Study this in the app →

English · हिन्दी · తెలుగు · தமிழ் · മലയാളം · मराठी · ಕನ್ನಡ

Quick recap: the Judiciary on one page

ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವರಣೆ

Judiciary · Quick recap · Fact-checked on · how we check

Written with AI from the sources listed at the bottom of this page, then fact-checked by a separate AI.

All three parts of the Judiciary condensed for quick revision: the Supreme Court and its jurisdiction, High Courts, subordinate courts, tribunals and legal aid, and judicial review, the basic structure and PIL, with a one-table comparison of the two higher courts and eight mixed questions.

Each idea is explained first in Kannada (ಕನ್ನಡ), ending with the English and Hindi exam terms, followed by the same point in exam English. UPSC Prelims is in English or Hindi, so understand it in Kannada and revise it in English.

ನಮ್ಮ ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದೇ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ; ಅದರ ತುದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ. ವಿಧಿ 124: ಭಾರತದ ಮುಖ್ಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಹೊರತು ಇತರ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಧೀಶರ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯನ್ನು ಸಂಸತ್ತು ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಮೂಲಕ ನಿಗದಿಪಡಿಸುತ್ತದೆ; 2019ರಿಂದ 33. ಅರ್ಹತೆ: ನಾಗರಿಕ; ಐದು ವರ್ಷ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಧೀಶ, ಅಥವಾ ಹತ್ತು ವರ್ಷ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ವಕೀಲ, ಅಥವಾ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಪತಿಯ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಖ್ಯಾತ ನ್ಯಾಯಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಜ್ಞ; 65 ವರ್ಷದವರೆಗೆ ಹುದ್ದೆ. ನೇಮಕ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಪತಿಯದು, ಆದರೆ 1993, 1998ರ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಧೀಶರ ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳ ನಂತರ ಶಿಫಾರಸು ಕೊಲಿಜಿಯಂ (ಮುಖ್ಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ + ನಾಲ್ವರು ಹಿರಿಯರು) ನಿಂದ. NJAC 16 ಅಕ್ಟೋಬರ್ 2015ರಂದು ರದ್ದಾಯಿತು. ಪದಚ್ಯುತಿ: ಸಾಬೀತಾದ ದುರ್ವರ್ತನೆ ಅಥವಾ ಅಸಮರ್ಥತೆಗೆ ಮಾತ್ರ, ಎರಡೂ ಸದನಗಳ ವಿಶೇಷ ಬಹುಮತದಿಂದ; ಇದುವರೆಗೆ ಯಾರನ್ನೂ ತೆಗೆದಿಲ್ಲ — ಅಷ್ಟು ಗಟ್ಟಿಯಾದ ಬಾಗಿಲು. (→ English: Supreme Court · हिन्दी: उच्चतम न्यायालय)

In exam EnglishIndia has a single, integrated judiciary with the Supreme Court at the top. Under Article 124 the Court consists of the Chief Justice of India and other judges whose number Parliament fixes by law; since the 2019 amendment of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, that is 33 other judges. A judge must be a citizen and have been a High Court judge for five years, a High Court advocate for ten years, or a distinguished jurist in the President's opinion, and serves until the age of 65. The President appoints the judges, but since the Second (1993) and Third (1998) Judges cases the recommendation comes from a collegium of the Chief Justice and the four senior-most judges. The 99th Amendment's National Judicial Appointments Commission was struck down on 16 October 2015. A judge can be removed only for proved misbehaviour or incapacity, on an address by each House passed by a majority of its total membership and two-thirds of those present and voting, under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968; no Supreme Court judge has been removed so far.

ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಅಧಿಕಾರಗಳು ಹಲವು ಬಗೆ. ವಿಧಿ 131 ಮೂಲ ಅಧಿಕಾರ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿ: ಕೇಂದ್ರ-ರಾಜ್ಯಗಳು ಅಥವಾ ರಾಜ್ಯಗಳ ನಡುವಿನ ಕಾನೂನು ಹಕ್ಕು ಒಳಗೊಂಡ ವಿವಾದಗಳು ನೇರವಾಗಿ ಇಲ್ಲಿಗೇ, ಬೇರೆಲ್ಲೂ ಅಲ್ಲ. 32: ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳಿಗೆ ರಿಟ್‌ಗಳು (ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳಿಗೂ ಈ ಅಧಿಕಾರವಿದೆ). 132-134: ಸಾಂವಿಧಾನಿಕ, ಸಿವಿಲ್, ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್ ಮೇಲ್ಮನವಿಗಳು; 136: ಬಹುತೇಕ ಯಾವುದೇ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ, ನ್ಯಾಯಮಂಡಳಿಯಿಂದ ವಿಶೇಷ ಅನುಮತಿ. 143: ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಪತಿ ಸಲಹೆ ಕೇಳಬಹುದು, ಆದರೆ ಅದು ಅವರಿಗೆ ಬದ್ಧವಲ್ಲ — ವೈದ್ಯರ ಸಲಹೆಯಂತೆ. 129: ದಾಖಲೆ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ, ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ನಿಂದನೆಗೆ ಶಿಕ್ಷೆ; 141: ಅದರ ತೀರ್ಪು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳಿಗೂ ಕಾನೂನು. ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ: ಹುದ್ದೆಯ ಭದ್ರತೆ, ಸಂಚಿತ ನಿಧಿಯಿಂದ ವೆಚ್ಚ, ಪದಚ್ಯುತಿ ನಿರ್ಣಯ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಧೀಶರ ನಡತೆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸಂಸತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಚರ್ಚೆ ಇಲ್ಲ (121), ನಿವೃತ್ತಿಯ ನಂತರ ವಕೀಲಿ ನಿಷೇಧ. (→ English: original jurisdiction · हिन्दी: आरंभिक अधिकारिता)

In exam EnglishThe Court's jurisdiction comes in several kinds. Its original jurisdiction under Article 131 is exclusive and covers disputes between the Government of India and the States, or between States, in which a legal right is involved. Under Article 32 it issues writs to enforce Fundamental Rights, a power it shares with the High Courts. Its appellate jurisdiction covers constitutional, civil and criminal appeals (Articles 132 to 134), and under Article 136 it may grant special leave to appeal from almost any court or tribunal. Under Article 143 the President may seek its opinion on a question of law or fact of public importance; the opinion does not bind the President. Article 129 makes it a court of record with power to punish for contempt of itself, and Article 141 makes the law it declares binding on all courts in India. Its independence rests on security of tenure, expenses charged on the Consolidated Fund, the bar in Article 121 on Parliament discussing a judge's conduct except on a motion for removal, and the ban on practice after retirement.

ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಕೆಳಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿ ರಾಜ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಒಂದು ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ (214); ಎರಡು-ಮೂರು ರಾಜ್ಯಗಳಿಗೆ ಒಂದೇ ಇರಬಹುದು; 1 ಜನವರಿ 2019ರಿಂದ ಒಟ್ಟು 25. ನ್ಯಾಯಾಧೀಶರ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯನ್ನು ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಪತಿ ನಿಗದಿಪಡಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ; ನೇಮಕಕ್ಕೆ ಮೊದಲು ಭಾರತದ ಮುಖ್ಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ, ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲ, ಆ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಖ್ಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ಸಮಾಲೋಚನೆ. ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಖ್ಯಾತ ನ್ಯಾಯಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಜ್ಞರ ದಾರಿ ಇಲ್ಲ; ನಿವೃತ್ತಿ 62ಕ್ಕೆ. 226: ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳಿಗೆ ಮಾತ್ರವಲ್ಲ, 'ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಉದ್ದೇಶಕ್ಕೂ' ರಿಟ್ — 32ಕ್ಕಿಂತ ವಿಶಾಲ; 227: ತನ್ನ ಪ್ರದೇಶದ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳು, ನ್ಯಾಯಮಂಡಳಿಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಮೇಲ್ವಿಚಾರಣೆ. ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಧೀಶರನ್ನು ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಸಮಾಲೋಚಿಸಿ ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರು ನೇಮಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನ್ಯಾಯಮಂಡಳಿಗಳು (42ನೇ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ) ವಿಶೇಷ ವಿವಾದಗಳನ್ನು ನೋಡುತ್ತವೆ; ಚಂದ್ರಕುಮಾರ್ (1997) ನಂತರ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಪರಾಮರ್ಶೆಗೆ ಒಳಪಟ್ಟಿವೆ. 39A, 1987ರ ಕಾನೂನು: ಉಚಿತ ಕಾನೂನು ನೆರವು; ಲೋಕ ಅದಾಲತ್ ತೀರ್ಪು ಅಂತಿಮ, ಮೇಲ್ಮನವಿ ಇಲ್ಲ — ಊರ ಹಿರಿಯರ ಮುಂದೆ ಇಬ್ಬರೂ ಒಪ್ಪಿದ ರಾಜಿಯಂತೆ. (→ English: High Court · हिन्दी: उच्च न्यायालय)

In exam EnglishBelow the Supreme Court, Article 214 provides a High Court for each State, though Parliament may set up a common High Court for two or more States; India has had 25 High Courts since 1 January 2019. The President fixes the number of High Court judges and appoints them after consulting the Chief Justice of India, the Governor and the High Court's Chief Justice. There is no distinguished-jurist route, and High Court judges retire at 62. Article 226 lets a High Court issue writs for Fundamental Rights and 'for any other purpose', which is wider than Article 32, and Article 227 gives it superintendence over all courts and tribunals in its territory. District judges are appointed by the Governor in consultation with the High Court, which controls the subordinate courts. Tribunals under Part XIVA, added by the 42nd Amendment, decide specialised disputes, but after L. Chandra Kumar (1997) their decisions remain subject to High Court review. Article 39A and the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provide free legal aid, and a Lok Adalat award is final, with no appeal against it.
Supreme Court and High Courts at a glance
Supreme CourtHigh Court
ConstitutionPart V, Chapter IV (Articles 124–147)Part VI, Chapter V (Articles 214–231)
Number of judges fixed byParliament by lawThe President
Distinguished jurist routeYesNo
Retirement age6562
WritsArticle 32: Fundamental Rights onlyArticle 226: Fundamental Rights and any other purpose
Oath beforeThe President or a person appointed by the PresidentThe Governor or a person appointed by the Governor
Practice after retirementBarred in every courtOnly in the Supreme Court and other High Courts
RemovalAddress by both Houses with special majority (Article 124(4))Same manner as a Supreme Court judge

ಮೂರನೇ ಭಾಗ: ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳು ಇತರ ಅಂಗಗಳನ್ನು ಹೇಗೆ ಹಿಡಿತದಲ್ಲಿಡುತ್ತವೆ. ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಪರಾಮರ್ಶೆ 13, 32, 226 ಮುಂತಾದ ವಿಧಿಗಳ ಆಧಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳು, ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಕ್ರಮಗಳು, ಸಂವಿಧಾನ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಗಳನ್ನೂ ಪರೀಕ್ಷಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಕೇಶವಾನಂದ ಭಾರತಿ (1973): ಯಾವ ಭಾಗವನ್ನಾದರೂ ತಿದ್ದಬಹುದು, ಆದರೆ ಮೂಲ ರಚನೆಯನ್ನಲ್ಲ; ನಂತರ ರಾಜ್ ನಾರಾಯಣ್ (1975), ಮಿನರ್ವಾ ಮಿಲ್ಸ್ (1980), ವಾಮನ್ ರಾವ್ (1981), ಕೊಯೆಲ್ಹೊ (2007), NJAC (2015) ಇದನ್ನು ಬಳಸಿದವು. ಕ್ರಿಯಾಶೀಲತೆ: ಮೇನಕಾ ಗಾಂಧಿ (1978) ನಂತರ ವಿಧಿ 21ರ ವಿಸ್ತರಣೆ, ವಿಶಾಖಾ ಮಾರ್ಗಸೂಚಿ (1997); ಸಂಯಮ ಅದನ್ನು ಸಮತೋಲನಗೊಳಿಸುತ್ತದೆ, ಮಿತಿ ಮೀರಿದರೆ ಟೀಕೆ. ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಹಿತಾಸಕ್ತಿ ಮೊಕದ್ದಮೆ 1970ರ ದಶಕದ ಕೊನೆಯಿಂದ ಹುಸೈನಾರಾ ಖಾತೂನ್ (1979), ಎಸ್.ಪಿ. ಗುಪ್ತಾ (1981) ಮುಂತಾದ ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳಿಂದ ಬೆಳೆಯಿತು; ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ಯಾರಾದರೂ, ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಬರಲಾಗದವರ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಬರಬಹುದು — ಕಣ್ಣಿಲ್ಲದವರಿಗೆ ದಾರಿ ತೋರುವ ಕೈಯಂತೆ. (→ English: judicial review · हिन्दी: न्यायिक पुनर्विलोकन)

In exam EnglishPart 3 showed what these courts do to the other organs. judicial review rests on Articles 13, 32, 226 and others and reaches laws, executive action and constitutional amendments. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) the Court held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but not its basic structure; Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), Minerva Mills (1980), Waman Rao (1981), I.R. Coelho (2007) and the NJAC case (2015) applied the doctrine. Judicial activism, seen in the growth of Article 21 after Maneka Gandhi (1978) and in the Vishaka guidelines (1997), is balanced by judicial restraint and criticised when it turns into overreach. public interest litigation, which grew from the late 1970s through cases such as Hussainara Khatoon (1979) and S.P. Gupta (1981), relaxed locus standi so that anyone acting in good faith can approach the courts for those who cannot.

Exam traps

Recap

Practice questions

Q1. Consider the following statements:
1. A distinguished jurist, in the opinion of the President, can be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court.
2. A distinguished jurist, in the opinion of the President, can be appointed a judge of a High Court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. 1 only
  2. 2 only
  3. Both 1 and 2
  4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer

Answer: A. 1 only

Article 124(3) includes the distinguished jurist category for the Supreme Court; Article 217(2) has no such category for High Courts. So '2 only', 'both' and 'neither' are wrong.

Q2. A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed by the President on an address by each House of Parliament supported by:

  1. A simple majority of members present and voting
  2. A majority of the total membership of the House and two-thirds of members present and voting
  3. Two-thirds of the total membership of the House
  4. Three-fourths of members present and voting
Show answer

Answer: B. A majority of the total membership of the House and two-thirds of members present and voting

Article 124(4) requires, in each House in the same session, a majority of the total membership and not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting. A simple majority is too low; two-thirds of the total membership is the test for impeaching the President, not for removing a judge; three-fourths is not used.

Q3. With reference to the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 143, which one of the following statements is correct?

  1. Only the Union Cabinet can refer a question to the Court
  2. The opinion given by the Court binds the President
  3. The President may refer a question of law or fact of public importance, and the opinion is not binding on the President
  4. Questions of fact cannot be referred
Show answer

Answer: C. The President may refer a question of law or fact of public importance, and the opinion is not binding on the President

Article 143(1) lets the President refer a question of law or fact of public importance, and the opinion does not bind the President. The reference is made by the President, not by the Cabinet in its own name; the opinion is not binding; questions of fact can be referred.

Q4. Consider the following statements about High Courts:
1. The number of judges of a High Court is fixed by Parliament by law.
2. A judge of a High Court holds office until the age of 62 years.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. 1 only
  2. 2 only
  3. Both 1 and 2
  4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer

Answer: B. 2 only

Statement 2 is correct (Article 217, as amended by the 15th Amendment, 1963). Statement 1 is wrong: under Article 216 the President fixes the number; Parliament does so only for the Supreme Court. So '1 only', 'both' and 'neither' are wrong.

Q5. Why is the writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 described as wider than that of the Supreme Court under Article 32?

  1. A High Court can issue writs to enforce Fundamental Rights and also for any other purpose
  2. A High Court can issue more kinds of writs than the five named in the Constitution
  3. Article 226 is itself a Fundamental Right
  4. A High Court's writs run throughout India
Show answer

Answer: A. A High Court can issue writs to enforce Fundamental Rights and also for any other purpose

Article 226 covers Fundamental Rights 'and for any other purpose', while Article 32 is limited to Fundamental Rights. Both articles name the same five writs; Article 32, not Article 226, is a Fundamental Right; a High Court's writs run within its territory.

Q6. Consider the following statements about Lok Adalats:
1. An award of a Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court.
2. An appeal against a Lok Adalat award lies to the High Court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. 1 only
  2. 2 only
  3. Both 1 and 2
  4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer

Answer: A. 1 only

Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, a Lok Adalat award is deemed a civil court decree and is final; no appeal lies against it. So statement 2 is wrong, and '2 only', 'both' and 'neither' are wrong.

Q7. The doctrine that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution but cannot destroy its basic structure was laid down in:

  1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
  2. I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
  3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
  4. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
Show answer

Answer: C. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Kesavananda Bharati (1973) laid down the basic structure doctrine. Shankari Prasad allowed amendment of Fundamental Rights without that limit; Golaknath barred amendments abridging Fundamental Rights; S.P. Gupta is known for relaxing locus standi and for the First Judges case.

Q8. In which year did the Supreme Court strike down the 99th Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission?

  1. 1993
  2. 1998
  3. 2014
  4. 2015
Show answer

Answer: D. 2015

The NJAC was struck down on 16 October 2015 in the Fourth Judges case. 1993 and 1998 are the years of the Second and Third Judges cases that built the collegium; 2014 is the year the 99th Amendment was enacted.

← Part 3All parts

Study this in the Upscore app to keep notes, save it for revision, track your practice scores and follow a plan to the exam date. It's free.

Study this in the app →

Sources