Supreme Court of India - Questions and Answers

ANSWER: Neither 1 nor 2

Explanation:

Difference between Supreme Court of India and USA -

Sr. No.	Supreme Court of India	Supreme Court of USA
1.	Only federal cases come under its original jurisdiction.	Federal cases, cases of naval forces, maritime activities, ambassadors etc., come under its original jurisdiction.
2.	Advisory jurisdiction is there.	There is no advisory jurisdiction.
3.	The appellate jurisdiction includes constitutional, civil and criminal cases.	The appellate jurisdiction is restricted to constitutional cases only.
4.	It can grant special leave to appeal in any matter against the judgment of any court or tribunal (except a military tribunal). Thus it has wide discretionary power.	There is no such power granted to it.
5.	It follows procedure established by law.	It follows due process of law.
6.	It has restricted ambit of judicial review.	It has a wide ambit of judicial review.
7.	Though defined in the Constitution, its jurisdiction and powers can be increased or decreased by Parliament.	Its jurisdiction and powers are restricted to that conferred by the Constitution of USA.
8.	India has integrated Judiciary. This vests Supreme Court with control and superintendence powers over state high courts	There is separate judiciary for state and federation. So, no control and superintendence powers are available.

ANSWER: All of the above

Explanation:

3 types of Advocates can practice law before the Supreme Court -

Senior Advocates -


• They are advocates who are designated as Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India itself or by any High Court in India.


• Any advocate can be designated as Senior Advocate by the Court, if the court feels that by virtue of advocate’s ability, special knowledge or experience of law or his/her standing at Bar, he/she deserves such distinction.


• A Senior Advocate is not allowed to appear without an Advocate-on-Record in the Supreme Court or without a junior in any other court or tribunal in India.


• He is also not allowed to accept requests to draw pleadings or affidavits, advise on evidence or do any drafting work of similar kind in any court or tribunal in India.


• He cannot undertake conveyancing work of any kind.


• But this restriction is not applicable when any such matter is settled in consultation with a junior.

Advocates-on-Record -


• Only these advocates are allowed to file any matter or document before the Supreme Court.


• They can also file an appearance or act for a party in the Supreme Court.


• No other high court in India has a similar provision.

Other Advocates -


• These Advocates can appear and argue any matter on behalf of a party in the Supreme Court.


• But they are not allowed to file any document or matter before the Court.


• These advocates have their names on the roll of any State Bar Council maintained under the Advocates Act, 1961.

ANSWER: 2, 4

Explanation:

Tenure of Judges of Supreme Court -


• The tenure of Supreme Court judges is not fixed by the Constitution.

But it has following provisions -

(a) He shall hold office until he attains the age of 65 years.

(b) Any question regarding the age of the judge will be determined by such authority and in such way as determined by Parliament.

(c) He can resign his office by writing to the president.

(d) He can be removed from his office by the President on the recommendation of the Parliament on grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity.

Removing a Judge of Supreme Court -


• A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President.


• The President can issue the order only after an address by the Parliament has been presented to him in the same session.


• Address must be supported by a special majority of each House of Parliament.


• Special majority is a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than 2/3^rd of the members of that House present and voting.


• There are 2 grounds of removal - proved misbehavior or incapacity.

The procedure relating to the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court by the process of impeachment is regulated by The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) -

1. Removal motion signed by 100 members (for Lok Sabha) or 50 members (for Rajya Sabha) is to be given to the Speaker/Chairman.

2. The Speaker/Chairman may admit or refuse the motion.

3. If admitted, a 3-member committee is formed by the Speaker/Chairman to investigate into the charges.

4. The committee should consist of -

(a) the chief justice or a judge of the Supreme Court;

(b) a chief justice of a High Court; and

(c) a distinguished jurist.

5. The House can take up the consideration of the motion, if the committee finds the judge to be guilty of misbehavior or suffering from incapacity.

6. On passing the motion by each House of Parliament by special majority, an address is presented to the president for removal of the judge.

7. Lastly, the president passes an order removing the judge.


• The only case of attempt of impeachment is that of Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court (1991-1993), which was defeated in Lok Sabha.


• Thus, no judge of the Supreme Court has been impeached up to now.

ANSWER: Only 1

Explanation:

Appointing Chief Justice of India -


• Senior-most judge of the Supreme Court used to be made the Chief Justice of India from 1950 to 1973.


• But in 1973, A. N. Ray was appointed as the Chief Justice of India by superseding three senior judges.


• Again in 1977, M. U. Beg was appointed as the CJI by superseding the then senior-most judge.


• But the Supreme curtailed this discretion of the government in the Second Judges Case (1993), where the Supreme Court ruled that the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court should alone be appointed to the office of the Chief Justice of India.

Qualifications of Judges -

A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court unless -

1. he is a citizen of India;

2. has been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or

3. has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or

4. is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.


• There is no prescribed minimum age for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court.

Seat of Supreme Court -


• The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India with the approval of the President, may decide.


• This is not a mandatory provision.

Procedure of the Court -


• The Supreme Court’s procedure and practice can be regulated by itself with the approval of the president.


• A Bench of at least 5 judges is needed to decide Constitutional cases or references made by the President under Article 143.


• A Bench of 3 or more judges decide rest of the cases.


• The judgments are delivered by open court and by majority vote.


• If differing, then judges can give dissenting judgements or opinions.

ANSWER: All of the above

Explanation:

Provisions for Independence of Supreme Court -


• Mode of Appointment - The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President in consultation with the members of the judiciary itself (i.e., judges of the Supreme Court and the high Courts).


• This limits the discretion of the executive in judicial appointments.


• Security of Tenure - They can be removed from office by the President only in the manner and on the grounds mentioned in the Constitution.


• Fixed Service Conditions - The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave and pension of the judges of the Supreme Court cannot be changed to their disadvantage after their appointment except during a financial emergency.


• Expenses Charged on Consolidated Fund - The salaries, allowances and pensions of the judges and the staff and the administrative expenses of the Supreme Court are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India which is not subject to vote in the Parliament.


• Conduct of Judges cannot be discussed - Parliament or State Legislature cannot discuss conduct of the judges of the Supreme Court in the discharge of their duties, except when an impeachment motion is under consideration of the Parliament.


• Ban on Practice after retirement Retired judges of the Supreme Court cannot plead or act in any Court or before any authority within the territory of India.


• Punishment for its contempt - The Supreme Court can punish any person for its contempt.


• This is to maintain its authority, dignity and honor.


• Appointing its staff - The Chief Justice of India can appoint officers and servants of the Supreme Court, prescribe their conditions of service, etc. without any interference from the executive.


• Jurisdiction cannot be limited - The Parliament can only extend but cannot curtail jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court as they are guaranteed by the Constitution.


• Separation of Judiciary and Executive -As per the Constitution, executive authorities should not possess judicial powers.


• Criminal procedure Code (1973) separated judiciary from executive.

ANSWER: Only 1

Explanation:

Supreme Court Of India -


• Indian Constitution has envisioned an integrated judicial system with the Supreme Court at the apex and the high courts below it.


• This system adopted from the Government of India Act of 1935, enforces both Central laws as well as the state laws.


• In USA, the federal judiciary enforces federal laws and the state judiciary enforces state laws.


• The Supreme Court of India was inaugurated on January 28, 1950.


• It is successor of the Federal Court of India, established under the Government of India Act of 1935.


• Supreme Court has replaced the British Privy Council as the highest court of appeal.


• Hence, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is greater than Federal Court of India.


• Articles 124 to 147 in Part 5 of the Constitution deal with the organization, jurisdiction, independence, etc. of the Supreme Court.


• The Parliament can regulate them.

Organization of Supreme Court -


• At present, the Supreme Court has 31 judges.


• It includes one chief justice.


• In February 2009, the number of Supreme Court judges was increased from 26 to 31, including the Chief Justice of India.


• Original strength of the Supreme Court was fixed at 8 including the chief justice.


• In 1956, Parliament increased it to 10, to 13 in 1960, to 17 in 1977 and to 25 in 1986.

ANSWER: Both 1 and 2

Explanation:

Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court -


• The Constitution has constituted the Supreme Court as the guarantor and defender of the fundamental rights of the citizens.


• Article 32 - The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of Fundamental rights of an aggrieved citizen.


• For this, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.


• This means that an aggrieved citizen can directly go to the Supreme Court.


• But even High Courts can issue writs for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights.


• Thus, the power is not exclusive.


• Write Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is narrower than that of the High Court is because the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights and no other matter.


• But, the high court can issue writs for the enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as for other matter.


• However, the Parliament can confer the power to issue writs for other purposes on the Supreme Court.

ANSWER: 1, 3

Explanation:

Appointment of Judges -


• President appoints the judges of the Supreme Court.


• The president on consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and high courts as he deems necessary, appoints the chief justice of India.


• The president appoints other judges, on consultation with the Chief Justice and such other judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as he deems necessary.


• It is mandatory to consult the chief justice in appointing a judge other than Chief justice.

Acting Chief Justice -

A judge of the Supreme Court can be appointed as an acting Chief Justice of India by the President, when -

(a) the Chief Justice of India is unable to perform the duties of his office; or

(b) the Chief Justice of India is temporarily absent; or

(c) the office of Chief Justice of India is vacant.

Ad hoc Judge -


• The Chief Justice of India can appoint a judge of a High Court as an Ad hoc Judge of the Supreme Court for a temporary period.


• This is generally done when there is a lack of quorum of the permanent judges to hold or continue any session of the Supreme Court.


• The CJI can appoint the high court judge only after consulting the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court and with the prior consent of the president.


• The judge who is to be appointed should be qualified for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court.


• It will be his duty to attend the sittings of the Supreme Court, and giving priority to it over his other duties of his office.


• While attending the sittings, he enjoys all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges (and discharges the duties) of a judge of the Supreme Court.

Retired Judges -


• With the prior consent of the President of India, the chief justice of India can request a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a retired judge of a high court (who is qualified for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court) to act as a judge of the Supreme Court for a temporary period.


• He also needs consent of the person to be so appointed.


• The President determines the allowances of such a judge.


• He will enjoy all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a judge of Supreme Court, but will not otherwise be considered to be a judge of the Supreme Court.

ANSWER: 1, 2

Explanation:

Advisory Jurisdiction -

Article 143 - The president can seek opinion of the Supreme Court -

1. On any question of law or fact of public importance which has arisen or which is likely to arise.

2. On any dispute arising out of any pre-constitution treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad etc.


• The Supreme Court in the first scenario may give or may refuse to give its opinion to the president.


• However, the Supreme Court has to give its opinion in the second case.


• The advices given in both the cases is not binding.


• However, it helps the government to have a legal opinion on the matter.


• Recently the reference was made in case of 2G spectrum case verdict and the mandatory auctioning of natural resources across all sectors in 2012.

A Court of Record -

As a Court of Record, the Supreme Court has 2 powers -

1. The judgements, proceedings and acts of the Supreme Court are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony.

2. These can be used as references and cannot be questioned when produced in any court.

3. It can punish for contempt of court. The Supreme Court can punish for contempt not only of itself but also of high courts, subordinate courts and tribunals functioning in the entire country. Punishment can be fine or imprisonment or both.


• Civil contempt of court means willful disobedience to anyjudgement, order, writ, undertaking etc.

Criminal contempt of court means the publication of any matter or doing an act which -

(a) lowers authority of a court;

(b) interferes with the judicial proceeding;

(c) prejudices judgment of judiciary; and

(d) interferes with administration of justice in any other manner.

Following are not considered as contempt of court -

(a) innocent publication and distribution of some matter;

(b) fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings;

(c) fair and reasonable criticism of judicial acts; and

(d) comment on the administrative side of the judiciary etc.

ANSWER: Both 1 and 2

Explanation:

Power of Judicial Review -


• Judicial review means to check the constitutional validity of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and state governments.


• It is essential for protecting fundamental rights of the citizens.


• It is also needed to maintain a balance between Union and States.


• Judicial review helps in upholding the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution.


• However, the phrase ‘judicial review’ has not been used anywhere in the Constitution.

One can challenge the constitutionality of a legislative enactment or an executive order in Supreme Court if -

1. Fundamental Rights are infringed by it.

2. It is incompatible with constitutional provisions.

3. It is outside the ambit of the authority which framed it.


• Scope of Judicial review in USA is broader than that in India.


• Our Supreme Court follows procedure established by law.


• This means that they see only substantive question i.e., if the law is within the powers of the authority concerned or not.


• It does not check reasonableness of the law.


• American Supreme Court follows due process of law that checks substantive question as well as reasonableness of the law.

Other Powers of Supreme Court -


• It is final authority for disputes regarding the election of the president and the Vice-President.


• On reference made by President, it enquires into the conduct of the chairman and members of the UPSC and gives advice which is binding on the President.


• It can review its own judgement or order.


• It can withdraw cases pending before the high courts and dispose them by itself. It can also transfer a case or appeal which is pending before one high court to another high court.


• Its law is binding on all courts in India and decree or order is enforceable throughout India.


• It is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.


• It has judicial superintendence and control over all the courts and tribunals in India.


• Parliament can enlarge the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction and powers with respect to matters in the Union list.


• Also, a special agreement of the Centre and the states can enlarge its jurisdiction and powers with respect to other matters.

ANSWER: 1, 2 and 4

Explanation:

Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court -

Supreme Court decides the disputes between -

1. the Centre and one or more states; or

2. between two or more states; or

3. the Centre and any state or states on one side and one or more states on the other.


• For these, Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction.


• No other court can decide such disputes.


• Original means to hear such disputes at the first instance and not by way of appeal.


• But, the dispute must involve a question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.


• Questions of political nature are not included.


• Also, any suit against the Centre or a state,brought before the Supreme Court,by a private citizen cannot be entertained under this.

Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court does not extend to the following -

(a) Recovery of damages by a state against the Centre.

(b) Matters referred to the Finance Commission.

(c) Dispute arising out of any pre-constitution treaty, agreement, covenant etc.

(d) Dispute arising out of any treaty, etc., which specifically mentions that court’s original jurisdiction will not be applicable to it.

(e) Inter-state water disputes.

(f) Adjustment of some expenses and pensions between the Centre and states.

(g) Ordinary dispute of Commercial nature between the Centre and states.


• The first suit, under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, was brought by West Bengal against the Centre in 1961.

ANSWER: All of the above

Explanation:

Appellate jurisdiction -


• Supreme Court replaced the British Privy Council as the highest court of appeal.


• The Supreme Court is mainly a court of appeal.


• It hears appeals against the judgements of the lower courts.

Its wide appellate jurisdiction can be understood under following sections -

Appeals in constitutional matters -


• If the high court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law that requires the interpretation of the Constitution, an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court.

Appeals in civil matters -


• If the high court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance and the question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court against any judgement of a High Court.


• Presently there is no monetary limit for civil cases.

Appeals in criminal matters -


• The Supreme Court hears appeals against the judgement in a criminal proceeding of a high court.

This happens only if the high court -

(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or

(b) has taken before itself any case from any subordinate court and convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or

(c) certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.


• In the first two scenarios, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court as a matter of right.


• It doesn’t need any certificate of the High Court.


• But if the high court reverses the order of conviction and acquits the accused, there is no right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

From 1970, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from the judgement of a High Court if the High Court -

(a) has on appeal, reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to imprisonment for life or for ten years; or

(b) has taken before itself any case from any subordinate court and convicted the accused person and sentenced him to imprisonment for life or for ten years.

Appeal by Special Leave -


• The Supreme Court can grant special leave to appeal from any judgement in any matter passed by any court or tribunal in the country.


• This doesn’t include military tribunal and court martial.

Things to note are -

(a) Since its discretionary it cannot be considered as a matter of right.

(b) It may be related to any matter.

(c) It can be granted in any judgement whether final or in process.

(d) It can be granted against any court or tribunal (except military).


• The scope of this provision is very wide.

ANSWER: 1, 2, 3

Explanation:

• CJI M. Hidayatullah also served as the acting President of India.


• This was because the Vice-President Giri had resigned for the Presidential elections and both the posts of President and Vice-president were vacant.


• Later in 1979 M. Hidayatullah became the Vice-President himself and served till 1984.

Former CJIs

1. Harilal J. Kania - 1950-1951	2. M. Patanjali Sastri - 1951-1954
3. M. C. Mahajan - 1954-1954	4. B. K. Mukherjea - 1954-1956
5. S. R. Das - 1956-1959	6. B. P. Sinha - 1959-1964
7. P. B. Gajendragadkar - 1964-1966	8. A. K. Sarkar - 1966-1966
9. K. Subba Rao - 1966-1967	10. K. N. Wanchoo - 1967-196
11. M. Hidayatullah - 1968-1970	12. J. C. Shah - 1970-1971
13. S. M. Sikri - 1971-1973	14. A. N. Ray - 1973-1977
15. M. H. Beg - 1977-1978	16. Y. V. Chandrachud - 1978-1985
17. P. N. Bhagwati - 1985-1986	18. R. S. Pathak - 1986 – 1989
19. E. S. Venkataramaiah - 1989-1989	20. S. Mukherjee - 1989-1990
21. Ranganath Mishra - 1990-1991	22. K. N. Singh - 1991-1991
23. M. H. Kania - 1991-1992	24. L. M. Sharma - 1992-1993
25. M. N. Venkatachalaiah - 1993-1994	26. A. M. Ahmadi - 1994-1997
27. J. S. Verma - 1997-1998	28. M. M. Punchhi - 1998-1998
29. A. S. Anand - 1998-2001	30. S. P. Bharucha - 2001-2002
31. B. N. Kirpal - 2002-2002	32. G. B. Pattanaiak - 2002-2002
33. V. N. Khare - 2002-2004	34. S. Rajendra Babu - 2004-2004
35. R. C. Lahoti - 2004-2005	36. Y. K. Sabharwal - 2005-2007
37. K. G. Balakrishnan - 2007-2010	38. S. H. Kapadia - 2010-2012
39. Altamas Kabir - 2012-2013	40. P. Sathasivam - 2013-2014
41. Rajendra Mal Lodha - 2014-2014	42. H. L. Dattu - 2014-2015
43. T. S. Thakur - 2015-2017	44. J. S. Khehar - 2017-till date