Civics Polity · Law Legal Studies

Judiciary and Legal Systems

1,782 Questions

Judiciary and legal systems form the framework for interpreting laws and delivering justice. Questions in this section explore judicial review, the hierarchy of courts, and the issuance of writs. This topic is crucial for polity and law prelims preparation.

Judicial reviewHigh courts structureIssuance of writsSubordinate courtsPublic interest litigation

Judiciary and Legal Systems Questions

Multiple choice
  1. gross inefficiency

  2. imbecile conduct

  3. proven misbehaviour or incapacity

  4. senility

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Option (3) is correct: A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed under the constitution only on the grounds of proven misconduct or incapacity and by an order of the President of India, only after a notice signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha, is passed by a two-third majority in each House of the Parliament.

Multiple choice
  1. It has the powers of a court to punish for contempt of itself

  2. Its judgements are binding on all courts

  3. It has got powers to pass orders for enforcement of its own judgements

  4. Full faith and credit shall be given to all its judgements

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

Under Article 129 and Article 141 of the Constitution, 'court of record' has multiple meanings: contempt powers (A), binding precedents (B), and full faith and credit to judgments (D). Option A is correct - contempt power is a key attribute of courts of record.

Multiple choice
  1. Justice Black Stone

  2. J. Douglas

  3. Lord Denning

  4. Lord Atkin

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

The landmark Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) case, which established the modern law of negligence and the 'neighbor principle', was delivered by Lord Atkin. His speech laid down that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor. This became the foundation of negligence law.

Multiple choice
  1. (ii), (iii), (i) and (iv)

  2. (iii), (ii), (ii') and (i)

  3. (iv), (iii), (i) and (ii)

  4. (ii), (i), (iii) and (iv)

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

This question requires knowledge of the chronological order of specific Indian Supreme Court decisions interpreting 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act. The claimed order is Dhanrajgiri Hospital (ii), Bangalore Water Supply (not listed but influential), Indian Red Cross Society (i), State of Punjab (iii), and Prema Govinda (iv). Without verification of exact case dates, the claimed order (ii), (i), (iii), (iv) is provided.

Multiple choice
  1. the Privy Council

  2. the Kings Division Bench

  3. the House of Lords

  4. none of these

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

Ryland v. Fletcher (1868) is a foundational case in English tort law establishing the rule of strict liability for escape of dangerous things from land. The case was decided by the House of Lords, which was then the highest court in the UK. However, at that time, appeals from certain colonies went to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was the final appellate body for many British territories.

Multiple choice
  1. Article 141

  2. Article 129

  3. Article 142

  4. Both A and B

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

Article 129 explicitly empowers the Supreme Court to punish contempt of court, while Article 141 deals with binding precedents (law declaration) and does not contain contempt powers. Article 142 provides enforcement powers but is primarily about remedial jurisdiction, not contempt per se. The question asks which articles do NOT contain contempt powers.

Multiple choice
  1. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

  2. (ii) (i) (iii) (iv)

  3. (ii) (i) (iv) (iii)

  4. (i) (ii) (iv) (iii)

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

The chronological order is: Sankal Chand (1979), S.P. Gupta (1981 - First Judges Case), President's Special Reference No. 1 (October 1993), Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record (December 1993 - Second Judges Case). Option B correctly represents this sequence.

Multiple choice
  1. I, IV, Il and III

  2. IV, II, lll and l

  3. II, Ill, I and IV

  4. Ill, IV, I and II

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

Pipraich Sugar Mills vs. Mazdoor Union 1956 Management of V.B. India Ltd. vs. Jaganath 1973 Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer 1976 Management of KSRT Corp., Bangalore vs. M. Boraih 1983

Multiple choice
  1. a trial court

  2. an appellate court

  3. the High Court

  4. the Supreme Court

  5. Both (1) and (2)

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
E Correct answer
Explanation

Maintenance during the pendency of proceedings is known as maintenance pendent lite. An application for interim maintenance can be made both at a trial court as well as at an appellate court.

Multiple choice
  1. is the same as the retirement age of a District judge

  2. is the same as the retirement age of a Supreme Court judge

  3. is lower than the retirement age of a District judge

  4. is lower than the retirement age of a Supreme Court judge

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

 The retirement age of a High Court judge is 62 years and the retirement age of a Supreme Court judge is 65 years.

Multiple choice
  1. Judgement of a High Court is not binding on other High Courts.

  2. Judgement of a High Court is binding on all the courts within its jurisdiction.

  3. Judgement of the same bench is of the co-equal strength.

  4. Judgement of the double bench is binding on single bench.

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Judgement of a same Bench are not of the co-equal strength. The analysis of English and Indian Law clearly leads to the irresistible conclusion that not only the judgment of a larger strength is binding on a judgment of smaller strength but the judgment of a co-equal strength is also binding on a bench of judges of co-equal strength.