Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts: UPSC Previous Year Questions (Polity)
This page lists 26 previous year UPSC Civil Services Preliminary Examination (General Studies Paper-I) questions on Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts (Polity), asked between 1996 to 2023. Choose an option to see the correct answer and the full explanation on the same page.
Showing 1–10 of 26 questions
UPSC 2023Polity · Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts
Q1. Consider the following statements: Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgments that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for the maintenance of efficiency of administration. Statement-II: Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term ‘efficiency of administration’. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
Explanation
Statement 1 is correct: The Supreme Court of India has held in several judgments - Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1992) and M Nagaraj v Union of India (2006) that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution would be limited by Article 335, which provides for ‘maintenance of efficiency of administration’, while considering the claims of the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the making of appointments to public services and posts.
Statement 2 is incorrect: Article 335 mentions that the claims of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) must be considered in appointments to services and posts, but this must be consistent with the maintenance of efficiency in administration. However, Article 335 does not define the term "efficiency of administration", leaving its interpretation to judicial and administrative discretion. This gap in interpretation was filled by a two-judge bench in the B K Pavitra (II) v Union of India (2019), as it held that ‘efficiency of administration in the affairs of the union or of a state must be defined in an inclusive sense, where diverse segments of society find representation as a true aspiration of governance by and for the people’.
Exam tip:
For S2, The word "defines" is a strong and rigid claim. Think practically: The Constitution is not a dictionary. It doesn’t explicitly list out or define "efficiency of administration". Hence likely false. Gives option C as correct..
UPSC 2022Polity · Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts
Q2. Consider the following statements: 1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed. 2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Court to punish for contempt of themselves. 3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt. 4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court. Which of the above statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
Statement 1 is correct: Pursuant to the recommendations made by the H N Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed to bring transparency and more clarity in the concept of contempt of court.
Statement 2 is correct: The Supreme Court and the High Courts of India have been empowered with the power to penalise for Contempt of Court under Articles 129 and 215 respectively of the Constitution of India.
Statement 3 is incorrect: The Constitution of India does not define Civil Contempt and/or Criminal Contempt. However, the expression has been defined by the Contempt of Court Act of 1971.
Statement 4 is correct: Article 142 (2) of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to make any order necessary for securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself, subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament. The Parliament passed the Contempt of Court Act of 1971 pursuant to this.
Additional insight:
Types of Contempt:
Civil Contempt: Willful disobedience of a judgment, order, writ, or breach of an undertaking given to a court. Criminal Contempt: Involves acts or publications that:
Scandalize or lower the authority of the court.
Prejudice or interfere with judicial proceedings.
Obstruct the administration of justice in any manner.
UPSC 2022Polity · Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts
Q3. With reference to India, consider the following statements: 1. Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates. 2. Bar Councils have the power to lay down the rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
Statement 1 is incorrect: The term "advocate" under the Advocates Act, 1961 refers to a person who has been enrolled as an advocate in the state Bar Council and is authorized to practice law in courts. Corporate lawyers and patent attorneys, however, are not excluded from recognition as advocates. Corporate lawyers often practice in corporate law firms, while patent attorneys handle intellectual property law.
Statement 2 is correct: The Bar Council of India is responsible for overseeing legal education, setting standards for law colleges, and recognizing institutions that offer law degrees. This power extends to setting norms and conditions for legal education to meet the standards required to practice law in India.
Exam tip:
For S1, Spot the trap: It plays on the term "recognised as advocates", trying to split legal professionals into arbitrary buckets. The nature of work or job title (e.g., government counsel, corporate lawyer, patent attorney) is not what determines "advocate" status -- what matters is Bar enrollment. Hence likely false.
UPSC 2021Polity · Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts
Q4. With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements: 1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India. 2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
Statement 1 is correct: As per Article 128 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of India may, at any time, with the previous consent of the President, can request a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a retired judge of a High Court to sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court for a temporary period. Such a judge is entitled to such allowances as the president may determine. He will also enjoy all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a judge of the Supreme Court.
Statement 2 is incorrect: The Supreme Court possesses of the Constitution. In contrast, High Courts do not have a similar constitutional provision; their power to review their own judgments arises from statutory provisions--specifically, Section 114 and Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). These statutory powers are limited in scope compared to the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court. Therefore, equating the review powers of High Courts with those of the Supreme Court is not technically accurate. Moreover, the Supreme Court has also evolved the concept of a curative petition, which extends its review jurisdiction and is not available to High Courts. Note: UPSC has given its official answer as (a).
UPSC 2019Polity · Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts
Q5. Consider the following statements: 1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India. 3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 was passed to regulate the procedure for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court.
Statement 1 is incorrect: As per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, a removal motion signed by 100 members (Lok Sabha) or 50 members (Rajya Sabha) is to be given to the Speaker/ Chairman. The speaker has the discretion to accept or reject the motion. Statement is 2 incorrect: The Constitution of India does not define and gives details of the expression ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India which are the ground for the impeachment of the Judges.
Statement 3 is correct: The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India is governed by the Judges Enquiry Act (1968).
Statement 4 is correct: If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires that the motion be passed by a ‘special majority’ i.e. majority of the total membership of the House and majority of not less than two thirds members present and voting.
Additional insight:
After removal motion is admitted, then the Speaker/ Chairman is to constitute a three-member committee to investigate the charges. The committee should consist of the chief justice or a judge of the Supreme Court, a chief justice of a high court, and a distinguished jurist.
Exam tip:
"For S1, Trap: "cannot be rejected" --> Absolute language. Hence likely false. For S2, Trap: Constitution gives details Ask: "Is Constitution ever very detailed about such sub-jective terms?" No. Terms like ‘proved misbehaviour’ and ‘incapacity’ are undefined, left to interpretation. Hence likely false too."
UPSC 2019Polity · Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts
Q6. With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibition or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?
Explanation
Article 142 of the Indian Constitution deals with the Enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc. The SC Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to make orders that may not be bound by existing laws enacted by Parliament, enabling the Court to act in ways that ensure complete justice.
UPSC 2015Polity · Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts
Q7. Who/Which of the following is the custodian of the Constitution of India?
Explanation
The custodian of the Constitution of India refers to the body or entity responsible for interpreting and upholding the provisions of the Constitution. This includes the interpretation of laws, the protection of fundamental rights, and ensuring that the government acts in accordance with the Constitution. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to enforce the fundamental rights of citizens through writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is considered the final interpreter and guardian of the Constitution. It can examine the constitutionality of laws and actions taken by the Parliament or State Legislatures and can strike down any law that it finds to be unconstitutional.
UPSC 2014Polity · Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts
Q8. The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in
Explanation
Article 124(1) of the Indian Constitution mandates the establishment of the Supreme Court, consisting of the Chief Justice of India and such other judges as Parliament may prescribe from time to time.
Option (b) is correct: The power to increase the number of Supreme Court judges lies with Parliament. Under the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2019, the number of judges was increased by three, bringing the total number of judges, including the Chief Justice, to 34, up from 31.
UPSC 2014Polity · Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts
Q9. The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the Centre and the States falls under its:
Explanation
According to Article 131, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between two or more states. It also handles disputes between the Central Government and one or more states, or between different states and the Centre. The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction is exclusive in such federal disputes, meaning only the Court can resolve these matters. This ensures that conflicts between the Government of India and states are directly addressed by the Supreme Court.
UPSC 2012Polity · Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts
Q10. Which of the following are included in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? 1. A dispute between the Government of India and one or more States. 2. A dispute regarding elections to either House of the Parliament or that of Legislature of a State. 3. A dispute between the Government of India and a Union Territory. 4. A dispute between two or more States. Select the correct answer using the codes given below:
Explanation
The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India refers to matters that can be directly brought before the Court without needing to pass through lower courts. The Constitution of India under Article 32 and 131 outlines the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Statement 1 is correct: According to Article 131, a dispute between the Government of India and one or more States.
Statement 2 is incorrect: As per Article 329 (b), no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. Hence as it cant be taken to SC court directly it does not come under original jurisdiction.
Statement 3 is incorrect: Article 131 doesn’t mention UT anywhere. Further, the original jurisdiction mentioned in 131 is regarding issues between the federal units.
Statement 4 is correct: According to Article 131, a dispute between two or more states comes under the Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Answer key for these questions
Q
UPSC year
Correct answer
1
2023
(c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect.
2
2022
(b) 1, 2 and 4
3
2022
(b) 2 only
4
2021
(a) 1 only
5
2019
(c) 3 and 4 only
6
2019
(b) The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament.
7
2015
(d) The Supreme Court of India
8
2014
(b) The Parliament
9
2014
(c) original jurisdiction
10
2012
(c) 1 and 4
Frequently asked questions
How many previous year UPSC questions are there on Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts?
This page covers 26 previous year UPSC Prelims GS Paper-I questions on Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts (Polity), asked between 1996 to 2023. Each has the correct answer and an explanation.
How should I use previous year UPSC questions for Prelims?
Attempt each question first, then open the answer and read the explanation for every option. Repeat by chapter, and track which statements UPSC reuses across years. Previous year questions show the exam pattern and difficulty level.
Which years are covered for Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts?
Questions on Higher Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts (Polity) are available for 17 years, from 1996 to 2023. Use the Year filter to practise a single paper.
