QUIZ – 2020: INSIGHTS STATIC , 4 March 2021 – Polity

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.

Source

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.

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:

1. Judicial review of constitutional amendments.
2. Judicial review of legislation of the Parliament and State Legislatures and subordinate legislations.
3. Judicial review of administrative action of the Union and State and authorities under the state.

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.

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.