Question 1

Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which of the following writs can be issued by the Supreme Court to enforce Fundamental Rights?

Accepted Answer

Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari to enforce Fundamental Rights. These are the five classical writs available under this article. Article 226 grants similar powers to High Courts, but the question specifically asks about the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Question 2

Which article of the Indian Constitution establishes the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court in matters relating to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights?

Accepted Answer

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari) for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This article is foundational to judicial review in India and makes the Supreme Court the guardian of constitutional rights. The article explicitly states that the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III shall not be suspended except as expressly provided by the Constitution.

Question 3

Under which article of the Indian Constitution can the President remove a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court?

Accepted Answer

Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution provides the procedure for removal of a Supreme Court judge, while Article 217(1) provides the procedure for removal of a High Court judge. Both articles require that a judge can be removed by the President on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, but only by an order issued after an investigation conducted in the manner prescribed by Parliament. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, prescribes the detailed procedure. Removal requires a special majority in both Houses of Parliament.

Question 4

Which article of the Indian Constitution establishes the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court to issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights?

Accepted Answer

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto) for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This article is foundational to judicial review in India and allows citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court when their fundamental rights are violated. The article states that the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III shall itself be a fundamental right. Therefore, the answer is B.

Question 5

Under Article 131 of the Indian Constitution, which of the following disputes falls within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

Accepted Answer

Article 131 grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in disputes between the Union and one or more States, or between two or more States. This is exclusive original jurisdiction and does not require the case to go through lower courts first. The article specifically states that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States, or between two or more States. Therefore, the answer is C.

Question 6

Under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, which of the following courts has the power to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and other legal rights?

Accepted Answer

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution grants High Courts the power to issue writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari) for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and other legal rights. This article is crucial because it provides a remedy mechanism at the High Court level, making justice accessible at the state level. High Courts can issue writs not only for Fundamental Rights but also for any other legal right, making Article 226 broader in scope than Article 32.

Question 7

Which of the following statements regarding the composition of the Supreme Court of India is correct?

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court of India consists of a Chief Justice of India and such number of other Judges as may be determined by Parliament. As per the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, the maximum strength of the Supreme Court is fixed at 34 judges (1 Chief Justice + 33 other judges). However, this can be increased by Parliament through legislation. The current sanctioned strength remains 34 judges as per the existing law.

Question 8

Which of the following statements regarding the High Court's power under Article 226 is correct?

Accepted Answer

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution grants High Courts the power to issue writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto) for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose. The key feature of Article 226 is that it is broader than Article 32 because it can be invoked not only for Fundamental Rights but also for enforcement of any legal right. High Courts can issue writs against both government and private authorities in certain circumstances. Therefore, the answer is B.

Question 9

Which article of the Indian Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction in constitutional matters?

Accepted Answer

Article 133 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction in constitutional matters. Specifically, Article 133 allows appeals to the Supreme Court from High Court judgments in cases involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. This is a key provision for constitutional review and ensures uniformity in constitutional interpretation across the country. Therefore, the answer is A.

Question 10

Under the 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution, which of the following changes was made regarding the Supreme Court and High Courts?

Accepted Answer

The 42nd Amendment (1976) made several significant changes to the Indian Constitution, including the addition of the word 'socialist' and 'secular' to the Preamble, and the insertion of Article 39-A regarding equal opportunity in matters of public employment. Regarding the judiciary, the 42nd Amendment curtailed the jurisdiction of courts by adding Article 31-C, which provided that laws made to give effect to Directive Principles could not be challenged on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 19, and 31. This amendment significantly reduced judicial review powers. Therefore, the answer is D.

Question 11

Which article of the Indian Constitution defines the jurisdiction of High Courts?

Accepted Answer

Article 225 of the Indian Constitution defines the jurisdiction of High Courts. It states that subject to the provisions of the Constitution and to the extent to which Parliament may by law confer jurisdiction on the High Courts, every High Court shall have all the jurisdiction which it had immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. This article preserves the pre-constitutional jurisdiction of High Courts while allowing Parliament to modify it. Article 226, which follows, grants the specific power to issue writs.

Question 12

The 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution, enacted in 1976, made several significant changes to the Constitution. Which of the following was NOT a change introduced by the 42nd Amendment?

Accepted Answer

The 42nd Amendment, enacted during the Emergency period (1976), made extensive changes to the Constitution. The key changes introduced were: (1) Changed the Preamble by adding the words 'Socialist' and 'Secular'; (2) Reduced the term of Lok Sabha from 5 years to 4 years (later reverted by 44th Amendment); (3) Added Part IV-A (Fundamental Duties) to the Constitution; (4) Amended Article 368 to restrict judicial review of constitutional amendments; (5) Amended Article 39 to include new Directive Principles. However, the 42nd Amendment did NOT introduce the concept of 'Judicial Review' itself (that existed since the beginning), did NOT create the Supreme Court (that was established in 1950), and did NOT introduce the concept of 'Fundamental Rights' (that was in the original Constitution). The 44th Amendment (1978) reversed several changes of the 42nd Amendment, including reducing the Lok Sabha term back to 5 years and restoring the right to property as a constitutional right (though as a legal right under Article 300-A, not a Fundamental Right).

Question 13

Which Article of the Indian Constitution establishes the power of the Supreme Court to issue writs of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto?

Accepted Answer

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This article is the cornerstone of judicial review in India and provides the constitutional remedy for violation of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court can issue five types of writs: Habeas Corpus (to secure release from unlawful detention), Mandamus (to compel performance of duty), Prohibition (to prevent exercise of unlawful jurisdiction), Certiorari (to quash illegal orders), and Quo Warranto (to challenge right to hold office). This power is exclusive to the Supreme Court under Article 32, whereas High Courts exercise similar powers under Article 226 but with broader scope including non-fundamental rights.

Question 14

Under Article 137 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to review its own judgments. In which landmark case did the Supreme Court first exercise this power to review a judgment on grounds of 'new evidence'?

Accepted Answer

Article 137 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. The Supreme Court first exercised this review power in the case of Moti Lal v. Union of India (1958), where it reviewed its own judgment on the grounds of new evidence that had come to light. However, the most significant and widely cited case establishing the principles of review under Article 137 is Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), though this was technically a review petition. The landmark case that definitively established the scope of Article 137 review power was Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where the Supreme Court reviewed its earlier position on the amendment power under Article 368. The review power under Article 137 is limited and can only be exercised on grounds of discovery of new evidence or manifest error apparent on the face of the record.

Question 15

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution grants High Courts the power to issue writs. Which of the following statements correctly distinguishes the scope of Article 226 from Article 32?

Accepted Answer

Article 226 grants High Courts the power to issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose. The key distinction between Article 226 and Article 32 is that Article 226 has a broader scope: it applies to all matters (not just Fundamental Rights) and can be issued against any person or authority (not just the State). Article 32 is limited to enforcement of Fundamental Rights and is the exclusive remedy in the Supreme Court. Additionally, Article 226 writs can be issued for enforcement of legal rights beyond Fundamental Rights, whereas Article 32 is strictly limited to Fundamental Rights. The territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 is also limited to their respective jurisdictions, whereas the Supreme Court under Article 32 has pan-India jurisdiction. Furthermore, Article 226 includes the power to issue writs for enforcement of statutory rights and common law rights, making it broader than Article 32.

Question 16

Under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution, the President can refer matters to the Supreme Court for advisory opinion. Which of the following is a correct statement regarding the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 143?

Accepted Answer

Article 143 of the Indian Constitution grants the President the power to refer questions of law or fact to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion. However, this advisory opinion is NOT binding on the President or the Government. The Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 has two categories: (1) Questions of law or fact of public importance (Article 143(1)), and (2) Disputes between the Government of India and one or more States, or between States themselves (Article 143(2)). The advisory opinion given by the Supreme Court is consultative in nature and the President is not bound to accept it. Historically, the Supreme Court has given advisory opinions on matters like the validity of the Presidential election, the scope of the President's powers, and constitutional interpretation. However, the Supreme Court has also refused to give advisory opinions on certain matters, such as those involving political questions or matters that are not ripe for adjudication. The advisory jurisdiction is distinct from the contentious jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, where the Court's decisions are binding.

Question 17

Which article of the Indian Constitution establishes the jurisdiction and powers of High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights?

Accepted Answer

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution grants High Courts the power to issue writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari) not only for enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for any other purpose. This is broader than Article 32, which is limited to Fundamental Rights. Article 226 is the specific provision for High Court writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the answer is C.

Question 18

The 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution, passed in 1976, introduced significant changes to the Constitution. Which of the following was NOT a change made by the 42nd Amendment?

Accepted Answer

The 42nd Amendment (1976) made several key changes: (1) added Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 39A, 43A, 48A); (2) changed 'Sovereign Democratic Republic' to 'Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic' in the Preamble; (3) reduced the President's discretionary powers; (4) made constitutional amendments easier by removing judicial review of amendments. However, the 42nd Amendment did NOT reduce the number of Fundamental Rights from seven to six — this was done by the 44th Amendment (1978), which removed the Right to Property from Part III and made it a constitutional right under Article 300A. Therefore, the answer is D.

Question 19

In the landmark case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court established the doctrine of 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. Which of the following is NOT considered part of the Basic Structure according to this judgment?

Accepted Answer

The Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) established that while Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. The Basic Structure includes: (1) Supremacy of the Constitution; (2) Republican and Democratic form of government; (3) Secular character; (4) Separation of powers; (5) Federal structure; (6) Individual rights and freedoms; (7) Judicial review. However, the specific number of Lok Sabha seats or the exact composition of the Union Cabinet are NOT considered part of the Basic Structure, as these are procedural and can be modified. Therefore, the answer is D.

Question 20

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the 'Right to Life and Personal Liberty.' In the case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21. Which of the following was NOT recognized as part of the right to life under Article 21 in subsequent judicial interpretations?

Accepted Answer

The Maneka Gandhi case (1978) expanded Article 21 to include various rights such as: (1) Right to live with human dignity; (2) Right to health and medical care; (3) Right to education; (4) Right to clean environment; (5) Right to shelter. However, the Right to Vote in elections is protected under Article 326 (for Lok Sabha) and Article 172 (for State Assemblies), not under Article 21. While voting is a fundamental right, it is specifically enumerated in different articles and is not derived from the 'right to life' under Article 21. Therefore, the answer is D.

NDA Supreme Court & High Courts

NDA Supreme Court & High Courts — Past Exam Questions

Supreme Court & High Courts— Rules & Concept

Key Points to Remember

Exam-Specific Tips

Supreme Court & High Courts — Practice Questions

60-Second Revision — Supreme Court & High Courts