Judiciary — PPSC previous year questions

Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes between the Government of India and one or more States, or between States. Advisory jurisdiction (Article 143) covers references by the President, and appellate jurisdiction (Articles 132-134, 136) covers appeals from High Courts and other courts.

The 'basic structure' doctrine was first propounded in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (24 April 1973), decided 7:6 by a 13-judge bench — the largest in the Supreme Court's history. It held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368 but cannot destroy its basic structure. Golaknath (1967) had earlier held fundamental rights unamendable; Minerva Mills (1980) reaffirmed and extended the doctrine.

Justice P.N. Bhagwati, with Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, pioneered Public Interest Litigation in India in the late 1970s and early 1980s by relaxing the rule of locus standi, notably in the S.P. Gupta (Judges' Transfer) case of 1981. He is called the father of PIL and later served as the 17th Chief Justice of India (July 1985 to December 1986). Hidayatullah, Ahmadi and Anand were CJIs of other periods with no such association.

A Supreme Court judge can be removed only for proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Each House of Parliament must pass an address with a special majority. That means a majority of the total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting. This is under Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The President merely issues the removal order after Parliament's address. So the power of impeachment lies with Parliament.

Public Interest Litigation originated in the United States in the 1960s as a way of securing legal representation for unrepresented groups. In India it was developed by the Supreme Court in the late 1970s and 1980s under Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer, who relaxed the rule of locus standi so that any public-spirited person could move the court under Articles 32 and 226.

Article 124(1) fixes the Supreme Court at a Chief Justice and 'such number of other judges as Parliament may by law prescribe'. Parliament raises the strength by amending the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. The strength was raised to 34 in 2019. The President only appoints judges within the sanctioned strength.

Statement 2 is the incorrect one: the Constitution does not fix the number of High Court judges and leaves it to the President, not the state legislature, to decide the strength from time to time. Statements 1 and 3 are correct, since High Court judges are appointed by the President.

The Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 32 is narrower because it can issue writs only to enforce Fundamental Rights, while a High Court under Article 226 can issue writs both for Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose. So both statements are correct and Statement II is the reason for Statement I.

In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) no law covered the subject. So the Supreme Court laid down binding guidelines to prevent and redress sexual harassment of women at the workplace. It treated such harassment as a breach of Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21. They held the field until Parliament passed the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

All three cases concern LGBTQIA+ rights: Naz Foundation (Delhi High Court, 2009) first read down Section 377, NALSA (2014) recognised transgender persons as a third gender, and Navtej Singh Johar (2018) is the Supreme Court judgment that decriminalised consensual same-sex relations.