Judiciary — Practice Questions
UPSC Prelims-pattern practice questions on the Supreme Court and High Courts — tenure, special leave, removal of judges, curative petitions, advisory opinions.
Questions
These are original UPSC-pattern practice questions. Attempt each one before revealing the answer.
Consider the following statements:
- A judge of the Supreme Court holds office until the age of 65 years.
- A judge of a High Court holds office until the age of 62 years.
- The retirement age of High Court judges was raised from 60 to 62 years by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Solution
Statements 1 and 2 are correct (Articles 124(2) and 217(1)). Statement 3 is incorrect — the increase from 60 to 62 came through the 15th Amendment (1963).
Answer: A
Special leave to appeal under Article 136 cannot be granted by the Supreme Court against a judgment or order of which of the following?
Solution
Article 136(2) excludes any court or tribunal constituted under a law relating to the Armed Forces. Special leave may be granted against every other court or tribunal in India.
Answer: B
How many of the following statements about the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court are correct?
- A removal motion must be signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.
- The inquiry committee includes a distinguished jurist.
- The motion must be passed by each House by a special majority in the same session.
- Violation of the Constitution is a ground for removal.
Solution
Statements 1, 2 and 3 are correct (Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968). Statement 4 is incorrect — the grounds are proved misbehaviour or incapacity; “violation of the Constitution” is the ground for impeaching the President. So three.
Answer: C
The concept of the curative petition was evolved by the Supreme Court in which case?
Solution
Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002) created the curative petition as a last remedy after a review petition is dismissed, to cure a gross miscarriage of justice. S.P. Gupta is the First Judges case; Kesavananda laid down the basic structure; L. Chandra Kumar concerned tribunals and judicial review.
Answer: D
Consider the following statements about the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 143:
- The Supreme Court is bound to give its opinion on every question referred under Article 143(1).
- The opinion given by the Supreme Court is binding on the President.
- On disputes arising out of pre-Constitution treaties referred under Article 143(2), the Supreme Court must give its opinion.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Solution
Statement 1 is incorrect — under Article 143(1) the Court may give its opinion and has declined in some references. Statement 2 is incorrect — the opinion is advisory. Statement 3 is correct — under Article 143(2) the Court must give its opinion.
Answer: B
Mains
Distinguish between judicial activism and judicial overreach. How can the judiciary maintain the balance envisaged by the separation of powers?
Solution
Introduction: Judicial activism is the proactive use of judicial power to protect rights and enforce constitutional duties when other organs fail; judicial overreach is when courts move into policy-making or executive administration.
Body:
- Activism — examples: PIL and relaxed locus standi (S.P. Gupta, 1981); speedy trial and undertrials (Hussainara Khatoon, 1979); expansion of Article 21; environmental protection.
- Overreach — concerns: courts framing policy or administering programmes; directions with large fiscal implications; continuing mandamus without clear end-points; use of Article 142 in ways that bypass legislation.
- Maintaining balance:
- Judicial restraint where policy choices belong to elected bodies.
- Clear, time-bound directions with monitoring by the executive.
- Respect for the doctrine of separation of powers, itself part of the basic structure.
- Strengthening executive and legislative capacity so that courts need not fill gaps.
Conclusion: Activism is legitimate when it enforces the Constitution; it becomes overreach when it replaces the judgement of accountable institutions. Self-restraint is the judiciary’s own best safeguard.