12 sample questions are shown here; sign up free to practise all 80.
Q1Polity & Governance·JudiciaryPYQ 2024
A Writ of Prohibition is an order issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts to:
- AA government officer prohibiting him from taking a particular action
- BThe Parliament or legislative Assembly to pass a law on prohibition
- CThe lower court prohibiting continuation of proceedings in a caseCorrect
- DThe Government prohibiting it from following an unconstitutional policy
Explanation
Correct. A writ of prohibition is issued by a superior court to an inferior court or tribunal to stop proceedings that exceed jurisdiction or violate the law. It is preventive in nature, unlike certiorari which quashes a decision already made.
Why the other options are incorrect
- Option A
A writ of prohibition is not directed at government officers to prevent executive action. That function is served by other writs like mandamus or injunctions.
- Option B
Courts cannot direct Parliament or legislatures to pass laws. This would violate the separation of powers and is not the function of the writ of prohibition.
- Option D
The writ of prohibition is directed at judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, not at the executive government to stop policy implementation.
Q2Polity & Governance·JudiciaryPYQ 2022
With reference to India, consider the following statements:
1. Government law officers and legal firms are recognized as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates.
2. Bar Councils have the power to lay down rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A1 only
- B2 onlyCorrect
- CBoth 1 and 2
- DNeither 1 nor 2
Explanation
Correct. Statement 2 is correct because the Bar Council of India regulates standards of legal education and recognition of law colleges under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Why the other options are incorrect
- Option A
Statement 1 is incorrect because the classification is oversimplified and legally inaccurate; recognition as an advocate depends on enrollment under the Advocates Act, not the broad categories used.
- Option C
Statement 1 is incorrect. Recognition as an advocate under the Advocates Act depends on enrollment, not on the type of legal work one does.
- Option D
Statement 2 is correct. The Bar Council of India does have the statutory power to lay down rules on legal education and recognize law colleges.
Q3Polity & Governance·JudiciaryPYQ 2022
Consider the following statements:
1. Pursuant to the report of the H. N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.
2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
3. The Constitution of India defines civil contempt and criminal contempt.
4. In India, Parliament is vested with the power to make laws on contempt of court.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
- A1 and 2 only
- B1, 2 and 4Correct
- C3 and 4 only
- D3 only
Explanation
Correct. The 1971 Act followed the Sanyal Committee recommendations, Articles 129 and 215 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to punish for contempt, and Parliament can legislate on contempt. But the Constitution itself does not define civil and criminal contempt; those definitions are statutory.
Why the other options are incorrect
- Option A
This is incomplete. Statement 4 is also correct as Parliament is empowered to legislate on contempt of court.
- Option C
Statement 3 is incorrect. The Constitution does not define civil and criminal contempt; those definitions appear in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- Option D
Statement 3 is incorrect. The definitions of civil contempt and criminal contempt are statutory, not constitutional.
Q4Polity & Governance·JudiciaryPYQ 2022
With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements:
1. Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty.
2. Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company.
3. Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
- A1 and 2 only
- B2 and 3 only
- C1 and 3 only
- D1, 2 and 3Correct
Explanation
Correct for this PYQ. UPSC's official 2022 GS-I key, Series A Q18, gives (d), "1, 2 and 3": https://www.upsc.gov.in/sites/default/files/AnsKey-CSP-2022-Paper-I-040723.pdf . The key supplies the accepted answer, not reasons. Statement 2 should not be read as blanket immunity for every government company. Article 226 permits writs to any person or authority, and mandamus depends on an enforceable public duty and the nature of the claim. This legal qualification does not change the official scoring key.
Why the other options are incorrect
- Option A
UPSC's official 2022 GS-I key, Series A Q18, accepts all three statements, so this option omits statement 3. Quo warranto concerns entitlement to a public office and can be sought by a public-minded petitioner.
- Option B
UPSC's official 2022 GS-I key, Series A Q18, accepts all three statements, so this option omits statement 1. Mandamus concerns enforcement of a public duty, including a duty entrusted to a private body.
- Option C
UPSC's official 2022 GS-I key, Series A Q18, accepts (d), which includes statement 2. This option leaves it out. The legal qualification behind this alternative should not be hidden: government ownership alone does not decide whether mandamus is available; the public duty and the nature of the claim matter.
Q5Polity & Governance·JudiciaryPYQ 2021
With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:
1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court can be called back to sit and act as a judge of the Supreme Court by the Chief Justice of India with the prior permission of the President of India.
2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgment as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A1 onlyCorrect
- B2 only
- CBoth 1 and 2
- DNeither 1 nor 2
Explanation
Correct. Article 128 allows the Chief Justice of India, with presidential consent and the judge's own consent, to request a retired Supreme Court judge to sit and act as a judge of the Supreme Court.
Why the other options are incorrect
- Option B
Statement 2 is not accepted as correct per the official key. While High Courts possess limited review powers, they do not have the same scope of review power as the Supreme Court does under Article 137.
- Option C
Only Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 overstates the High Court's review power compared to the Supreme Court's.
- Option D
Statement 1 is correct as it accurately reflects the provision under Article 128 of the Constitution.
Q6Polity & Governance·JudiciaryPYQ 2019
With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1. No High Court has jurisdiction to declare any Central law constitutionally invalid.
2. An amendment to the Constitution cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A1 only
- B2 only
- CBoth 1 and 2
- DNeither 1 nor 2Correct
Explanation
Correct. High Courts can review the constitutional validity of Central laws within their jurisdiction under Article 226, and constitutional amendments are subject to judicial review on the basic-structure test.
Why the other options are incorrect
- Option A
Statement 1 is false. High Courts possess the power of judicial review under Article 226 and can declare Central laws unconstitutional within their jurisdiction.
- Option B
Statement 2 is also false. Constitutional amendments are subject to judicial review on the basic-structure test as established in Kesavananda Bharati.
- Option C
Both statements are incorrect. High Courts can review Central laws and the Supreme Court can review constitutional amendments.
Q7Polity & Governance·JudiciaryPYQ 2019
Consider the following statements:
1. A motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
2. The Constitution defines and gives details of what constitutes 'incapacity and proved misbehaviour' of Supreme Court judges.
3. Details of the impeachment process are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
4. If the motion is taken up for voting, it must be supported in each House by a majority of the total membership and by not less than two-thirds of members present and voting.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A1 and 2
- B3 only
- C3 and 4 onlyCorrect
- D1, 3 and 4
Explanation
Correct. Statement 3 is correct because the statutory procedure is laid down in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, and Statement 4 correctly states the special majority requirement under Article 124(4).
Why the other options are incorrect
- Option A
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Speaker or Chairman may admit or refuse a motion at the threshold. Statement 2 is also incorrect because the Constitution does not define the phrase in detail.
- Option B
While Statement 3 is correct, Statement 4 is also correct regarding the special majority requirement for removal of judges.
- Option D
Statement 1 is incorrect. The Speaker or Chairman can refuse to admit the motion at the threshold stage under the procedural framework.
Q8Polity & Governance·JudiciaryPYQ 2019
With reference to the Constitution of India, ordinary-law limitations cannot act as limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?
- AElection Commission decisions cannot be challenged in any court
- BThe Supreme Court is not constrained in exercise of its powers by laws made by ParliamentCorrect
- CIn a grave financial crisis, the President can declare Financial Emergency without Cabinet advice
- DState Legislatures cannot legislate on certain matters without Union concurrence
Explanation
Correct. Article 142 enables the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do complete justice, and the Court has held that statutory limitations cannot whittle down that constitutional power in its proper field.
Why the other options are incorrect
- Option A
This option refers to the Election Commission and has no connection to Article 142, which deals with the Supreme Court's power to do complete justice.
- Option C
This option deals with the President's emergency powers and has no connection to Article 142 or the Supreme Court.
- Option D
This option deals with legislative competence under the Seventh Schedule and is unrelated to the Supreme Court's powers under Article 142.
Q9Polity & Governance·JudiciaryPYQ 2017
In India, Judicial Review implies:
- AThe power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive ordersCorrect
- BThe power of the Judiciary to question the wisdom of the laws enacted by the Legislatures
- CThe power of the Judiciary to review all the legislative enactments before they are assented to by the President
- DThe power of the Judiciary to review its own judgments given earlier in similar or different cases
Explanation
Correct. Judicial review means examining laws and executive actions for consistency with the Constitution. It is the power to test legislative and executive actions on the touchstone of the Constitution.
Why the other options are incorrect
- Option B
Courts do not sit in appeal over legislative wisdom. Judicial review tests constitutionality, not the policy wisdom of legislation.
- Option C
Indian courts do not pre-clear or review laws before presidential assent. Judicial review is exercised after a law is enacted, when it is challenged.
- Option D
The power to review its own earlier judgments is a distinct power (review jurisdiction), not what is ordinarily meant by the term 'judicial review' in constitutional law.
Q10Polity & Governance·JudiciaryPYQ 2016
With reference to the Gram Nyayalayas Act, which of the following statements is/are correct?
1. As per the Act, Gram Nyayalayas can hear only civil cases and not criminal cases.
2. The Act allows local social activists as mediators or conciliators.
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
- A1 only
- B2 onlyCorrect
- CBoth 1 and 2
- DNeither 1 nor 2
Explanation
Correct. Statement 1 is wrong because Gram Nyayalayas can hear both civil and criminal matters. Statement 2 is correct because the Act permits conciliation efforts with the help of conciliators, including persons drawn from the local social context.
Why the other options are incorrect
- Option A
Statement 1 is incorrect. Gram Nyayalayas are empowered to hear both certain civil and criminal matters under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008.
- Option C
Statement 1 is incorrect. Gram Nyayalayas are not limited to civil cases; they can adjudicate specified criminal matters as well.
- Option D
Statement 2 is correct. The Act does allow local social activists to serve as mediators or conciliators in the dispute resolution process.
Q11Polity & Governance·JudiciaryPYQ 2015
Who or which of the following is the custodian of the Constitution of India?
- AThe President of India
- BThe Prime Minister of India
- CThe Lok Sabha Secretariat
- DThe Supreme Court of IndiaCorrect
Explanation
Correct. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter and guardian of the Constitution through the power of judicial review, making it the effective constitutional custodian.
Why the other options are incorrect
- Option A
The President is the head of state and takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, but the custodianship role through judicial review belongs to the Supreme Court.
- Option B
The Prime Minister is the head of government and leads the executive, but does not serve as the custodian of the Constitution in the interpretive sense.
- Option C
The Lok Sabha Secretariat provides administrative support to the lower house of Parliament and has no role as custodian of the Constitution.
Q12Polity & Governance·JudiciaryPYQ 2014
The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the Centre and the States falls under its:
- AAdvisory jurisdiction
- BAppellate jurisdiction
- COriginal jurisdictionCorrect
- DWrit jurisdiction
Explanation
Correct. Article 131 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in disputes between the Union and one or more States or between States.
Why the other options are incorrect
- Option A
Advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 is exercised when the President seeks the Court's opinion, not when adjudicating Centre-State disputes.
- Option B
Appellate jurisdiction deals with appeals from lower courts. Centre-State disputes are heard directly by the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction.
- Option D
Writ jurisdiction under Article 32 deals with enforcement of Fundamental Rights, not adjudication of federalism-based disputes between the Centre and States.