Judiciary and tribunals

Statement 1 is correct. Article 215 states that every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
# A court of record means a court whose proceedings are recorded and available as evidence of fact.
Statement 2 is incorrect. The pensions payable to or in respect of Judges of any High Court are charged uponConsolidated fund of India. [Article 112]
The expenditure in respect of the salaries and allowances of Judges of any High Court is charged upon Consolidated Fund of each State. [Article 202]

Statement 1 is incorrect. In order to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court, a person must be a citizen of India and must have been, for atleast five years, a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession, or an Advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at least 10 years or he must be, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.
Statement 2 is incorrect. Constitution provides that a Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
Further, Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge.

Statement 1 is correct. The Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to do for the ends of justice, transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High Court to any other High Court. [Article 139A (2)]
Statement 2 is correct. If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President. [Article 143(1)]

‘Master of the Roster’ refers to the privilege of the Chief Justice of the Court to constitute Benches to hear cases.
Supreme Court has also held that ‘Chief Justice in his individual capacity is the Master of Roster and it cannot read as Collegium of first three or five Judges. Thus, it is his prerogative to constitute the Benches and allocate the subjects which would be dealt with by the respective Benches’.

The Keshavananda Bharti v State of Kerala 1973 case was primarily about the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
In its majority ruling of the 13 judge bench, the court held that fundamental rights cannot be taken away by amending them. While the court said that Parliament had the powers to amend the Constitution, it drew the line by observing that certain parts are the basic structure of the Constitution as they are so inherent and intrinsic to the Constitution that even Parliament cannot amend it.
# In S.R. Bommai case (1994), a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court issued the historic order, which in a way put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of State governments under Article 356 by spelling out restrictions.
# In Coelho case (2007), court upheld the authority of the judiciary to review any law, which destroy or damage the basic structure including the one in 9th Schedule of the Constitution.
# In D. C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1986), court held that it is unconstitutional to repromulgate ordinances, unless in exceptional circumstances.

Statement 1 is correct. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 divides contempt into civil and criminal contempt.
-Civil contempt refers to the willful disobedience of an order of any court.
-Criminal contempt includes any act or publication which: (i) ‘scandalises’ the court, or (ii) prejudices any judicial proceeding, or (iii) interferes with the administration of justice in any other manner.
‘Scandalising the Court’ broadly refers to statements or publications which have the effect of undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
Statement 2 is correct. The superior courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) derive their contempt powers from the Constitution.
Article 129 and 215 provide that Supreme Court and every High Court (respectively) shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

President of India in exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India appoints the Judges of High Courts in India.
The provisions relating the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) has been struck down by the Supreme Court vide its order dated the 16th October, 2015 in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another Vs. Union of India.

Statement 1 is correct. Article 215 states that every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
# A court of record means a court whose proceedings are recorded and available as evidence of fact.
Statement 2 is incorrect. The pensions payable to or in respect of Judges of any High Court are charged uponConsolidated fund of India. [Article 112]
The expenditure in respect of the salaries and allowances of Judges of any High Court is charged upon Consolidated Fund of each State. [Article 202]

Statement 1 is incorrect. In order to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court, a person must be a citizen of India and must have been, for atleast five years, a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession, or an Advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at least 10 years or he must be, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.
Statement 2 is incorrect. Constitution provides that a Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
Further, Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge.

Statement 1 is correct. The Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to do for the ends of justice, transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High Court to any other High Court. [Article 139A (2)]
Statement 2 is correct. If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President. [Article 143(1)]

‘Master of the Roster’ refers to the privilege of the Chief Justice of the Court to constitute Benches to hear cases.
Supreme Court has also held that ‘Chief Justice in his individual capacity is the Master of Roster and it cannot read as Collegium of first three or five Judges. Thus, it is his prerogative to constitute the Benches and allocate the subjects which would be dealt with by the respective Benches’.

The Keshavananda Bharti v State of Kerala 1973 case was primarily about the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
In its majority ruling of the 13 judge bench, the court held that fundamental rights cannot be taken away by amending them. While the court said that Parliament had the powers to amend the Constitution, it drew the line by observing that certain parts are the basic structure of the Constitution as they are so inherent and intrinsic to the Constitution that even Parliament cannot amend it.
# In S.R. Bommai case (1994), a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court issued the historic order, which in a way put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of State governments under Article 356 by spelling out restrictions.
# In Coelho case (2007), court upheld the authority of the judiciary to review any law, which destroy or damage the basic structure including the one in 9th Schedule of the Constitution.
# In D. C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1986), court held that it is unconstitutional to repromulgate ordinances, unless in exceptional circumstances.

Statement 1 is correct. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 divides contempt into civil and criminal contempt.
-Civil contempt refers to the willful disobedience of an order of any court.
-Criminal contempt includes any act or publication which: (i) ‘scandalises’ the court, or (ii) prejudices any judicial proceeding, or (iii) interferes with the administration of justice in any other manner.
‘Scandalising the Court’ broadly refers to statements or publications which have the effect of undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
Statement 2 is correct. The superior courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) derive their contempt powers from the Constitution.
Article 129 and 215 provide that Supreme Court and every High Court (respectively) shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

President of India in exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India appoints the Judges of High Courts in India.
The provisions relating the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) has been struck down by the Supreme Court vide its order dated the 16th October, 2015 in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another Vs. Union of India.

Statement 1 is correct. Article 130 provides for the Seat of Supreme Court: The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.
Statement 2 is incorrect. Article 131A was inserted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 which provided for exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in regard to questions as to constitutional validity of Central laws. This provision was later omitted by the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977.

Statement 1 is incorrect. Superior courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) derive their contempt powers from the Constitution. The Contempt of Court Act outlines the procedure in relation to investigation and punishment for contempt. The Act additionally allows the High Court to punish for contempt of subordinate courts.
Statement 2 is correct. Fair criticism of judicial act and accurate report of judicial proceeding does not amount to its contempt. A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided.

All of the above are part of the Doctrine of Proportionality.
In the nine-judge Bench judgement of the Supreme Court in Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, in which the Court upheld privacy as a fundamental right, proportionality can be ascertained on the basis of the following:
-the action must be sanctioned by law;
-the proposed action must be necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim;
-the extent of such interference must be proportionate to the need for such interference;
-there must be procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference.

The Supreme Court recently held that the state is well within its rights to introduce a regulatory regime in the “national interest” to provide minority educational institutions with well-qualified teachers in order for them to “achieve excellence in education.”
• The managements of minority institutions cannot ignore such a legal regime by saying that it is their fundamental right under Article 30 of the Constitution to establish and administer their educational institutions according to their choice.
• “When it comes to the right to appoint teachers, in terms of law laid down in the TMA Pai Foundation case, a regulation framed in the national interest must necessarily apply to all institutions regardless whether they are run by majority or minority as the essence of Article 30(1) is to ensure equal treatment between the majority and minority institutions.
• An objection can certainly be raised if an unfavourable treatment is meted out to an educational institution established and administered by minority.
• But if ensuring of excellence in educational institutions is the underlying principle behind a regulatory regime and the mechanism of selection of teachers is so designed to achieve excellence in institutions, the matter may stand on a completely different footing”.

Article 39A of the Constitution of India provides for free legal aid to the poor and weaker sections of the society and ensures justice for all.
• Articles 14 and 22(1) of the Constitution also make it obligatory for the State to ensure equality before law and a legal system which promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity to all.
• In the year 1987, the Legal Services Authorities Ac was enacted by the Parliament which came into force on 9th November, 1995 to establish a nationwide uniform network for providing free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society on the basis of equal opportunity.
• The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) is a statutory body that has been constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to monitor and evaluate implementation of legal aid programmes and to lay down policies and principles for making legal services available under the Act.

Amid nationwide protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, or CAA, 2019, and the threat of non-cooperation by some States with the Central government’s plan to update the National Population Register (NPR) and possibly establish a National Register of Indian Citizens, Kerala has filed a suit in the Supreme Court of India seeking to declare the CAA as unconstitutional.
• Meanwhile, Chhattisgarh has also filed a similar suit, challenging the constitutional validity of the National Investigation Agency Act.
• Both have invoked Article 131, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the top court to adjudicate disputes between two or more States, or between States and the Centre.
• Article 131 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in disputes involving States, or the Centre on the one hand and one or more States on the other. This means no other court can entertain such a dispute.
• It is well-known that both High Courts and the Supreme Court have the power to adjudicate cases against the State and Central governments.
• In particular, the validity of any executive or legislative action is normally challenged by way of writ petitions — under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of High Courts, and, in respect to fundamental rights violations, under Article 32 in the Supreme Court.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was set up in 1985 with the principal bench at Delhi and additional benches in different states.
• At present, it has 17 regular benches, 15 of which operate at the principal seats of high courts and the remaining two at Jaipur and Lucknow.
• These benches also hold circuit sittings at other seats of high courts.
• The CAT exercises original jurisdiction in relation to recruitment and all service matters of public servants covered by it.
• Its jurisdiction extends to the all-India services, the Central civil services, civil posts under the Centre and civilian employees of defence services.
• However, the members of the defence forces, officers and servants of the Supreme Court and the secretarial staff of the Parliament are not covered by it.
• The CAT is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. It is guided by the principles of natural justice.
• These principles keep the CAT flexible in approach. Only a nominal fee of 50 is to be paid by the applicant. The applicant may appear either in person or through a lawyer.

A person to be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court should have the following qualifications:
1. He should be a citizen of India.
2. (A) He should have been a judge of a High Court (or high courts in succession) for five years; or (B) He should have been an advocate of a High Court (or High Courts in succession) for ten years; or (C) He should be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the president.
From the above, it is clear that the Constitution has not prescribed a minimum age for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court.

NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (NALSA) VS UNION OF INDIA case was filed by the NALSA to legally recognize persons who fall outside the male/female gender binary, including persons who identify as “third gender”.
•This was a landmark decision where the apex court legally recognised “third gender”/transgender persons for the first time and discussed “gender identity” at length.
•The Court recognised that third gender persons were entitled to fundamental rights under the Constitution and under International law.
•Further, it directed state governments to develop mechanisms to realise the rights of “third gender”/transgender persons.

Statement 1 is correct. Article 215 states that every High Court shall be a
court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish
for contempt of itself.
# A court of record means a court whose proceedings are recorded and available as evidence
of fact.
Statement 2 is incorrect. The pensions payable to or in respect of Judges of any High Court
are charged upon Consolidated fund of India. [Article 112]
The expenditure in respect of the salaries and allowances of Judges of any High Court is
charged upon Consolidated Fund of each State. [Article 202]

Statement 1 is incorrect. In order to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme
Court, a person must be a citizen of India and must have been, for atleast five years, a
Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession, or an Advocate of a
High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at least 10 years or he must be,
in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.
Statement 2 is incorrect. Constitution provides that a Judge of the Supreme Court shall
not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address
by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House
and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and
voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the
ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
Further, Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address
and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge.

Statement 1 is correct. The Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to
do for the ends of justice, transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before
any High Court to any other High Court. [Article 139A (2)]
Statement 2 is correct. If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or
fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public
importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as
it thinks fit, report to the President. [Article 143(1)]

Section 83 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides for the establishment of
an Appellate Board to be known as the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The
Intellectual Property Appellate Board has been constituted by a Gazette notification of the
Central Government in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in 2003.
It hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar under the Trade Marks Act, 1999
and the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
In pursuance of the Finance Act, 2017, all the cases pending before the Copy Right Board
under Copy Right Act, 1957 were transferred to Intellectual Property Appellate Board.
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board also exercises the jurisdiction, powers and
authority conferred with Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal to hear the appeals under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Act.

‘Master of the Roster’ refers to the privilege of the Chief Justice of the
Court to constitute Benches to hear cases.
Supreme Court has also held that ‘Chief Justice in his individual capacity is the Master of
Roster and it cannot read as Collegium of first three or five Judges. Thus, it is his
prerogative to constitute the Benches and allocate the subjects which would be dealt with by the respective Benches’.

The Keshavananda Bharti v State of Kerala 1973 case was primarily about
the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
In its majority ruling of the 13 judge bench, the court held that fundamental rights cannot
be taken away by amending them. While the court said that Parliament had the powers to
amend the Constitution, it drew the line by observing that certain parts are the basic
structure of the Constitution as they are so inherent and intrinsic to the Constitution
that even Parliament cannot amend it.
# In S.R. Bommai case (1994), a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court issued
the historic order, which in a way put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of State governments
under Article 356 by spelling out restrictions.
# In Coelho case (2007), court upheld the authority of the judiciary to review any law, which
destroy or damage the basic structure including the one in 9th Schedule of the Constitution.
# In D. C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1986), court held that it is unconstitutional to
repromulgate ordinances, unless in exceptional circumstances.

Statement 1 is correct. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 divides contempt
into civil and criminal contempt.
-Civil contempt refers to the willful disobedience of an order of any court.
-Criminal contempt includes any act or publication which: (i) ‘scandalises’ the court, or
(ii) prejudices any judicial proceeding, or (iii) interferes with the administration of justice in
any other manner.
‘Scandalising the Court’ broadly refers to statements or publications which have the effect
of undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
Statement 2 is correct. The superior courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) derive their
contempt powers from the Constitution.
Article 129 and 215 provide that Supreme Court and every High Court (respectively) shall
be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

Statement 1 is correct. The superior courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) derive their contempt powers from the Constitution. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 additionally allows the High Court to punish for contempt of subordinate courts.
Statement 2 is correct. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, lays down the law on contempt of court. Section 15 of the legislation describes the procedure on how a case for criminal contempt of court can be initiated.
In the case of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, and in the case of High Courts, the Advocate General, may bring in a motion before the court for initiating a case of criminal contempt.
If the motion is brought by any other person, the consent in writing of the Attorney General or the Advocate General is required.
However, when the court itself initiates a contempt of court case the AG’s consent is not required. This is because the court is exercising its inherent powers under the Constitution to punish for contempt.

Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 prescribes the criteria for giving legal services to the eligible persons. It includes following categories:
–A member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
–A victim of trafficking in human beings or beggar as referred to in Article 23 of the Constitution.
–A woman or a child.
–A mentally ill or otherwise disabled person.
–A person under circumstances of undeserved want such as being a victim of a mass disaster, ethnic violence, caste atrocity, flood, drought, earthquake or industrial disaster or
–An industrial workman

The Supreme Court’s constitution bench, in its judgment in Public Interest

Foundation & Others v Union of India, 2018 explains its limitations in preventing those

charged with heinous offences from becoming legislators and finds that Parliament

alone is competent to do so.

It satisfies itself by appealing to Parliament to make a law for this purpose on priority and

issues a few directions to the Election Commission and the political parties to make the

disclosure of the criminal antecedents of candidates contesting elections sufficient and clear

to the voters, so that the latter could be warned not to vote the candidates, charged with

serious offences.