INSIGHTS STATIC QUIZ 2020 - 21
Quiz-summary
0 of 5 questions completed
Questions:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Information
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading...
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to finish following quiz, to start this quiz:
Results
0 of 5 questions answered correctly
Your time:
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 points, (0)
Categories
- Not categorized 0%
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Answered
- Review
-
Question 1 of 5
1. Question
Consider the following statements regarding appointment of Supreme Court judges.
- The Chief Justice of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of India.
- Whenever there is any doubt about the senior most Judge to hold the office of the Chief Justice of India, the matter is decided by the Parliament.
- For appointing Judges of the Supreme Court, the recommendation of collegium to the President is binding during first instance.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
Correct
Solution: a)
The Chief Justice of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President under
clause (2) of Article 124 of the Constitution.
- The names are recommended by the Collegium.
- The collegium sends its final recommendation to the President of India for approval. The President
can either accept it or reject it. In the case it is rejected, the recommendation comes back to the
collegium. If the collegium reiterates its recommendation to the President, then he/she is bound by
that recommendation.
- Appointment to the office of the Chief Justice of India should be of the senior most Judge of the
Supreme Court considered fit to hold the office.
- Whenever there is any doubt about the fitness of the senior most Judge to hold the office of the Chief
Justice of India, consultation with other Judges as envisaged in Article 124 (2) of the Constitution
would be made for appointment of the next Chief Justice of India.
Incorrect
Solution: a)
The Chief Justice of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President under
clause (2) of Article 124 of the Constitution.
- The names are recommended by the Collegium.
- The collegium sends its final recommendation to the President of India for approval. The President
can either accept it or reject it. In the case it is rejected, the recommendation comes back to the
collegium. If the collegium reiterates its recommendation to the President, then he/she is bound by
that recommendation.
- Appointment to the office of the Chief Justice of India should be of the senior most Judge of the
Supreme Court considered fit to hold the office.
- Whenever there is any doubt about the fitness of the senior most Judge to hold the office of the Chief
Justice of India, consultation with other Judges as envisaged in Article 124 (2) of the Constitution
would be made for appointment of the next Chief Justice of India.
-
Question 2 of 5
2. Question
Consider the following statements regarding
- In India, the Supreme Court and High courts can issue prerogative writs under Article 32 of the Constitution.
- The writ of mandamus cannot be issued unless the legal duty is of public nature, and to whose performance the applicant of the writ has a legal right.
- Mandamus cannot be granted against the President or Governor of a State.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
Correct
Solution: c)
The Supreme Court has ruled that reservation in the matter of promotions in public posts is not a fundamental right, and a state cannot be compelled to offer the quota if it chooses not to.
“There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the court directing state governments to provide reservations,”
Mandamus is among the “prerogative writs” in English common law — meaning the extraordinary writs or orders granted by the Sovereign when ordinary legal remedies are inadequate. These are habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto.
In India, the Supreme Court can issue prerogative writs under Article 32 of the Constitution, and the High Courts under Article 226.
Mandamus literally means ‘we command’. When issued to a person or body, the writ of mandamus demands some activity on their part. It orders the person or body to perform a public or quasi-public duty, which they have refused to perform, and where no other adequate legal remedy exists to enforce the performance of that duty.
The writ cannot be issued unless the legal duty is of public nature, and to whose performance the applicant of the writ has a legal right.
The remedy is of a discretionary nature — a court can refuse to grant it when an alternative remedy exists. However, for enforcing fundamental rights, the alternative remedy argument does not hold as much weight, since it is the duty of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to enforce fundamental rights.
When a public officer or government does an act that violates the fundamental right of a person, the court would issue a writ of mandamus against such authorities so that the person’s rights are not infringed.
The writ can also be issued against inferior courts or other judicial bodies when they have refused to exercise their jurisdiction and perform their duty.
Under Article 361, mandamus cannot be granted against the President or Governor of a State, “for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties”.
The writ also cannot be issued against a private individual or body, except where the State is in collusion with the private party for contravening a provision of the Constitution or a statute.
Incorrect
Solution: c)
The Supreme Court has ruled that reservation in the matter of promotions in public posts is not a fundamental right, and a state cannot be compelled to offer the quota if it chooses not to.
“There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the court directing state governments to provide reservations,”
Mandamus is among the “prerogative writs” in English common law — meaning the extraordinary writs or orders granted by the Sovereign when ordinary legal remedies are inadequate. These are habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto.
In India, the Supreme Court can issue prerogative writs under Article 32 of the Constitution, and the High Courts under Article 226.
Mandamus literally means ‘we command’. When issued to a person or body, the writ of mandamus demands some activity on their part. It orders the person or body to perform a public or quasi-public duty, which they have refused to perform, and where no other adequate legal remedy exists to enforce the performance of that duty.
The writ cannot be issued unless the legal duty is of public nature, and to whose performance the applicant of the writ has a legal right.
The remedy is of a discretionary nature — a court can refuse to grant it when an alternative remedy exists. However, for enforcing fundamental rights, the alternative remedy argument does not hold as much weight, since it is the duty of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to enforce fundamental rights.
When a public officer or government does an act that violates the fundamental right of a person, the court would issue a writ of mandamus against such authorities so that the person’s rights are not infringed.
The writ can also be issued against inferior courts or other judicial bodies when they have refused to exercise their jurisdiction and perform their duty.
Under Article 361, mandamus cannot be granted against the President or Governor of a State, “for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties”.
The writ also cannot be issued against a private individual or body, except where the State is in collusion with the private party for contravening a provision of the Constitution or a statute.
-
Question 3 of 5
3. Question
Which of the following statements is/are incorrect regarding Judicial Review?
- Indian Constitution confers the power of judicial review to Supreme Court only.
- The purpose of the judicial review is to review constitutional amendments only.
- Judicial review is not a part of the basic structure of the constitution.
Select the correct answer code:
Correct
Solution: c)
In India the Constitution confers the power of judicial review on the judiciary (both the Supreme Court as well as High Courts). Further, the Supreme Court has declared the power of judicial review as a basic feature of the Constitution or an element of the basic structure of the Constitution. Hence, the power of judicial review cannot be curtailed or excluded even by a constitutional amendment.
Judicial review can be classified into the following three categories:
- Judicial review of constitutional amendments.
- Judicial review of legislation of the Parliament and State Legislatures and subordinate legislations.
- Judicial review of administrative action of the Union and State and authorities under the state.
Incorrect
Solution: c)
In India the Constitution confers the power of judicial review on the judiciary (both the Supreme Court as well as High Courts). Further, the Supreme Court has declared the power of judicial review as a basic feature of the Constitution or an element of the basic structure of the Constitution. Hence, the power of judicial review cannot be curtailed or excluded even by a constitutional amendment.
Judicial review can be classified into the following three categories:
- Judicial review of constitutional amendments.
- Judicial review of legislation of the Parliament and State Legislatures and subordinate legislations.
- Judicial review of administrative action of the Union and State and authorities under the state.
-
Question 4 of 5
4. Question
Consider the following with reference to the impeachment of a high court judge.
- The procedure for the impeachment of a judge of a high court is the same as that for a judge of the Supreme Court.
- The Speaker or Chairman of the house may refuse to admit a motion for the impeachment of a high court judge.
- No judge of a high court has been impeached so far.
- Only the Chief Justice of India can pass the final order for the removal of a high court judge post-impeachment.
Select the correct answer code:
Correct
Solution: a)
The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) regulates the procedure relating to the removal of a judge of a high court by the process of impeachment.
A removal motion signed by 100 members (in the case of Lok Sabha) or 50 members (in the case of Rajya Sabha) is to be given to the Speaker/Chairman.
The Speaker/Chairman may admit the motion or refuse to admit it.
If it is admitted, then the Speaker/Chairman is to constitute a three-member committee to investigate into the charges.
The procedure is same for a SC judge.
After the motion is passed by each House of Parliament by special majority, an address is presented to the president for removal of the judge.
Finally, the president passes an order removing the judge.
Incorrect
Solution: a)
The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) regulates the procedure relating to the removal of a judge of a high court by the process of impeachment.
A removal motion signed by 100 members (in the case of Lok Sabha) or 50 members (in the case of Rajya Sabha) is to be given to the Speaker/Chairman.
The Speaker/Chairman may admit the motion or refuse to admit it.
If it is admitted, then the Speaker/Chairman is to constitute a three-member committee to investigate into the charges.
The procedure is same for a SC judge.
After the motion is passed by each House of Parliament by special majority, an address is presented to the president for removal of the judge.
Finally, the president passes an order removing the judge.
-
Question 5 of 5
5. Question
The High Court defends
- Fundamental rights
- Constitutional rights
- Statutory rights
Select the correct answer code:
Correct
Solution: c)
For instance, if a person’s “Right to Vote” is infringed, he can move the High court for infringement of a constitutional right. SC cannot be approached for issuing a writ petition.
High court also enforces legal rights, and should be approached in case of its infringement.
Fundamental rights are enforced by both SC and HCs.
Incorrect
Solution: c)
For instance, if a person’s “Right to Vote” is infringed, he can move the High court for infringement of a constitutional right. SC cannot be approached for issuing a writ petition.
High court also enforces legal rights, and should be approached in case of its infringement.
Fundamental rights are enforced by both SC and HCs.