pre-constitutional laws are not dead ab initio but merely become unenforceable (eclipsed) until the constitutional hurdle is removed. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 13(4), inserted by the 24th Amendment Act (1971), explicitly states that nothing in Article 13 shall apply to constitutional amendments under Article 368; the power to review amendments arises from the 'Basic Structure' doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), not from Article 13(4).
Consider the following statements regarding Appellate Jurisdiction in Civil Matters:
1. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in civil matters covers cases where the High Court is satisfied that the question of law needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
2. The 30th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1972 removed the requirement of a minimum valuation of twenty thousand rupees for filing civil appeals in the Supreme Court.
3. Under Article 134A, the High Court may grant a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court either on its own motion or on an oral application made by the party immediately after the passing of the judgment.
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 133 provides that an appeal lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance. Statement 2 is correct because the 30th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972, abolished the pecuniary valuation requirement, which previously restricted appeals based on the monetary value of the subject matter. Statement 3 is correct as Article 134A, inserted by the 44th Amendment, empowers the High Court to grant a certificate for appeal either suo motu or on an oral application made immediately after the judgment.
Consider the following statements regarding Binding nature of SC decisions under Article 141:
1. The Supreme Court, in the 1967 Golaknath v. State of Punjab judgment, held that Parliament does not possess the power to amend Part III of the Constitution, a ruling later modified by the 24th Amendment.
2. Article 142 provides the Supreme Court with the power to pass decrees or orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
3. The 1993 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India judgment introduced the collegium system for judicial appointments, which remains the operative procedure for high-level judicial selections.
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 1967 Golaknath judgment ruled that Fundamental Rights could not be amended, a position later countered by the 24th Amendment (1971) and eventually settled by the Kesavananda Bharati doctrine. Statement 2 is correct because Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to issue any order necessary for 'complete justice,' acting as a unique constitutional tool for judicial intervention. Statement 3 is correct because the 1993 'Second Judges Case' established the collegium system, which, despite subsequent modifications in the Third and Fourth Judges Cases, remains the foundational mechanism for judicial appointments in India.
Consider the following statements regarding Power to punish for Contempt of Court:
1. The Supreme Court held in the P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker (1988) case that criticism of the judiciary as an institution does not constitute contempt if it is made in good faith and is fair.
2. The Contempt of Courts Act was enacted in 1971 following the recommendations of the Sanyal Committee, which proposed the inclusion of judicial bias as a specific category of criminal contempt.
3. Article 215 of the Constitution empowers the High Courts to punish for contempt, and the Supreme Court maintains appellate jurisdiction over these orders under the provisions of the 1971 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 the Supreme Court in P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker (1988) affirmed that fair and reasonable criticism of judicial conduct, if made in good faith, does not amount to contempt. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was based on the Sanyal Committee report, the committee did not recommend 'judicial bias' as a category of criminal contempt. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while Article 215 empowers High Courts as 'Courts of Record,' the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over contempt orders is derived from Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, rather than the Constitution itself.
Consider the following statements regarding Appellate Jurisdiction in Constitutional Matters:
1. The 15th Amendment to the Constitution, enacted in 1963, altered the retirement age of High Court judges to 62 years, which indirectly impacts the composition of benches that issue certificates for appeals under Article 132.
2. Article 132 of the Constitution provides that an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree, or final order of a High Court in civil, criminal, or other proceedings if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.
3. Under the Supreme Court Rules of 2013, a party seeking a certificate under Article 132 must file an application within 30 days from the date of the judgment or final order passed by 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 15th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1963, raised the retirement age of High Court judges from 60 to 62 years, influencing judicial tenure and bench composition. Statement 2 is correct because Article 132 grants the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over any High Court judgment, decree, or final order, provided the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law regarding constitutional interpretation. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, mandate that an application for a certificate under Article 132 must be filed within 30 days from the date of the High Court's judgment or final order.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Pith and Substance in legislative competence:
1. The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution provides a mechanism where the Doctrine of Pith and Substance allows the Union to enact laws on State List subjects during a period of financial emergency under Article 360.
2. The 1955 Supreme Court judgment in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara established the Doctrine of Pith and Substance to invalidate the entire Bombay Prohibition Act for exceeding state jurisdiction.
3. The Doctrine of Territorial Nexus, as interpreted in the 1952 A.H. Wadia case, functions as a sub-category of the Pith and Substance rule to validate extraterritorial operations of state tax laws.
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 Doctrine of Pith and Substance is a tool to resolve legislative conflicts between Union and State lists, not a mechanism triggered by financial emergencies. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951) actually upheld the validity of the Bombay Prohibition Act by applying the doctrine to show the law's 'pith and substance' fell within the State List, despite incidental encroachment on the Union List. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Territorial Nexus and the Doctrine of Pith and Substance are distinct legal principles; the former determines if a state has sufficient connection to tax an extraterritorial entity, while the latter determines the true nature of a law's subject matter.
Consider the following statements regarding Jurisdiction regarding Election Disputes of President and Vice-President:
1. The Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, provides that an election petition can be presented to the Supreme Court by any candidate at the election or by ten or more electors joined together as petitioners.
2. The 39th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1975 introduced a clause allowing the Parliament to establish a separate authority for presidential election disputes, which currently functions alongside the Supreme Court.
3. Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act provides that the Supreme Court can declare an election void if the nomination of a candidate is rejected by the Returning Officer during the scrutiny phase.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, mandates that election petitions can only be filed by a candidate or at least 20 electors (not ten) joined together, though the core premise of Supreme Court jurisdiction remains accurate. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 39th Amendment, which sought to remove presidential election disputes from judicial review, was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case, restoring the Court's exclusive jurisdiction. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under the Act, the Supreme Court can only declare an election void if the improper rejection of a nomination has 'materially affected' the result of the election, rather than simply because a nomination was rejected.
Consider the following statements regarding Binding nature of SC decisions under Article 141:
1. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment established the basic structure doctrine, and the 1975 Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case expanded this framework to include the power of judicial review over executive ordinances.
2. Article 141 allows the Supreme Court to review its own judgments through curative petitions, a procedure formally introduced by the 1997 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case.
3. The 1950 Constitution initially included Article 141 as a temporary provision, and the 42nd Amendment in 1976 transformed it into a permanent feature of the judicial hierarchy.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the basic structure doctrine was established in 1973, but the Indira Gandhi case (1975) primarily dealt with election disputes and the validity of the 39th Amendment, not the expansion of judicial review over ordinances. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 141 mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts, whereas the curative petition is a judicial innovation derived from the court's inherent powers under Article 142 to prevent miscarriage of justice, not Article 141. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 141 has been a permanent constitutional provision since the commencement of the Constitution in 1950 and was never a temporary provision requiring amendment for permanence.
Consider the following statements regarding Transfer of cases under Article 139A:
1. The Supreme Court possesses the authority under Article 139A(1) to withdraw cases pending before one or more High Courts if it is satisfied that the cases involve the same or substantially the same questions of law.
2. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 empowered the Parliament to enact legislation that allows the Supreme Court to transfer cases from the High Courts to the Supreme Court without the consent of the involved litigants.
3. Under the provisions of Article 139A(2), the Supreme Court may transfer any case, appeal, or other proceedings from one High Court to another High Court if it deems such action expedient for the ends of justice.
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.
Article 139A(1) empowers the Supreme Court to withdraw cases from High Courts involving the same or substantially the same questions of law, while Article 139A(2) allows the Court to transfer cases between High Courts for the ends of justice. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 139A was inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 to grant the Supreme Court the power to transfer cases directly, rather than empowering the Parliament to enact legislation for this purpose.
Consider the following statements regarding Review Jurisdiction under Article 137:
1. The Supreme Court maintains that a review petition can be entertained if there is a discovery of new and important matter or evidence which was not within the knowledge of the party at the time of the decree.
2. The Supreme Court in the 1975 Kesavananda Bharati case review proceedings affirmed that the power of review is inherent in the court to rectify errors apparent on the face of the record.
3. In the 1995 P.N. Eswara Iyer v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India case, the court held that a review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-hear the entire matter.
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 Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules permits review based on the discovery of new and important evidence not previously accessible. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court consistently maintains that its inherent power under Article 137 allows it to rectify 'errors apparent on the face of the record,' a principle reinforced during the Kesavananda Bharati review proceedings. Statement 3 is correct as the landmark ruling in P.N. Eswara Iyer v. Registrar (1980, not 1995) established that review jurisdiction is strictly limited to correcting specific errors and cannot be invoked as a substitute for an appeal to re-argue the entire case on merits.
Consider the following statements regarding Review Jurisdiction under Article 137:
1. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, prescribe that a review petition is generally disposed of by circulation in chambers without oral arguments.
2. The 1950 Supreme Court Rules initially permitted the filing of review petitions within 60 days, and this period was extended to 90 days by the 1966 amendment to align with the Limitation Act.
3. Article 137 empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament under Article 145.
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 Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, mandates that review petitions be decided by circulation in chambers without oral arguments unless the Court specifically directs otherwise. Statement 3 is correct because Article 137 explicitly grants the Supreme Court the power to review its own judgments, subject to rules made under Article 145. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and its predecessors have consistently maintained a 30-day limitation period for filing review petitions from the date of the judgment or order, not 60 or 90 days.
Consider the following statements regarding Enforcement of Fundamental Rights:
1. Article 32 allows the Supreme Court to entertain petitions directly from aggrieved parties, and the 1976 42nd Amendment shifted the primary writ jurisdiction to the Law Commission.
2. The Supreme Court exercises appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 for special leave petitions, and this provision functions as an extension of the original writ jurisdiction defined in the 1950 original text.
3. The writ of quo warranto provides for the legality of a public office holder's claim, and this specific legal instrument was incorporated into the Indian Constitution from the 1935 Government of India Act.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the 42nd Amendment did not shift writ jurisdiction to the Law Commission; Article 32 remains the 'heart and soul' of the Constitution, granting original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. Statement 2 is incorrect as Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) is a discretionary appellate power, distinct from the mandatory original writ jurisdiction under Article 32. Statement 3 is incorrect because the writ jurisdiction, including Quo Warranto, was adopted from English Common Law and the judicial practices of the British era, not specifically incorporated from the 1935 Government of India Act.
Consider the following statements regarding Advisory Jurisdiction under Article 143:
1. The Supreme Court provided an advisory opinion in 1958 regarding the implementation of the Nehru-Noon Agreement, which involved the transfer of the Berubari Union to East Pakistan.
2. Article 143 allows the President to refer questions of law to the Supreme Court, and the court delivered a binding judgment on the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's powers in 1991.
3. The 1965 Presidential reference regarding the conflict between the judiciary and the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly resulted in a ruling that defined the scope of parliamentary privileges.
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 correct, making the initial classification as 'None' inaccurate. The Berubari Union case (1960, not 1958) involved a Presidential reference regarding the implementation of the Nehru-Noon Agreement; the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal reference (1991) resulted in an advisory opinion, not a binding judgment; and the 1964 (not 1965) Keshav Singh case addressed the conflict between the UP Legislative Assembly and the Judiciary regarding parliamentary privileges. Since all three statements contain factual inaccuracies regarding dates or legal terminology, the correct answer is indeed 'None'.
Consider the following statements regarding Enforcement of Fundamental Rights:
1. The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 32 is concurrent with the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226, though the former is limited to the enforcement of Part III rights.
2. The 1950 Supreme Court Rules established the procedure for public interest litigation, and the court formally adopted the doctrine of locus standi in the 1962 Golaknath case.
3. Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
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 32 makes the Supreme Court a guarantor of Fundamental Rights, while Article 226 grants High Courts wider jurisdiction to issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and 'any other purpose'. Statement 3 is correct because Article 32 explicitly empowers the Supreme Court to issue the five specified writs to protect constitutional rights. Statement 2 is incorrect because Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was a judicial innovation introduced in the late 1970s by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, moving away from the traditional 'locus standi' rule, which was never formally adopted in the 1962 Golaknath case.
Consider the following statements regarding Power to punish for Contempt of Court:
1. Criminal contempt involves the publication of any matter which lowers the authority of any court or prejudices any judicial proceeding, as defined in Section 2(c) of the 1971 Act.
2. Article 129 of the Constitution declares the Supreme Court a court of record and confers upon it the power to punish for contempt of itself.
3. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines civil contempt as the willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, or writ of a 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.
All three statements are correct: Statement 1 accurately reflects Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which categorizes criminal contempt as acts that scandalize or lower the authority of a court. Statement 2 is correct as Article 129 explicitly designates the Supreme Court as a 'court of record' with the inherent power to punish for its own contempt, a power further supplemented by the 1971 Act. Statement 3 is also correct, as Section 2(b) of the 1971 Act defines civil contempt precisely as the willful disobedience of any judicial order, decree, or writ.
Consider the following statements regarding Enforcement of decrees and orders under Article 142:
1. In the 1991 Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 to settle civil and criminal liabilities.
2. The Supreme Court utilized Article 142 in the 2019 Ayodhya verdict to grant land for a mosque, citing the need to provide a sense of closure to the litigation.
3. The power under Article 142 remains operational until provision is made in that behalf by or under any law made by Parliament or until an order is issued by the President.
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 SC used Article 142 in the 1991 Union Carbide case to quash criminal proceedings in exchange for a $470 million settlement. Statement 2 is correct because the Court invoked this plenary power in the 2019 Ayodhya verdict to direct the government to allot an alternative 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board to ensure complete justice. Statement 3 is correct as Article 142(1) explicitly states that these powers remain effective until Parliament makes a law or the President issues an order regarding the enforcement of such decrees.
Consider the following statements regarding Curative Petition mechanism:
1. To be maintainable, a curative petition includes a certification by a Senior Advocate confirming that the grounds for such a petition have been met.
2. The Supreme Court exercises its curative jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice.
3. A curative petition is generally circulated to a bench comprising the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the concerned judgment, if available.
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.
The Curative Petition mechanism was established by the Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) to ensure that final judgments do not result in a gross miscarriage of justice. Statement 1 is correct as the petition must be accompanied by a certification from a Senior Advocate; Statement 2 is correct because the Court invokes its plenary power under Article 142 to provide 'complete justice'; and Statement 3 is correct as the petition is circulated to a bench consisting of the three senior-most judges and the judges who delivered the original judgment, provided they are still serving.
Consider the following statements regarding Review Jurisdiction under Article 137:
1. The 1960 Berubari Union case established that the Supreme Court possesses the authority to initiate a suo motu review of its own judgments even in the absence of a petition filed by the aggrieved party.
2. Article 137 provides that the President of India can refer a review petition to a larger bench if the original judgment involved a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution.
3. Under Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, a review petition is typically filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment or order.
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 Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 mandates that a review petition must be filed within 30 days of the judgment. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court cannot initiate a suo motu review; it can only exercise review jurisdiction upon the filing of a petition by an aggrieved party. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 137 empowers the Supreme Court itself to review its judgments, while Article 143 governs the President's power to seek an advisory opinion, which is distinct from the review jurisdiction.
Consider the following statements regarding Original Jurisdiction under Article 131:
1. Article 131 includes provisions for the Supreme Court to hear disputes between the Government of India and a State where the cause of action originated in a foreign territory, provided the diplomatic relations between the nations are governed by the 1961 Vienna Convention.
2. The Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction over disputes between the Government of India and a State concerning the validity of a law passed by the Parliament, allowing the Court to strike down the legislation based on the lack of legislative competence.
3. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is invoked in cases involving inter-state water disputes, where the Court acts as the primary forum for adjudication before the matter is referred to a tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
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 131 does not include provisions for disputes involving foreign territories or the Vienna Convention. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 131 excludes disputes arising out of any treaty, agreement, or engagement entered into before the commencement of the Constitution, and it is specifically barred from adjudicating the constitutionality of central laws in this context, which is instead covered under Article 32 or 136. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 262 explicitly excludes the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over inter-state water disputes, mandating that Parliament provide for the adjudication of such disputes through specialized tribunals, thereby barring the Court from acting as the primary forum.
Consider the following statements regarding Transfer of cases under Article 139A:
1. Article 139A allows the President of India to request the Supreme Court to transfer a case from a High Court to a specialized tribunal if the subject matter involves interstate water disputes.
2. The power to transfer cases under Article 139A is applicable to matters pending before the Supreme Court, which can then be moved to the High Court of Delhi if the parties reside within the National Capital Territory.
3. The original text of the Constitution adopted in 1950 included Article 139A to provide the Chief Justice of India the discretion to move pending civil litigation between High Courts to reduce judicial backlog.
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 Article 139A, inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, empowers the Supreme Court-not the President-to transfer cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law from one or more High Courts to itself or to another High Court. Statement 1 is false as the President has no such role under this Article, and Statement 2 is incorrect because the provision does not mandate transfers to the Delhi High Court based on residency. Finally, Statement 3 is false because Article 139A was not part of the original 1950 Constitution but was added decades later to ensure judicial consistency and efficiency.
Consider the following statements regarding Advisory Jurisdiction under Article 143:
1. The advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 143(2) extends to disputes arising out of any treaty, agreement, or engagement entered into before the commencement of the Constitution.
2. The Supreme Court declined to answer the Presidential reference made in 1992 concerning the Ayodhya land dispute on the grounds that it was not a matter of public importance.
3. The Supreme Court's opinion in the 1998 reference concerning the appointment and transfer of judges serves as a constitutional amendment to the original text of Article 124.
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 143(2) mandates the Court to provide an opinion on pre-constitutional treaties if referred by the President. Statement 2 is correct because, in the 1993 M. Ismail Faruqui case, the Supreme Court declined to answer the Presidential reference regarding the Ayodhya dispute, terming it superfluous and not a matter of public importance. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Supreme Court's opinion in the 1998 reference (Third Judges Case) interpreted the constitutional provisions regarding appointments, but it does not constitute a formal constitutional amendment, which can only be enacted by Parliament under Article 368.
Consider the following statements regarding Power to punish for Contempt of Court:
1. The Supreme Court exercises its contempt jurisdiction under Article 142(2) to investigate and punish any person for its contempt, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament.
2. In the E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar (1970) case, the Supreme Court examined the boundaries of freedom of speech in relation to the law of contempt.
3. Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provides that the punishment for contempt may extend to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or a fine up to two thousand 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 129 and 142(2) empower the Supreme Court to punish for contempt, subject to parliamentary laws like the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Statement 2 is correct because the 1970 Namboodiripad case established that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and cannot be used to scandalize the judiciary. Statement 3 is correct as Section 12 of the 1971 Act prescribes a maximum penalty of six months' simple imprisonment or a fine of up to two thousand rupees, or both, for contempt of court.
Consider the following statements regarding Appellate Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters:
1. Parliament enacted the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act in 1970 to expand the scope of appeals where the High Court has sentenced an accused to imprisonment for life or ten years.
2. Under Article 134(1)(b), the Supreme Court hears appeals where the High Court has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from a subordinate court and sentenced the accused to death.
3. A certificate under Article 134(1)(c) is granted by the High Court if the case is considered fit for appeal to the Supreme Court, even if it does not involve a death sentence.
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 1970 Act expanded the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to include cases where the High Court reversed an acquittal and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment or at least 10 years of imprisonment. Statement 2 is correct because Article 134(1)(b) specifically grants the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction when a High Court withdraws a case from a subordinate court and imposes a death sentence. Statement 3 is correct as Article 134(1)(c) allows the High Court to certify any criminal case as fit for appeal to the Supreme Court, regardless of the nature of the sentence, provided it involves a substantial question of law or a matter of great public importance.
Consider the following statements regarding Original Jurisdiction under Article 131:
1. Under the provisions of Article 131, the Supreme Court possesses the authority to adjudicate upon disputes between two or more States, even if the subject matter of the conflict pertains to a purely political disagreement rather than a legal right.
2. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131 is extended to include disputes between the Government of India and a Union Territory, as the definition of a State in the Seventh Schedule encompasses all administrative units governed by the Union.
3. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131 covers disputes arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, or sanad entered into before the commencement of the Constitution and which continues in operation, including those involving private citizens.
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 131 requires the dispute to involve a question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends, excluding purely political disagreements. Statement 2 is incorrect as Article 131 strictly limits original jurisdiction to disputes between the Government of India and one or more States, or between States inter se, and does not extend to Union Territories. Statement 3 is incorrect because the proviso to Article 131 explicitly excludes disputes arising out of any treaty, agreement, or sanad entered into before the commencement of the Constitution, and it does not cover disputes involving private citizens.
Consider the following statements regarding Curative Petition mechanism:
1. Under the Supreme Court Rules of 2013, a curative petition is heard in open court by a constitution bench consisting of at least seven judges to ensure judicial transparency.
2. The curative petition mechanism was formally introduced through the 124th Constitutional Amendment Act to provide a final remedy after the dismissal of a review petition.
3. The procedure for filing a curative petition is governed by Article 137, which empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment or order pronounced by it.
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 curative petitions are generally decided by circulation in chambers by the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the original judgment, not a seven-judge constitution bench. Statement 2 is incorrect as the mechanism was evolved by the Supreme Court in the 2002 'Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra' case, not through any Constitutional Amendment Act. Statement 3 is incorrect because while Article 137 pertains to the power of review, the curative petition is an extra-constitutional judicial innovation created by the Court to prevent abuse of process and gross miscarriage of justice, rather than being explicitly governed by the text of Article 137.
Consider the following statements regarding Special Leave Petition under Article 136:
1. The discretionary power under Article 136 is not limited to final orders and can be exercised against interlocutory orders passed by various judicial or quasi-judicial bodies.
2. Article 136 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
3. In the 1950 case of Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees, the Supreme Court held that the Industrial Tribunal functions as a court for the purposes of Article 136, bringing it under the appellate jurisdiction of the apex 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.
Article 136 confers a plenary, discretionary power on the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment or order from any court or tribunal in India, including interlocutory orders, as established by the constitutional text and judicial interpretation. The 1950 Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees case is a landmark precedent where the Court clarified that 'tribunal' under Article 136 includes bodies like Industrial Tribunals that exercise judicial functions, even if they are not courts in the strict sense. Since all three statements accurately reflect the scope, constitutional provision, and judicial history of the Special Leave Petition, they are entirely correct.
Consider the following statements regarding Appellate Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters:
1. The Supreme Court exercises its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 to hear criminal appeals from any tribunal, and this provision was invoked in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case to define the scope of judicial review.
2. The Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 governs the procedural aspects of appeals, and Section 374 provides the framework for the Supreme Court to hear direct appeals from the Sessions Court in cases involving life imprisonment.
3. Article 134A was inserted by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 to streamline the procedure for obtaining a certificate of fitness, which the High Court issues upon the oral application of the party immediately after the judgment.
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 136 pertains to Special Leave Petitions, while the Kesavananda Bharati case was a civil matter involving constitutional validity, not a criminal appeal. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters is governed by Article 134, and direct appeals from a Sessions Court to the Supreme Court are not permitted under the CrPC. Statement 3 is incorrect because while Article 134A was indeed inserted by the 44th Amendment Act to streamline the certificate of fitness process, it applies to appeals under Article 132(1), 133(1), or 134(1), not specifically as a general procedural framework for all criminal appeals.
Consider the following statements regarding Jurisdiction regarding Election Disputes of President and Vice-President:
1. The Supreme Court rules of 1966 permit the High Court of Delhi to exercise concurrent jurisdiction over election petitions if the President is elected unopposed by the electoral college.
2. Article 71 of the Constitution of India vests the Supreme Court with the authority to inquire into and decide all doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of a President or Vice-President.
3. Article 324 of the Constitution empowers the Chief Justice of India to appoint a special tribunal for resolving presidential election disputes, provided the vacancy occurs during a parliamentary session.
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 71 explicitly grants the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction to adjudicate all doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of the President or Vice-President. Statement 1 is incorrect as the Supreme Court holds exclusive jurisdiction, and no other court, including the Delhi High Court, has concurrent authority in these matters. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Constitution does not empower the Chief Justice of India to appoint special tribunals; the authority to decide such disputes rests solely with the Supreme Court, as mandated by the Constitution.
Consider the following statements regarding Special Leave Petition under Article 136:
1. The Supreme Court in the 1997 judgment of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India restricted the application of Article 136 to civil matters, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the Court over decisions rendered by Administrative Tribunals.
2. The Supreme Court in the 1962 case of Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh clarified that the power under Article 136 can be invoked even against the orders of an Election Tribunal despite the bar under Article 329(b).
3. The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 is a residuary power that remains unaffected by the specific appellate provisions contained in Articles 132, 133, and 134 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 1 is incorrect because the L. Chandra Kumar (1997) judgment actually affirmed that Administrative Tribunals are subject to the writ jurisdiction of High Courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136, rather than excluding them. Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court held in Durga Shankar Mehta (1954) that Article 136 is an overriding constitutional power that prevails over the Article 329(b) bar regarding Election Tribunals. Statement 3 is correct because Article 136 is a plenary, discretionary power that functions independently of the specific appellate routes defined in Articles 132, 133, and 134, allowing the Court to grant leave against any judgment or order from any court or tribunal in India.
Consider the following statements regarding Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 vs Article 226:
1. The territorial jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 extends across the entire territory of India, while the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to the state's territorial boundaries or where the cause of action arises.
2. The Supreme Court under Article 32 can issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, whereas the High Courts under Article 226 possess a broader scope covering legal rights as well.
3. Article 32 was described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the heart and soul of the Constitution, and it provides the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for any matter involving public interest litigation.
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 because the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 32 covers the whole of India, whereas High Courts under Article 226 are restricted to their territorial jurisdiction or where the cause of action arises. Statement 2 is correct as Article 32 is limited to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, while Article 226 is wider, allowing writs for both Fundamental Rights and any other legal purpose. Statement 3 is incorrect because while Dr. Ambedkar called Article 32 the 'heart and soul' of the Constitution, the article is strictly confined to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and does not grant the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for any matter involving public interest litigation outside that scope.
Consider the following statements regarding Advisory Jurisdiction under Article 143:
1. Under Article 143, the President of India sought the opinion of the Supreme Court regarding the constitutional validity of the Special Courts Bill in 1978.
2. The advisory jurisdiction encompasses the power to review the constitutional validity of the 42nd Amendment Act, as requested by the President in the 1976 reference.
3. Under the provisions of Article 143, the Supreme Court issued a formal directive to the Election Commission in 2002 regarding the disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidates.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the President sought the Supreme Court's opinion on the Special Courts Bill in 1978 to ensure its constitutional validity before enactment. Statement 2 is incorrect because the President never sought an advisory opinion on the 42nd Amendment Act, which was challenged through regular litigation rather than Article 143. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 2002 disclosure requirement for candidates was a judicial mandate issued by the Supreme Court in the 'Association for Democratic Reforms' case under its writ jurisdiction, not an advisory opinion under Article 143.
Consider the following statements regarding Power of Judicial Review under Article 13:
1. The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971 added Article 13(4) to clarify that Article 13 does not apply to amendments made under Article 368.
2. Article 13(2) incorporates the doctrine of prospective overruling, which was first applied by the Supreme Court in the 1950 A.K. Gopalan case to invalidate post-constitutional legislation.
3. Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making any law that takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the 24th Amendment Act, 1971 inserted Article 13(4) to insulate constitutional amendments from being challenged under Article 13. Statement 3 is correct because Article 13(2) explicitly mandates that the State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges fundamental rights, rendering such laws void to the extent of the contravention. Statement 2 is incorrect because the doctrine of prospective overruling was first applied in the 1967 Golaknath case, not the 1950 A.K. Gopalan case, and it is a judicial innovation rather than a provision explicitly incorporated into the text of Article 13(2).
Consider the following statements regarding Jurisdiction over matters of Public Interest Litigation:
1. Under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court possesses the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, which serves as the procedural basis for PILs.
2. In the 1982 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India judgment, the court held that any member of the public acting in good faith can maintain an action for judicial redress of a public injury.
3. The Supreme Court guidelines issued in the 1998 case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal specify that PILs involving service matters are generally not entertained.
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 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs, which the judiciary expanded through the doctrine of 'locus standi' to allow PILs. Statement 2 is correct because the 1982 S.P. Gupta case (Judges Transfer case) formally recognized the concept of PIL, allowing any public-spirited citizen to approach the court for redressing public injury. Statement 3 is correct as the 2010 judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (often misattributed to 1998) established comprehensive guidelines, explicitly stating that PILs should not be entertained in service matters to prevent the misuse of the PIL jurisdiction.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Pith and Substance in legislative competence:
1. The Doctrine of Pith and Substance was applied by the Privy Council in the 1939 case of Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd to determine the validity of the Bengal Money Lenders Act.
2. The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation serves as the primary judicial tool for resolving conflicts under the Residuary Powers of Parliament listed in Entry 97 of the Union List.
3. Article 246 of the Indian Constitution distributes legislative powers between the Union and the States, providing the structural foundation for courts to invoke the Doctrine of Pith and Substance.
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 Privy Council established the Doctrine of Pith and Substance in Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd (1947) to validate the Bengal Money Lenders Act by examining the true nature of the legislation rather than its incidental encroachment. Statement 3 is correct because Article 246 provides the constitutional scheme of legislative distribution, and the doctrine is essential to determine the 'true character' of a law when it overlaps across the Union, State, or Concurrent lists. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Pith and Substance, not Colourable Legislation, is the primary tool for resolving legislative overlap, whereas Colourable Legislation is used to invalidate laws where the legislature does indirectly what it cannot do directly.
Consider the following statements regarding Court of Record status under Article 129:
1. In the 1988 case of Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court affirmed that its jurisdiction as a court of record extends to punishing contempts of subordinate courts.
2. Article 129 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as a court of record, meaning its proceedings and acts are preserved for perpetual testimony.
3. The Supreme Court possesses the inherent power to punish for contempt of itself under the provisions of Article 129, as further clarified by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct: Article 129 explicitly designates the Supreme Court as a 'court of record,' ensuring its acts and proceedings are admitted as legal evidence and preserved for perpetual testimony. In the landmark 1988 Delhi Judicial Service Association case, the Court clarified that its contempt jurisdiction is not limited to itself but extends to protecting subordinate courts to maintain the integrity of the judicial system. Furthermore, while the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 regulates the procedure, the Supreme Court's power to punish for contempt is inherent and derived directly from the Constitution under Article 129, meaning it cannot be curtailed by legislative action.
Consider the following statements regarding Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 vs Article 226:
1. The Supreme Court can decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 32 if an alternative remedy exists, a principle established during the drafting of the Constitution in the Constituent Assembly debates of 1948.
2. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced the provision for High Courts to issue writs under Article 226, mirroring the original powers granted to the Supreme Court by the 1950 Constitution.
3. Under the writ of Quo-Warranto, the court examines the legality of a public office holder's appointment, a power that was first codified in the Government of India Act 1935.
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 32 is a fundamental right, and the Supreme Court cannot refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction on the grounds of alternative remedies. Statement 2 is incorrect as High Courts have possessed writ jurisdiction under Article 226 since the Constitution's commencement in 1950, not via the 42nd Amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect because the writ jurisdiction of Indian courts is derived from the Constitution and common law principles, and Quo-Warranto was not codified in the Government of India Act 1935.
Consider the following statements regarding Original Jurisdiction under Article 131:
1. Article 131 provides the Supreme Court with the power to resolve disputes between the Government of India and a State regarding the interpretation of the Finance Commission's recommendations, treating such reports as binding legal instruments.
2. Article 131 of the Constitution vests the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States, provided the dispute involves a question on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
3. The Supreme Court exercises original jurisdiction in matters concerning the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, allowing individuals to approach the Court directly under Article 131 when a State action infringes upon their personal liberties.
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 131 confers exclusive original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to adjudicate federal disputes involving legal rights between the Centre and States. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Finance Commission's recommendations are advisory, not binding, and do not constitute legal rights enforceable under Article 131. Statement 3 is incorrect because the enforcement of Fundamental Rights falls under the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction via Article 32, not its original jurisdiction under Article 131, which is strictly reserved for federal disputes between governments.
Consider the following statements regarding Power to settle inter-state water disputes:
1. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act was amended in 2002 to incorporate the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission, which suggested the creation of a permanent tribunal for all future river water conflicts.
2. Article 262 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to provide by law for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution, or control of the waters of any inter-state river.
3. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 allows the Central Government to constitute a tribunal for the resolution of a water dispute if a state government requests such action and negotiations fail.
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 as Article 262 grants Parliament the power to adjudicate inter-state water disputes, explicitly excluding the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. Statement 3 is correct because the 1956 Act mandates the Central Government to establish a tribunal only after it is of the opinion that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiations. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 2002 amendment did not create a permanent tribunal; instead, the Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2019, introduced the concept of a permanent 'Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal' to replace ad-hoc tribunals.
Consider the following statements regarding Court of Record status under Article 129:
1. The Supreme Court holds the authority to review its own judgments under Article 137, a power that complements its status as a court of record by allowing for the correction of manifest errors.
2. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Supreme Court maintains a specialized registry for civil contempt cases that operates independently of the original jurisdiction defined in Article 131.
3. The 1950 Constitution incorporated the doctrine of stare decisis directly into Article 129, providing a legislative basis for the binding nature of precedents on all High Courts in India.
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 129 establishes the Supreme Court as a court of record whose acts and proceedings are recorded for perpetual memory, while Article 137 empowers it to review its own judgments to rectify errors. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Supreme Court's power to punish for contempt is derived directly from Article 129, not the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which merely regulates the procedure. Statement 3 is incorrect because the doctrine of stare decisis is a judicial principle derived from Article 141, which mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within India, rather than being explicitly incorporated into Article 129.
Consider the following statements regarding Jurisdiction over matters of Public Interest Litigation:
1. The 1981 Judges Transfer Case established the PIL framework, and it remains the primary legal instrument cited by the Supreme Court to oversee the implementation of the 1950 Directive Principles.
2. The Supreme Court Rules of 1966 were amended in 1985 to allow the Chief Justice of India to designate specific benches for PILs, and these benches have the authority to initiate suo motu criminal proceedings against the state.
3. The Supreme Court Registry is empowered to reject a PIL petition if it fails to disclose the credentials of the petitioner or lacks a clear public interest element as per the 2003 PIL Rules.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court, through the 2003 guidelines, mandates that the Registry must verify the petitioner's credentials and ensure a genuine public interest before registering a PIL. Statement 1 is incorrect because the PIL framework was pioneered in the 1979 Hussainara Khatoon case, not the 1981 Judges Transfer Case, and it is rooted in Article 32 rather than being a tool for the implementation of Directive Principles. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the Supreme Court has inherent powers to initiate suo motu proceedings, there is no specific 1985 amendment to the 1966 Rules that granted benches the authority to initiate criminal proceedings against the state.
Consider the following statements regarding Enforcement of decrees and orders under Article 142:
1. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment defined the scope of Article 142, incorporating the doctrine of basic structure as a prerequisite for issuing directions to the executive branch.
2. Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to bypass the appellate jurisdiction of High Courts, a mechanism formalized during the 42nd Constitutional Amendment to expedite civil proceedings.
3. The enforcement of Supreme Court orders under Article 142 is subject to the approval of the Law Ministry, a procedure established by the Supreme Court Rules of 1966.
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 Article 142 grants the Supreme Court plenary power to pass any decree necessary for doing 'complete justice' in any cause or matter pending before it, independent of the basic structure doctrine or the 42nd Amendment. Statement 1 is false as Article 142 predates the 1973 judgment and is not contingent upon the basic structure doctrine. Statement 2 is false because Article 142 does not bypass High Court appellate jurisdiction, nor was it formalized by the 42nd Amendment. Statement 3 is false as the Supreme Court's power under Article 142 is absolute and does not require approval from the Law Ministry or any executive body, ensuring judicial independence.
Consider the following statements regarding Jurisdiction over matters of Public Interest Litigation:
1. The Supreme Court of India introduced the concept of Public Interest Litigation in the 1979 case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar.
2. Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer are widely recognized as the pioneers who relaxed the traditional rule of locus standi to facilitate PILs.
3. The 1976 Forty-Second Amendment Act introduced Article 32A, which provides for the transfer of PIL petitions from the High Courts to the Supreme Court to ensure national uniformity.
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 1979 Hussainara Khatoon case is widely regarded as the first major PIL, highlighting the plight of undertrial prisoners. Statement 2 is correct because Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer pioneered the relaxation of the 'locus standi' rule, allowing any public-spirited citizen to move the court on behalf of the oppressed. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 32A was inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act to restrict the High Court's power to invalidate Central laws, not to transfer PILs; this article was subsequently repealed by the 43rd Amendment Act, 1977.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Pith and Substance in legislative competence:
1. The Doctrine of Occupied Field allows a state legislature to override a central law if the state enactment occupies a larger portion of the legislative entry than the corresponding Union legislation.
2. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati verdict incorporated the Doctrine of Pith and Substance into the Basic Structure theory to limit the amending power of Parliament under Article 368.
3. The Government of India Act 1935 introduced the Doctrine of Pith and Substance to define the scope of the Federal Court in settling disputes between the Governor-General and the Provincial Governors.
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 Doctrine of Occupied Field (Article 254) mandates that a central law prevails over a state law in case of repugnancy, regardless of the size of the legislative entry. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Doctrine of Pith and Substance is a rule of interpretation for legislative lists under the Seventh Schedule, not a component of the Basic Structure doctrine used to limit Article 368. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the doctrine was applied by the Federal Court under the 1935 Act, it was not 'introduced' by the Act itself; rather, it was a judicial tool developed by the Privy Council to resolve conflicts between competing legislative lists.
Consider the following statements regarding Power to settle inter-state water disputes:
1. Article 131 of the Constitution provides the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in disputes between states, and this provision serves as the primary legal basis for the adjudication of inter-state river water sharing.
2. The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, constituted in 1969, adjudicated the sharing of waters between the states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Odisha.
3. Section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act provides that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to a tribunal under the Act.
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 262 of the Constitution explicitly empowers Parliament to provide for the adjudication of inter-state water disputes, excluding the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 131. Statement 2 is correct as the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal was established in 1969 to resolve the allocation of the Godavari river waters among the five riparian states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Odisha. Statement 3 is correct because Section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, expressly bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other court over disputes referred to a tribunal constituted under the Act.
Consider the following statements regarding Power to settle inter-state water disputes:
1. The Supreme Court of India is barred by Article 262(2) from exercising jurisdiction over any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution, or control of water in any inter-state river or river valley.
2. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, formed in 1969, operates under the administrative oversight of the Ministry of Jal Shakti and reports its final award directly to the Chief Justice of India for judicial ratification.
3. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was established in 1990 under the provisions of the River Boards Act of 1956, following the failure of the initial mediation efforts between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
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 262(2) empowers Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other court in inter-state water disputes. Statement 2 is incorrect because tribunal awards are final and binding, functioning like a decree of the Supreme Court without requiring judicial ratification by the Chief Justice. Statement 3 is incorrect because water disputes are adjudicated under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, not the River Boards Act, 1956, which deals with the regulation and development of inter-state rivers.
Consider the following statements regarding Curative Petition mechanism:
1. The Supreme Court registry accepts curative petitions within a period of ninety days from the date of the final order, provided the petitioner pays the prescribed court fee.
2. A curative petition is admissible only if the petitioner demonstrates a violation of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution during the original trial proceedings.
3. The concept of a curative petition was evolved by the Supreme Court in the 2002 case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court introduced the curative petition in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court Rules mandate that a curative petition must be filed within 30 days, not 90 days, from the date of the order. Statement 2 is incorrect because the petition is not limited to fundamental rights violations; it is admissible only if the petitioner proves a violation of principles of natural justice or bias by a judge in the final judgment.
Consider the following statements regarding Court of Record status under Article 129:
1. The status of the Supreme Court as a court of record originates from the Government of India Act, 1935, which transferred the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council to the Federal Court.
2. The evidentiary value of the Supreme Court's records is recognized under Section 78 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which facilitates the proof of judicial documents.
3. The power to punish for contempt under Article 129 is not subject to the procedural limitations found in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as established in the 1991 Supreme Court Bar Association case.
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 129 of the Constitution itself confers the status of a Court of Record upon the Supreme Court, independent of the Government of India Act, 1935. Statement 2 is correct as Section 78 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that proceedings or orders of courts can be proved by certified copies, reinforcing the evidentiary value of judicial records. Statement 3 is correct because, as affirmed in the Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) case, the court's inherent power to punish for contempt under Article 129 is a constitutional power that exists independently of the procedural constraints of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Consider the following statements regarding Binding nature of SC decisions under Article 141:
1. The doctrine of precedent, as embodied in Article 141, ensures judicial consistency by requiring lower courts to follow the legal principles established in previous Supreme Court rulings.
2. Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
3. In the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, the Supreme Court established the basic structure doctrine, which serves as a binding interpretation for subsequent constitutional amendments.
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 141 mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India, ensuring judicial consistency through the doctrine of precedent (stare decisis). The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment is a landmark application of this article, as it established the 'basic structure' doctrine, which remains a binding constitutional interpretation that limits the Parliament's amending power. Since all three statements accurately reflect the legal principles and historical context of Article 141, there are no incorrect statements.