Judiciary

Explanation

A Writ of Prohibition is a judicial order issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts to prevent the Government from implementing or following an unconstitutional policy. This writ is used to restrain the Government from taking actions that are beyond its legal authority or violate the Constitution.

Explanation

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted following the recommendations of the H.N. Sanyal Committee. Both the Supreme Court and High Courts have the authority to punish for contempt of themselves. The power to legislate on matters related to Contempt of Court lies with the Parliament in India.

Explanation

Government law officers and legal firms are indeed recognized as advocates in India. However, corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are not excluded from recognition as advocates. Bar Councils in India do have the power to lay down rules related to legal education and recognition of law colleges, making the second statement correct.

Explanation

Mandamus is a writ issued by the Court to a public authority directing it to perform a public duty. It does not lie against private organizations unless they are entrusted with a public duty. Quo Warranto is a writ used to challenge a person holding a public office without legal authority. Any public-minded person can move the Court for the writ of Quo Warranto to question the authority of the officeholder.

Explanation

During judicial custody in India, the police officer in charge of the case is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without the approval of the court. This is to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected and that the interrogation process is conducted in a fair and transparent manner.

Explanation

State Governments in India have the authority to formulate their own Prisoners Release on Parole Rules. This means that the decision to grant or deny parole to a prisoner is governed by the specific rules and regulations set by the respective State Governments. Therefore, statement 2 is correct as it reflects this decentralized approach to parole decisions.

Explanation

Retired judges of the Supreme Court can be called back to serve as Supreme Court judges with the Chief Justice of India's approval and the President's permission. Additionally, High Courts in India possess the power to review their own judgments, similar to the Supreme Court.

Explanation

The Rakhmabai case of 1884 in Indian history centered around the issues of women's rights, age of consent, and restitution of conjugal rights. Rakhmabai, who was married at the young age of 11, contested a court case in 1880 against her husband's demands for marital relations. She advocated for her right to education and for an increase in the minimum marriage age. This case led to the formation of the Rakhmabai defense committee, supported by social reformers like Behramji Malabari. Ultimately, the Age of Consent Bill of 1891 was passed, raising the minimum age of marriage. Rakhmabai later pursued her studies and became a doctor. Therefore, all three statements regarding the case are correct.

Explanation

Legal Services Authorities in India offer free legal services to individuals with an annual income below specified thresholds. The provision includes persons earning less than Rs. 1,00,000 and transgender individuals earning less than Rs. 2,00,000. However, there is no provision for free legal aid for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) as per the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. Therefore, the correct answer is option (a): 1 and 2 only.

Explanation

In the process of impeaching a judge of the Supreme Court of India, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha cannot reject the motion as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Constitution of India outlines the criteria for 'incapacity and proved misbehaviour' of Supreme Court judges. The impeachment process for these judges is detailed in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. When a motion for impeaching a judge is voted upon, it must be endorsed by both houses of Parliament and receive support from a majority of the total membership of each house, as well as at least two-thirds of the total members present and voting.

Explanation

Article 142 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to exercise its powers without being limited by laws created by the parliament. This means that the Supreme Court can make decisions and rulings without being bound by ordinary laws passed by the legislative body.

Explanation

In the Indian Constitution, it is stated that no High Court has the authority to invalidate any central law, and the Supreme Court can question amendments made to the Constitution. However, in the I.R. Coelho case in 2007, the Supreme Court clarified that there cannot be a complete exemption from judicial review.

Explanation

In India, Judicial Review refers to the authority of the Judiciary to determine the constitutionality of laws and executive orders. Therefore, option (a) is the correct choice as it best encapsulates this concept.

Explanation

The Gram Nyayalaya Act established Gram Nyayalayas as courts presided over by Judicial Magistrates of the first class, appointed by the state government in consultation with the High Court. The Act came into effect on October 2, 2009. Gram Nyayalayas have jurisdiction to hear criminal cases, civil suits, claims, and disputes listed in the First and Second Schedules of the Act. The District court, in consultation with the District Magistrate, selects social workers to serve as counselors. Therefore, the second statement is correct.

Explanation

The authority to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India lies with the Parliament.

Explanation

The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) was established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to offer free Legal Services to the marginalized sections of society and to arrange Lok Adalats for peaceful resolution of disputes. Each state has a State Legal Services Authority to implement NALSA's policies, provide free legal services, and conduct Lok Adalats within the state.

Explanation

In the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it can hear disputes involving the Government of India and one or more States, as well as disputes between two or more States. This means that the Court has the authority to resolve conflicts between these entities directly.

Explanation

The Delimitation Commission's decisions cannot be contested in a court of law according to the first statement. The second statement states that once the Delimitation Commission's decisions are presented to the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assembly, no changes can be made to them. Both statements are accurate, making option (c) the correct choice.

Explanation

In order to protect the independence of the Supreme Court of India, certain provisions are in place. These include the requirement for the President of India to consult the Chief Justice of India when appointing Supreme Court Judges, the exclusive authority of the Chief Justice of India to remove Judges, the funding of Judges' salaries from the Consolidated Fund of India without the need for legislative approval, and the appointment of Supreme Court officers and staff by the Government after consulting the Chief Justice of India. The correct statements are the 1st and 3rd ones, making option (a) the correct choice.

Explanation

Lok Adalats have the authority to resolve disputes that have not yet reached the formal court system, rather than those already being processed in courts. These alternative dispute resolution bodies are typically led by retired judges, social activists, or legal professionals, and have the power to address both civil and criminal cases.

Explanation

Under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court of India provides advice to the President on legal or factual matters. This advice can be given by the Supreme Court either on its own accord, if the President requests it, or specifically in relation to matters concerning the Fundamental Rights of citizens. In this scenario, the correct statement is that the Supreme Court tenders advice to the President only if he seeks such advice.

Explanation

The statement 1 is incorrect because the Advocate General of a State is actually appointed by the Governor of that State, not the President of India.

Explanation

Lok Adalats have been given legal recognition, and their awards are considered equivalent to a decree by a civil court. These awards cannot be appealed in any court. However, they can be challenged through a writ petition. Lok Adalats have jurisdiction over various types of cases, including civil, matrimonial, land, property, compensation, and certain criminal cases.

Explanation

There are three High Courts in India that have jurisdiction over more than one State (excluding Union Territories). These are the Bombay High Court which covers Maharashtra and Goa, the Guwahati High Court which covers Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court which covers Punjab and Haryana. Therefore, the correct answer is option (b) 3.

Explanation

Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer were among the pioneering judges who were early supporters of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Indian judicial system.

Explanation

After retirement, a permanent judge of a High Court in India is not allowed to represent or work in any court or in front of any authority in the country, except for the Supreme Court and a High Court other than the one where they served as a judge (as per Article 220).

Explanation

In the Judges (Inquiry) Bill 2006, a Judicial Council will be set up to receive complaints against Supreme Court Judges, including the Chief Justice of India, as well as High Court Chief Justices and Judges. Additionally, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 allows women to submit a petition before a 1st Class Judicial Magistrate. Both statements are correct.

Explanation

In India, according to Article 214 of the Constitution, there is a provision for a High Court in each State. This validates the Reason (R) provided in the assertion. However, despite there being twenty-nine states and seven union territories, there are only 24 High Courts established, which means that the Assertion (A) is false.

Explanation

During the period of July 1985 to December 1986, P.N. Bhagwati served as the Chief Justice of India. It was under his leadership that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was introduced into the Indian judicial system.

Explanation

In this question, both statements are incorrect. According to Article 220, a person who has served as a permanent Judge of a High Court cannot practice in any court or before any authority in India after retirement, except for the Supreme Court and a High Court other than the one where they were a judge. Additionally, according to Article 217, a person must have held a judicial office in India for at least ten years to be eligible for appointment as a High Court Judge, not five years as stated in statement 2.

Explanation

In India, there are 25 High Courts. Punjab, Haryana, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh share a common High Court. The National Capital Territory of Delhi has its own High Court. The correct statements are 2 and 3.

Explanation

The statement (1) is incorrect because according to Article 138(1) of the Constitution, the Parliament has the authority to expand the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court regarding any matters in the Union List. However, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over other matters can be expanded through a special agreement between the Government of India and the government of the relevant State.

Explanation

In the Indian judiciary system, the highest criminal court in a district is the Court of District and Session Judge. District Judges are appointed by the Governor in consultation with the High Courts. To qualify as a District Judge, a person must have at least seven years of experience as an advocate, pleader, or a judicial officer. If a sessions judge imposes a death sentence, it must be approved by the High Court before implementation. The correct statements from the options provided are 1, 2, 3, and 4. These rules are specified in Article 233-235 of the Constitution of India under the chapter concerning Subordinate Courts.

Explanation

As per the National Human Rights Commission Act of 1993, the Chairman of the NHRC can only be a retired Chief Justice of India. The appointment is made by the President based on the recommendation of a committee that includes the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Home Minister, the Leaders of Opposition in both Houses of Parliament, and the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

Explanation

The President referred the issue of the Constitutional validity of the Election Commission's decision on deferring the Gujarat Assembly Elections in 2002 to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. This article grants the President the authority to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on important matters.

Explanation

The authority to expand the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India on matters in the Union List of Legislative Powers lies with the Parliament. This is a prerogative of the Parliament.

Explanation

The Kolkata High Court has territorial jurisdiction over the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. This jurisdiction was extended to the islands through the Extended Jurisdiction Act of 1953.

Explanation

The salaries and allowances of High Court Judges are funded from the Consolidated Fund of the State, while their pensions are categorized as Charged Expenditure under Article 112(3).

Explanation

The Supreme Court of India provides guidance to the President regarding legal or factual matters when requested. This advice is given under Article 143 of the Constitution.

Explanation

In India, there are 24 High Courts currently functioning. Six of these High Courts, namely Bombay, Calcutta, Guwahati, Kerala, Madras, and Punjab and Haryana, have jurisdiction over more than one state. The National Capital Territory of Delhi has its own High Court separate from these.

Explanation

In the context of the statements presented, it is true that both the Assertion and Reason are accurate. However, the Reason does not provide a correct explanation for the Assertion.

Explanation

The Supreme Court of India holds the authority to resolve conflicts between the Centre and the State through its original jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is outlined in Article 131 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes involving the Government of India and one or more States, disputes between the Government of India and one or more States against other States, or disputes between two or more States.

Explanation

In the Indian constitution, Article 226 gives authority to a High Court to issue writs. When the Chief Justice of a High Court performs administrative duties, he is under the writ jurisdiction of any other judges of the same High Court.

Explanation

According to Article 236 of the Indian Constitution, the term 'district judge' encompasses various judicial positions such as judges of city civil courts, additional district judges, joint district judges, assistant district judges, chief judges of small cause courts, chief presidency magistrates, additional chief presidency magistrates, sessions judges, assistant sessions judges, and additional sessions judges. However, the term does not include tribunal judges.