Judiciary: Supreme Court, High Court, Lok Adalat & NALSA

Art. 131Exclusive Original Jurisdiction

4Four Judges Cases

CJI+4SC Collegium Composition

30 daysSC Review Petition Limit

Art. 226HC Writ Jurisdiction

Lok AdalatAward = Decree, No Appeal

Supreme Court: Complete Jurisdiction Map

Art. 131–139A

All 8 Jurisdictions of the Supreme Court — Article-Wise

PYQ: 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2023, 2024 — Jurisdiction types, SLP, Advisory, Curative

Jurisdiction	Article	Nature / Scope	Key Feature / UPSC Trap
Original Exclusive	131	Federal disputes: GoI vs State(s) or State vs State — disputes involving legal rights	Private party involvement removes SC’s jurisdiction under Art. 131. Also excludes pre-constitutional treaties, inter-state water disputes (Art. 262 takes these away)
Original Non-Exclusive	32	FR enforcement — concurrent with HC (Art. 226). SC can’t refuse FR jurisdiction (Art. 32 itself is a FR)	Art. 32 is a Fundamental Right — SC cannot refuse. HC writ jurisdiction (Art. 226) is broader — covers not just FRs but any other purpose
Presidential Election Disputes	71	Disputes re: election of President and VP	Original AND exclusive — no other court has jurisdiction. SC is first and final court.
Constitutional Appeal	132	HC → SC if HC certifies substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Constitution	HC certificate required (Art. 134A). Applies to civil, criminal AND other cases — not limited to civil
Civil Appeal	133	HC → SC if substantial question of law of general importance is involved	HC certificate required under Art. 134A. SC can still grant SLP even without certificate — Art. 136
Criminal Appeal	134	HC → SC; automatic right if HC reverses acquittal AND awards death sentence	No certificate needed for auto-right cases. Also: if HC withdraws case and convicts + awards death. No right in other cases — need certificate
Special Leave Petition (SLP)	136	SC’s discretionary power — any court or tribunal in India → SC	No certificate needed. Exception: Armed Forces Tribunal — SLP does NOT lie against AFT. Also: SLP against HC interlocutory orders — SC uses sparingly
Review Jurisdiction	137	SC reviews its own judgments or orders	30-day limit to file review petition. Heard by same bench. Grounds: error apparent on face of record. Open court hearing — NOT chambers
Curative Petition	Art. 142 (basis)	Post-review remedy — gross miscarriage of justice; last resort	Senior Advocate certification required. Heard by same bench + 3 senior judges. Rupa Ashok Hurra case established this jurisdiction (2002)
Advisory Jurisdiction	143	President refers question of law or fact to SC for opinion	SC MAY refuse — not binding. Advisory opinion is not binding on President but persuasive. Not a judgment — no precedent under Art. 141

⚑ PYQ Traps — SC Jurisdiction

“Art. 32 is only a remedy, not a Fundamental Right” — FALSE. Art. 32 is itself a Fundamental Right — Dr. Ambedkar called it the “heart and soul” of the Constitution
“SC’s advisory opinion under Art. 143 is binding on the President” — FALSE. It is NOT binding — merely persuasive
“SLP can be filed against any court’s order including AFT” — FALSE. SLP does NOT lie against Armed Forces Tribunal
“HC’s writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 is narrower than SC’s under Art. 32” — FALSE. Art. 226 is BROADER — HC can issue writs for any other purpose, not just FR violations
“Art. 131 disputes include private party vs State” — FALSE. If private party is involved, Art. 131 jurisdiction is ousted
“Curative Petition is a constitutional right” — FALSE. It is a judge-made remedy from Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002) based on Art. 142
“Inter-State water disputes go to SC under Art. 131” — FALSE. Art. 262 specifically bars SC jurisdiction in inter-state water disputes — goes to Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunal

📋 Five Writs — Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto

Habeas Corpus — “produce the body” — against illegal detention — can be issued against private persons too (unique!) · Mandamus — “we command” — to compel performance of public duty — cannot be issued against President/Governor or against a private person · Prohibition — prevents inferior court from exceeding jurisdiction — issued BEFORE judgment only · Certiorari — quash inferior court’s order — issued AFTER judgment · Quo Warranto — challenge to holding a public office — only for substantive (not ministerial) public offices created by Constitution or statute

Four Judges Cases: Evolution of Judicial Appointments

Art. 124 · 217

Four Judges Cases — Complete Chronology & Key Holdings

PYQ: 2013, 2017, 2019, 2022, 2024, 2025 — Collegium origin, NJAC, consultation vs concurrence

Case Name	Year	Key Holding	Impact
First Judges Case S.P. Gupta v. UOI	1981	“Consultation” = mere exchange of views only. Executive has primacy in appointments. CJI’s opinion is one of many factors.	Executive dominated appointments. CJI’s opinion not binding. Led to widespread concern about judicial independence.
Second Judges Case SC Advocates-on-Record Association v. UOI	1993	“Consultation” reinterpreted as CONCURRENCE. CJI’s opinion is binding. CJI must consult 2 senior-most SC judges.	Judiciary gets primacy. Birth of Collegium of 3. Executive cannot override CJI’s collective recommendation.
Third Judges Case Presidential Reference	1998	Collegium expanded: CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges. Written consultation mandatory. If 2 dissent → name dropped (effective veto).	Modern Collegium system established. Transfer of HC judges requires consultation with Collegium of receiving HC too.
Fourth Judges Case Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record v. UOI (NJAC Case)	2015	NJAC (99th CAA) struck down 4:1. Judicial independence = basic structure. NJAC gave executive veto — any 2 of 6 members could veto.	Collegium restored. Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) still unadopted — remains a point of executive-judiciary standoff.

⚖ Why NJAC Was Struck Down — Critical Points

NJAC composition: CJI + 2 senior SC judges + Law Minister + 2 eminent persons — “any 2 members” could veto any appointment
Law Minister (executive) having veto = violation of judicial independence = attack on basic structure
Eminent persons chosen by PM + CJI + Leader of Opposition — political element introduced into judicial appointments
Court held: even if collegium was flawed, replacing it with NJAC was a cure worse than the disease
Only Justice Chelameshwar dissented — he wanted NJAC upheld

⚑ PYQ Traps — Four Judges Cases

“First Judges Case established the Collegium” — FALSE. First Judges Case gave executive primacy. Collegium was born in Second Judges Case (1993)
“NJAC was unanimously struck down” — FALSE. It was 4:1 — Justice Chelameshwar dissented
“Collegium has 3 members” — FALSE. Third Judges Case (1998) expanded it to CJI + 4 = 5 members total
“MoP (Memorandum of Procedure) has been finalized and adopted” — FALSE. MoP remains unadopted as of 2025 — executive-judiciary deadlock continues
“Presidential Reference is same as SC’s advisory opinion” — these are both Art. 143 but Third Judges Case 1998 was specifically a Presidential Reference on collegium composition

Collegium: Composition Rules & HC Appointments

Art. 124 · 217 · 222

SC Collegium, HC Collegium, Transfer Rules & Merit vs Seniority

PYQ: 2022, 2024 — HC collegium composition, transfer rules, merit vs seniority in appointments

SC Collegium — Composition Rules (Third Judges Case 1998)

Composition: CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges = 5 members total
If one of the 4 is recommended for appointment from HC → collegium expands to 6 (includes the future CJI designate)
If candidate is from a specific HC → CJI must also consult SC judge who previously served in that HC
Written consultation mandatory — CJI’s sole opinion NOT sufficient for appointment
If 2 members dissent → name is dropped (effective veto by 2 collegium members)

HC Collegium — Composition & Process

HC Collegium: Chief Justice of HC + 2 senior-most HC judges (3-member collegium for HC appointments)
Recommendation route: HC Collegium → State Governor → Ministry of Law → CJI → SC Collegium → President
If SC Collegium disagrees → name dropped (i.e., SC Collegium has overriding say)
For appointment of HC Chief Justices: seniority-based by convention but SC Collegium can deviate for merit

Transfer of HC Judges — Art. 222

President can transfer HC judge from one HC to another — on recommendation of CJI (after consulting SC Collegium)
Chief Justices of the sending and receiving HCs must also be consulted
Consent of the judge is NOT required for transfer — though CJI must take a view
Reasons for transfer: administrative efficiency or shielding from local pressure/vested interests
Transfer cannot be used as punishment — if shown to be punitive, courts can interfere

CJI Appointment — Seniority Rule

CJI appointment: senior-most SC judge becomes CJI — supersession is NOT permitted
Supersession controversy: 1973 (A.N. Ray superseded 3 senior judges) and 1977 (Mirza Hameedullah Beg) — led directly to demand for transparent process

HC Judges — Merit vs Seniority

CJI of HC: SENIORITY alone determines who becomes HC Chief Justice (by practice — most senior puisne judge of that HC)
SC judges from HC: MERIT is primary, seniority is secondary — collegium can elevate a junior HC judge over a senior if merit warrants
CJI of SC: SENIORITY alone — senior-most SC judge becomes CJI, supersession not permitted

⚑ PYQ Traps — Collegium & Transfers

“HC collegium has 5 members like SC collegium” — FALSE. HC collegium = Chief Justice + 2 senior HC judges = 3 members only
“Consent of judge is needed for inter-HC transfer” — FALSE. No consent needed; CJI’s recommendation suffices
“Seniority determines SC judge appointments from HCs” — FALSE. Merit is primary; seniority secondary for SC judge appointments
“CJI can be superseded if deserving” — FALSE. Supersession is not permitted for CJI appointment — it’s strictly seniority
“SC Collegium recommendation is binding on President” — NUANCED. SC has held if Collegium reiterates after return → President must appoint. First time, President can return for reconsideration.

Judicial Review: Scope, Doctrines & Landmark Cases

Art. 13 · 32 · 226 · 142

Judicial Review — Constitutional Basis, Doctrines & Key Judgments

PYQ: 2013, 2016, 2019, 2021, 2025 — Basic structure, Ninth Schedule immunity, judicial activism

Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review

India does NOT have explicit provision like Marbury v. Madison (USA) — JR is implied from Art. 13, 32, 226, 246, 254
Art. 13(1) — pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with FRs = void to the extent of inconsistency
Art. 13(2) — State shall not make laws abridging FRs; if made, void to the extent of contravention
Art. 13(3)(a) — “Law” includes Ordinances, orders, regulations, notification, bye-laws, rules, etc.
Constitutional amendments under Art. 368 are NOT “law” under Art. 13 — SC held in Sankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965). Reversed partially in Golak Nath (1967), then settled in Kesavananda Bharati (1973): CAAs can be reviewed for violating basic structure

Key Judicial Review Doctrines — UPSC Favourites

Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati 1973) — Parliament cannot amend Constitution to destroy its basic structure. Elements: supremacy of Constitution, republican and democratic form, secular character, separation of powers, federal character, judicial review, fundamental rights, free and fair elections, unity and integrity of India
Doctrine of Severability (Art. 13) — Only unconstitutional part of a law is void, not the whole law; if severable
Doctrine of Eclipse — Pre-constitutional law inconsistent with FR is eclipsed (not dead), revives if FR is amended
Doctrine of Prospective Overruling — Courts can declare that a ruling applies only to future cases, not past. First used in Golak Nath case (1967)
Doctrine of Pith and Substance — For legislative competence; incidental encroachment allowed if pith is within the competence

Ninth Schedule and Judicial Review

Ninth Schedule added by 1st CAA 1951 — to protect land reform laws from JR
IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007, 9-judge bench): Laws placed in Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 (Kesavananda date) = immune from JR for FR violation
Laws placed after 24 April 1973 in Ninth Schedule = can be examined if they violate basic structure / destroy essence of FRs under Arts. 14, 19, 21

📖 Key Cases — Judicial Review Timeline

Marbury v. Madison (1803, USA): Established JR explicitly — no Indian equivalent; India’s JR is implied
Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Basic structure established; Parliament’s amending power limited
Minerva Mills (1980): Art. 368(4) and 368(5) (added by 42nd CAA) struck down — Parliament cannot claim unlimited amending power
Waman Rao (1981): Distinguished pre and post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws
IR Coelho (2007): Post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws can be reviewed — settled the law finally

⚑ PYQ Traps — Judicial Review

“India has an explicit provision like Marbury v. Madison for Judicial Review” — FALSE. JR is implied from Arts. 13, 32, 226 etc.
“All Ninth Schedule laws enjoy complete immunity from JR” — FALSE. Only pre-1973 laws. Post-1973 laws can be reviewed under IR Coelho
“Doctrine of Eclipse applies to post-constitutional laws” — FALSE. Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws. Post-constitutional laws are void ab initio under Art. 13(2)
“Prospective Overruling means courts cannot change old law” — FALSE. It means the new interpretation applies only from the date of judgment forward — to protect completed transactions
“Constitutional amendments are ‘law’ under Art. 13” — FALSE (per Sankari Prasad/Sajjan Singh). But they can be reviewed for basic structure violation under Kesavananda

High Courts: Jurisdiction, Powers & Key Features

Art. 214–231

High Courts — Establishment, Jurisdiction, Writ Power & Superintendence

PYQ: 2014, 2018, 2020, 2022 — HC writ power vs SC, HC superintendence, HC original jurisdiction

Establishment & Composition

Each State shall have a High Court — Art. 214. Parliament by law can establish common HC for two or more States — Art. 231
Currently: 25 High Courts in India (including common HCs serving UTs). Delhi HC is the only HC that is ALSO the HC for a UT (Delhi is a state-like UT)
HC judges appointed by President after consulting CJI + Governor of State + Chief Justice of that HC
Chief Justice of HC appointed by President on recommendation of SC Collegium (after consultation with CJI)
Qualification: Indian citizen + 10 years as HC advocate OR judicial office for 10 years in India
Retirement age: 62 years (SC judge retires at 65 — HC judges retire earlier)

HC Writ Jurisdiction — Art. 226 (Most Important)

HC can issue writs for enforcement of FRs AND for any other purpose — this is broader than SC’s Art. 32 (only FRs)
HC can issue writs against government bodies AND private persons — if private body performs public duty (Mandamus)
HC writ jurisdiction is original jurisdiction — even first instance in FR cases
HC can issue writs to persons, authorities, or governments within its territorial jurisdiction OR outside if cause of action arose within its territory
Territorial jurisdiction matters: HC has jurisdiction where cause of action arises — not just where the government is located

Superintendence Power — Art. 227

Every HC has superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction — including district courts, subordinate courts
Superintendence includes: calling returns, making rules, prescribing forms, settling tables of fees
Does NOT extend to courts constituted under laws relating to armed forces
L. Chandra Kumar (1997): HC’s jurisdiction under Art. 226/227 over tribunals (CAT, etc.) cannot be excluded — basic structure

Original Jurisdiction of HCs

Only some HCs have original civil jurisdiction (Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Delhi) — inherited from colonial era for cases above certain pecuniary limits
All HCs have original writ jurisdiction under Art. 226
HC is NOT a court of original criminal jurisdiction in general (Sessions Court is first instance for serious crimes)

✓ HC Under Art. 226 (Broader)

Writs for FRs AND any other purpose
Covers private bodies performing public duties
Concurrent with SC’s Art. 32
Territorial jurisdiction within state/UT
Can be excluded by Parliament — NOT a FR

✗ SC Under Art. 32 (Narrower but Guaranteed)

Only for FR enforcement
Art. 32 itself is a FR — SC CANNOT refuse
Pan-India jurisdiction
Art. 32 cannot be suspended (except national emergency)
Cannot be excluded even by Parliament (it’s a FR)

⚑ PYQ Traps — High Courts

“Art. 32 writ jurisdiction is wider than Art. 226” — FALSE. Art. 226 is wider — covers ‘any other purpose’, not just FRs
“HC retires at 65 like SC” — FALSE. HC judges retire at 62; SC judges at 65
“HC has superintendence over Armed Forces courts” — FALSE. Art. 227 excludes armed forces courts from HC superintendence
“Parliament can exclude HC’s writ jurisdiction under Art. 226” — TRUE. Unlike Art. 32, HC writ jurisdiction is not a FR and can be restricted by Parliament or state
“All HCs have original civil jurisdiction” — FALSE. Only some HCs (Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Delhi) have original civil jurisdiction for high-value suits
“HC can issue writs only within its territorial limits” — PARTIALLY FALSE. HC has jurisdiction if cause of action arises within its territory, even if govt/authority is outside

Tribunals: Constitutional Basis, Key Cases & Reforms

Art. 323A · 323B

Administrative Tribunals, Key Cases & Tribunal Reforms Act 2021

PYQ: 2018, 2021, 2025 — CAT, L. Chandra Kumar, Tribunal Reforms Act 2021, judicial independence

Constitutional Basis — Art. 323A vs Art. 323B

Feature	Art. 323A	Art. 323B
Subject matter	Service matters (recruitment, conditions of service of public servants)	Other matters — tax, foreign exchange, industrial, land reform, elections, food, ceiling, etc.
Who can create	Only Parliament by law	Parliament OR State Legislatures for their respective matters
Exclusion of HC	Can exclude HC’s Art. 226/227 jurisdiction	Can exclude HC’s jurisdiction
Example	Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) — 1985	Securities Appellate Tribunal, National Green Tribunal, NCLT, etc.

L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI (1997) — Landmark Case

7-judge constitutional bench — overruled SP Sampath Kumar (1987)
Held: Exclusion of HC jurisdiction (Art. 226/227) over tribunals is unconstitutional — violates basic structure
HC’s supervisory role over tribunals = part of basic structure — cannot be excluded even by Parliament
Tribunal decisions = directly appealable to Division Bench of HC — not single bench, not directly to SC
SC’s Art. 136 jurisdiction (SLP) remains intact — tribunals cannot oust SC either

Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021

Abolished 9 tribunals and merged their functions with HCs or other existing bodies
Tribunals abolished include: IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board), Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), PGAT, Airport Appellate Tribunal, Authority for Advance Rulings, etc.
Tenure of members: 4 years (previously varied) with no reappointment
Age: Chairman — max 70 years; other members — max 67 years
SC partially stayed certain provisions — challenged on ground of undermining judicial independence
Rojer Mathew case (2019): SC had earlier declared various tribunal rules unconstitutional for undermining independence

National Green Tribunal (NGT) — Common PYQ Focus

Established under NGT Act 2010 — statutory tribunal (NOT constitutional)
Based on recommendation of Law Commission (186th Report)
Jurisdiction: civil cases relating to environmental laws listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act
Chairperson must be a retired SC judge; members include judicial and expert members
NGT appeals go to Supreme Court directly — not to HC (unlike most tribunals after L. Chandra Kumar)
NGT has power to award compensation and restitution including restoration of damaged environment
Can take suo motu cognizance — became very active during COVID-era environmental violations

⚑ PYQ Traps — Tribunals

“State Legislatures cannot create tribunals” — FALSE. Art. 323B allows state legislatures to create tribunals for matters in their domain
“L. Chandra Kumar barred all appeals from tribunals to HC” — FALSE. It did the OPPOSITE — mandated that tribunal decisions appeal to HC Division Bench, not directly to SC
“NGT appeals go to High Court” — FALSE. NGT is exceptional — appeals go directly to Supreme Court
“Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 created new tribunals” — FALSE. It abolished 9 tribunals and merged their functions
“CAT is established under Art. 323B” — FALSE. CAT (service matters) is under Art. 323A; 323B covers other subjects

Lok Adalat & Alternative Dispute Resolution

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

Lok Adalat — Organisation, Powers, Award & Permanent Lok Adalat

PYQ: 2019, 2021, 2023 — Lok Adalat award, finality, appealability, permanent Lok Adalat

What is Lok Adalat?

Statutory ADR mechanism under Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Part VI A, as amended in 2002)
Concept derived from ancient Nyaya Panchayat — given statutory recognition in modern India
Organised at: National, State, District, and Taluk levels by respective Legal Services Authorities
Composition: sitting or retired judicial officers + other members (including lawyers, social workers) — presided over by a judicial officer

Jurisdiction — What Can Lok Adalat Hear?

Any pre-litigation dispute OR any pending case before court can be referred to Lok Adalat
Can hear: motor accident claims, labour disputes, matrimonial cases (except divorce), dishonour of cheques, land acquisition disputes, electricity disputes, etc.
CANNOT hear: cases not compoundable under any law (e.g., cases involving offences non-compoundable by nature) — and criminal cases NOT settled by parties
Divorce cases cannot be settled by Lok Adalat — only matrimonial disputes other than divorce

Award — Critical Legal Features (Most Tested)

Lok Adalat award is deemed a decree of a civil court — executable as such
Award is final and binding on the parties — NO APPEAL lies against it in any court
Award is made by conciliation and compromise — not by adjudication; parties must agree
If no settlement reached → case is returned to the court from which it was referred — no negative consequence for parties
No court fee is payable for filing in Lok Adalat. If case was pending in court and referred to Lok Adalat, court fee paid is refunded if settlement reached

Permanent Lok Adalat — Public Utility Services (Added in 2002)

Established for disputes relating to Public Utility Services (transport, postal, insurance, power, hospitals, educational institutions)
Unlike regular Lok Adalat — Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute even if parties don’t settle (adjudicatory power)
Award of Permanent Lok Adalat is final and binding — NO appeal
Composition: Chairman (retired District Judge or above) + 2 persons from relevant fields
Pecuniary jurisdiction: disputes up to ₹1 crore

⚑ PYQ Traps — Lok Adalat

“Lok Adalat award can be appealed in HC” — FALSE. NO appeal lies against Lok Adalat award in any court
“Lok Adalat can handle divorce cases” — FALSE. Divorce cases cannot be settled in Lok Adalat
“Lok Adalat is a constitutional body” — FALSE. It is a statutory body under Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
“If no settlement in Lok Adalat, parties pay a penalty” — FALSE. Case is simply returned to the court — no penalty
“Regular Lok Adalat can impose a decision even without consent” — FALSE. Only Permanent Lok Adalat has this power. Regular Lok Adalat works only on conciliation
“Court fee paid is NOT refunded after Lok Adalat settlement” — FALSE. Court fee is fully refunded on settlement

NALSA & Legal Aid: Art. 39A & Legal Services Authorities

Art. 39A · LSA Act 1987

NALSA — National Legal Services Authority: Composition, Functions & Legal Aid

PYQ: 2018, 2020, 2022 — NALSA composition, legal aid eligibility, Art. 39A, Hussainara Khatoon

Constitutional Basis

Art. 39A (DPSP) — State shall secure equal justice and free legal aid to citizens. Added by 42nd Constitutional Amendment 1976
Art. 39A is a Directive Principle — not enforceable, but Supreme Court read free legal aid as part of Art. 21 in Hussainara Khatoon case (1979)
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): Right to free legal aid for persons who cannot afford it in criminal cases = implicit in Art. 21’s right to fair trial

NALSA — Composition & Structure

Established under Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — operative from 1995
Patron-in-Chief: Chief Justice of India
Executive Chairman: Second senior-most judge of the Supreme Court
Hierarchy: NALSA → State Legal Services Authority (Patron: HC Chief Justice; Executive Chairman: Senior HC Judge) → District Legal Services Authority (Chairman: District Judge) → Taluk Legal Services Committee
NALSA formulates policies, principles and schemes for making legal services available under the Act

Who is Entitled to Free Legal Aid?

Members of SC/ST
Victims of trafficking or mass disaster, violence, flood, drought, earthquake, industrial disaster
Women and children
Persons with disability
Persons in custody (including undertrial prisoners)
Persons whose annual income does not exceed ₹3 lakh (for central cases; states may have different limits)
Victims of undeserved want including industrial workmen

📋 NALSA vs Legal Aid — Key PYQ Distinctions

Art. 39A is a DPSP — not enforceable. But free legal aid in criminal cases is a FR under Art. 21 (Hussainara Khatoon). NALSA is statutory — not constitutional. CJI is Patron-in-Chief — not President or PM. Legal Services Day is observed on 9th November every year.

⚑ PYQ Traps — NALSA & Legal Aid

“Art. 39A makes free legal aid a Fundamental Right” — FALSE. It’s a DPSP. But SC read it into Art. 21 — so in criminal cases, it’s an FR-based right (judicial reading)
“CJI chairs NALSA as Executive Chairman” — FALSE. CJI is Patron-in-Chief; Executive Chairman = second senior-most SC judge
“NALSA was established by a Constitutional Amendment” — FALSE. It’s statutory — under Legal Services Authorities Act 1987
“Free legal aid applies only to criminal cases” — FALSE. NALSA provides aid in civil and criminal matters both
“Art. 39A was in the original Constitution” — FALSE. Added by 42nd CAA 1976

Master UPSC Traps — Judiciary

⚑ High-Frequency UPSC Traps — All Topics Consolidated

⚠Art. 32 vs Art. 226

Art. 226 (HC) is broader than Art. 32 (SC) because it covers “any other purpose”, not just FRs. But Art. 32 is a FR itself — SC cannot refuse; Art. 226 is not a FR.

⚠Collegium Size

SC Collegium = CJI + 4 = 5 members. HC Collegium = Chief Justice + 2 = 3 members. Classic confusion trap.

⚠Which Judges Case did what?

1st = Executive primacy. 2nd = Judiciary primacy (Collegium of 3). 3rd = Collegium of 5. 4th = NJAC struck down. Collegium born in 2nd Judges Case, not 1st.

⚠CJI Appointment

CJI = seniority only — supersession not permitted. But for SC judges from HCs: merit is primary, seniority secondary. Do not confuse the two.

⚠Advisory Opinion — Art. 143

SC MAY refuse a Presidential Reference — not mandatory. Opinion is NOT binding on President. Not a judgment — no precedent value under Art. 141.

⚠SLP Exception

SLP (Art. 136) lies against ANY court or tribunal EXCEPT the Armed Forces Tribunal — this is the one specific exclusion UPSC loves to test.

⚠NGT Appeals

Unlike most tribunals (which go to HC after L. Chandra Kumar), NGT appeals go directly to Supreme Court — this is a specific exception in the NGT Act 2010.

⚠Lok Adalat — No Appeal

Lok Adalat award = decree of civil court. No appeal in any court. Permanent Lok Adalat CAN decide even without consent of parties — regular Lok Adalat CANNOT.

⚠Inter-State Water Disputes

Art. 131 (SC original jurisdiction) is BARRED for inter-state water disputes — Art. 262 specifically removes SC’s jurisdiction. Goes to Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunal.

⚠HC Retirement Age

HC judges retire at 62. SC judges retire at 65. Common trap — both are constitutional offices but different ages.

⚠Ninth Schedule — Cut-off Date

Pre-24 April 1973 laws in Ninth Schedule = immune from JR. Post-1973 = can be reviewed if they destroy basic structure/Art. 14, 19, 21 essence (IR Coelho 2007).

⚠Habeas Corpus vs Private Persons

Habeas Corpus is the ONLY writ that can be issued against private persons. Mandamus cannot be issued against private individuals (only against public duty holders).

⚠Curative Petition

Curative petition requires Senior Advocate certification. Established in Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002). Based on Art. 142, not a constitutional provision directly. No new grounds allowed — only gross injustice.

⚠NALSA — Who is Head?

CJI = Patron-in-Chief (NOT Executive Chairman). Executive Chairman = second senior-most SC judge. Many confuse Patron-in-Chief with the functioning head.

⚠Prohibition vs Certiorari

Prohibition = issued BEFORE judgment (preventive). Certiorari = issued AFTER judgment (curative/corrective). Both issued against inferior courts exceeding jurisdiction — timing is the key difference.

⚠Doctrine of Eclipse

Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws. Post-constitutional laws inconsistent with FRs are void ab initio (dead, not eclipsed) under Art. 13(2). Do not apply eclipse to post-1950 laws.

MCQ Practice — Judiciary (PYQ + Trap-Based)

All questions are PYQ-based or modelled on identified UPSC traps. Click Show Explanation after attempting each question. Questions are tagged: PYQ = actual PYQ, TRAP = common trap, NEW = new pattern based on recent developments.

Q1 PYQ 2021 TRAP

With reference to the writ jurisdiction of High Courts in India, which of the following statements is/are correct?

1. The writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Art. 226 is wider than that of the Supreme Court under Art. 32.
2. Art. 226 can be used to enforce Fundamental Rights only.
3. Art. 32 itself is a Fundamental Right, while Art. 226 is not.

Select the correct answer using the code below:

(a) 1 only
(b) 1 and 2 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: (c) 1 and 3 only.
Statement 1 is correct — Art. 226 allows HC to issue writs for enforcement of FRs AND “for any other purpose”, making it broader than Art. 32 which is limited to FR enforcement only.
Statement 2 is WRONG — Art. 226 is NOT limited to FRs. It covers “any other purpose” too (e.g., statutory rights, legal rights).
Statement 3 is correct — Art. 32 is itself a FR guaranteed under Part III; SC CANNOT refuse to exercise Art. 32. Art. 226 is NOT a FR — Parliament can restrict HC writ jurisdiction.

Q2 PYQ 2022

Consider the following statements about the Collegium system for appointment of Supreme Court judges:

1. The Supreme Court Collegium consists of the CJI and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
2. If two members of the Collegium dissent, the name of the recommended judge must be dropped.
3. The Collegium system was established by a Constitutional Amendment.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

(a) 3 only
(b) 1 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 2 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: (c) 1 and 2 only.
Statement 1 is correct — SC Collegium = CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges (established by Third Judges Case, 1998 Presidential Reference).
Statement 2 is correct — if 2 members dissent → name is dropped. This gives effective veto to any 2 collegium members.
Statement 3 is WRONG — the Collegium system was NOT established by a Constitutional Amendment. It is entirely judge-made law through the Four Judges Cases (Second Judges Case 1993 and Third Judges Case 1998). The 99th Amendment (NJAC) tried to replace it but was struck down in 2015.

Q3 PYQ 2019

In IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court held that:

1. All laws placed in the Ninth Schedule enjoy complete immunity from judicial review.
2. Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 are immune from judicial review for violation of Fundamental Rights.
3. Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be examined if they violate the basic structure or the essence of Arts. 14, 19 and 21.

Which of the above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only
(b) 1 and 2 only
(c) 2 only
(d) 2 and 3 only

Answer: (d) 2 and 3 only.
Statement 1 is WRONG — NOT all Ninth Schedule laws enjoy complete immunity. The 9-judge bench in IR Coelho (2007) specifically distinguished between pre and post-1973 laws.
Statement 2 is correct — Laws added to Ninth Schedule BEFORE 24 April 1973 (Kesavananda Bharati judgment date) are immune from JR for FR violation.
Statement 3 is correct — Post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws can be struck down if they violate basic structure or destroy the essence/core of Arts. 14, 19 and 21.
24 April 1973 = date of Kesavananda Bharati judgment = the constitutional watermark.

Q4 TRAP NEW PATTERN

Which of the following statements about the Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution is INCORRECT?

(a) SLP can be filed against orders of any court or tribunal in India
(b) SLP does not require a certificate from the lower court
(c) SLP can be filed against orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal
(d) Granting SLP is at the discretion of the Supreme Court

Answer: (c) — This statement is INCORRECT (and hence the answer).
SLP does NOT lie against orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal — this is a specific exception. The AFT Act itself bars SLP jurisdiction of SC over AFT orders. The SC has consistently upheld this exclusion.
Options (a), (b), (d) are correct statements: SLP covers any court/tribunal (except AFT), doesn’t need lower court certificate, and is entirely discretionary with SC under Art. 136.

Q5 PYQ 2023

Consider the following statements about Lok Adalat in India:

1. The award of a Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court and is final and binding on the parties.
2. An appeal against a Lok Adalat award can be filed before the High Court.
3. Divorce cases can be settled through Lok Adalat.
4. No court fee is charged for filing a case before a Lok Adalat, and court fee already paid is refunded if settlement is reached.

Which of the above is/are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 4 only
(d) 1, 3 and 4 only

Answer: (c) 1 and 4 only.
Statement 1 is correct — Lok Adalat award = decree of civil court; final and binding.
Statement 2 is WRONG — NO appeal lies against Lok Adalat award in ANY court. This is the cardinal rule of Lok Adalat under Sec. 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act.
Statement 3 is WRONG — Divorce cases CANNOT be settled through Lok Adalat. Matrimonial disputes other than divorce can be (e.g., maintenance, custody discussions).
Statement 4 is correct — no court fee for Lok Adalat. If case was in court and referred to Lok Adalat, court fee is refunded upon settlement.

Q6 TRAP

Which of the following is NOT correct about the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA)?

(a) NALSA is established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
(b) The Chief Justice of India is the Patron-in-Chief of NALSA
(c) The Chief Justice of India is the Executive Chairman of NALSA
(d) Free legal aid is a right under Article 21 as interpreted by the Supreme Court

Answer: (c) — This is INCORRECT.
The CJI is the Patron-in-Chief of NALSA — not the Executive Chairman. The Executive Chairman is the second senior-most judge of the Supreme Court.
Option (a) is correct — NALSA is statutory, under LSA Act 1987, operative from 1995.
Option (b) is correct — CJI = Patron-in-Chief.
Option (d) is correct — Hussainara Khatoon (1979) read free legal aid in criminal cases into Art. 21 as part of right to fair trial. Art. 39A (DPSP) provides the original mandate.

Q7 PYQ 2025 NEW PATTERN

With reference to the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which of the following statements is/are correct?

1. NGT was established by a Constitutional Amendment.
2. The Chairperson of the NGT must be a retired judge of the Supreme Court.
3. Appeals against NGT orders lie directly to the Supreme Court.
4. NGT has powers to take suo motu cognizance of environmental violations.

(a) 2 and 3 only
(b) 1, 2 and 3 only
(c) 2, 3 and 4 only
(d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

Answer: (c) 2, 3 and 4 only.
Statement 1 is WRONG — NGT is established by the NGT Act 2010 — a parliamentary statute, NOT a constitutional amendment. It is based on recommendations of the 186th Law Commission Report.
Statement 2 is correct — The Chairperson must be a retired SC judge.
Statement 3 is correct — Unlike most other tribunals (which appeal to HC Division Bench after L. Chandra Kumar), NGT appeals go directly to the Supreme Court — a specific exception in the NGT Act itself.
Statement 4 is correct — NGT has taken suo motu cognizance of various environmental matters including river pollution and deforestation.

Q8 TRAP PYQ 2021

Consider the following statements about Writs:

1. The writ of Habeas Corpus can be issued against private individuals in certain cases.
2. The writ of Mandamus can be issued against private persons if they hold a public office.
3. The writ of Prohibition is issued AFTER a judgment of an inferior court has been pronounced.
4. The writ of Certiorari is issued to prevent an inferior court from proceeding with a case.

(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 3 and 4 only
(c) 1 only
(d) 1, 2 and 4 only

Answer: (c) 1 only.
Statement 1 is correct — Habeas Corpus is unique among writs: it CAN be issued against private individuals (e.g., if a private person detains someone illegally — parent unlawfully confining adult child, etc.)
Statement 2 is WRONG — Mandamus cannot be issued against private individuals. It is issued only against public bodies/authorities performing public duties. Private persons even holding an office of trust are generally excluded.
Statement 3 is WRONG — Prohibition is issued BEFORE judgment, to PREVENT inferior court from exceeding jurisdiction (preventive). Certiorari is issued AFTER judgment (corrective).
Statement 4 is WRONG — This description fits Prohibition, not Certiorari. Certiorari quashes an order already made by an inferior court.

Q9 PYQ 2022 TRAP

Which of the following statements about the NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) case is NOT correct?

(a) The NJAC was established by the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014
(b) The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC unanimously by all 5 judges of the Constitution Bench
(c) The Court held that judicial independence is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution
(d) The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) was finalized and adopted after the NJAC judgment

Answer: (d) — This is NOT correct and hence the answer.
The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) has NOT been finalized or adopted even after the NJAC judgment (2015) — this remains a bone of contention between the executive and judiciary as of 2025.
Option (a) is correct — NJAC = 99th CAA 2014.
Option (b) is WRONG statement to check — the NJAC was struck down 4:1 (not unanimously). Justice Chelameshwar dissented. If this were an option asking “which is correct”, (b) would itself be incorrect. But since the question asks which is NOT correct about the case, (d) is the best answer as it’s factually wrong about the MoP.
Option (c) is correct — judicial independence as basic structure was the central holding.

Q10 NEW PATTERN TRAP

Consider the following statements about the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 131:

1. Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes between the Union and States.
2. A private company in dispute with the Central Government can invoke Article 131.
3. Inter-State water disputes are specifically excluded from Article 131 jurisdiction by Article 262.
4. Article 131 jurisdiction can be invoked even in disputes arising from pre-constitutional treaties.

Which of the above is/are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 4 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3 only

Answer: (c) 1 and 3 only.
Statement 1 is correct — Art. 131 is the exclusive original jurisdiction of SC for federal disputes (GoI vs State, State vs State) involving legal rights.
Statement 2 is WRONG — If a PRIVATE party is involved in the dispute, Art. 131 jurisdiction is OUSTED. The exclusive original jurisdiction requires the dispute to be ONLY between governments (Union and/or States). Private parties cannot invoke Art. 131.
Statement 3 is correct — Art. 262 specifically bars SC (and all other courts) from jurisdiction over inter-state water disputes. These go to Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunal.
Statement 4 is WRONG — Art. 131 expressly excludes disputes arising from treaties, agreements, covenants etc. that were entered into before the Constitution came into force.

Mnemonics & Memory Aids — Judiciary

Five Writs

H·M·P·C·Q

Habeas Corpus (produce body — vs illegal detention) · Mandamus (command public duty) · Prohibition (BEFORE judgment — stop court) · Certiorari (AFTER judgment — quash order) · Quo Warranto (challenge public office)

Remember: Prohibition = Preventive. Certiorari = Curative.

Four Judges Cases

E·J·5·N

Executive primacy (1st, 1981) · Judiciary primacy + Collegium of 3 (2nd, 1993) · 5-member Collegium established (3rd, 1998) · NJAC struck down (4th, 2015)

Collegium BORN in 2nd case. Grew to 5 in 3rd case.

SC Jurisdictions

OR-CA-SL-RA-AD

ORiginal (131, 32) · Constitutional Appeal (132) · Civil/Criminal Appeal (133/134) · SLP (136) · Latter = Review (137) · Advisory (143)

Curative = extra-constitutional (Rupa Ashok Hurra 2002)

HC vs SC — Writ

226 > 32

Art. 226 (HC) is bigger/broader — covers ANY PURPOSE, not just FRs.

But Art. 32 (SC) is a Fundamental Right itself — SC cannot refuse. 226 is not a FR.

Ninth Schedule Cutoff

24 April 1973

This is the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment — the constitutional watermark.

Laws in 9th Schedule BEFORE this date = immune from JR.
Laws AFTER this date = can be reviewed under IR Coelho (2007).

Lok Adalat — Golden Rules

D·F·N·R

Decree = award is deemed a civil court decree · Final = no appeal in any court · No fees = no court fee; refund if settled · Return = if no settlement, case returns to court — no penalty

Exception: Permanent Lok Adalat CAN decide without consent.

Retirement Ages

HC=62, SC=65

HC judges retire at 62. SC judges retire at 65. Remember: going UP from HC to SC gives 3 more years.

CAG also retires at 65. Election Commissioner — no fixed age, 6-year term or 65, whichever earlier.

NALSA Hierarchy

CJI — 2nd SC Judge — HCJ — DJ

CJI = Patron-in-Chief (ceremonial head)
2nd senior-most SC judge = Executive Chairman (functional head)
HC Chief Justice = State Legal Services Authority head
District Judge = DLSA head

Quick Comparison — SC vs HC Jurisdiction

Art. 32 vs Art. 226 · Art. 131 vs HC Original

Supreme Court vs High Court — Key Differences

Frequently tested comparison — writ powers, jurisdiction, retirement, appeal routes

Feature	Supreme Court	High Court
Retirement Age	65 years	62 years
Writ Jurisdiction	Art. 32 — only FR enforcement; Art. 32 itself is a FR — cannot refuse	Art. 226 — FR enforcement AND any other purpose; NOT a FR — can be restricted by Parliament
Writs Scope	Pan-India — any authority, any location	Within territorial jurisdiction OR where cause of action arises
Federal Disputes	Art. 131 — exclusive original jurisdiction for GoI vs State / State vs State	No jurisdiction over federal disputes
Original Civil Jurisdiction	Only federal disputes (Art. 131); no general original civil jurisdiction	Some HCs (Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Delhi) have original civil jurisdiction for high-value suits
Superintendence	Art. 142 — complete justice; Art. 136 — SLP over all courts (except AFT)	Art. 227 — superintendence over all courts/tribunals (except armed forces courts)
Advisory Opinion	Art. 143 — Presidential Reference (may refuse; not binding)	No advisory jurisdiction
Review Jurisdiction	Art. 137 — within 30 days; same bench	Can review its own orders under Art. 226 (no specified time limit like Art. 137)
Curative Petition	Yes — post-review remedy; Senior Advocate certification needed	No curative petition — last resort is SC
Precedent	Art. 141 — SC law is binding on ALL courts in India	HC law binding on courts within its jurisdiction only

Judiciary: Supreme Court, High Court, Lok Adalat & NALSA

Judiciary — SC · HC · Tribunals · Lok Adalat · NALSA

Supreme Court: Complete Jurisdiction Map

Four Judges Cases: Evolution of Judicial Appointments

Collegium: Composition Rules & HC Appointments

Judicial Review: Scope, Doctrines & Landmark Cases

High Courts: Jurisdiction, Powers & Key Features

Tribunals: Constitutional Basis, Key Cases & Reforms

Lok Adalat & Alternative Dispute Resolution

NALSA & Legal Aid: Art. 39A & Legal Services Authorities

Master UPSC Traps — Judiciary

⚑ High-Frequency UPSC Traps — All Topics Consolidated

MCQ Practice — Judiciary (PYQ + Trap-Based)

Mnemonics & Memory Aids — Judiciary

Quick Comparison — SC vs HC Jurisdiction

Book a Free Demo Class

Recent Posts

Categories

About

Newsletter

Contact us

Judiciary: Supreme Court, High Court, Lok Adalat & NALSA

Supreme Court: Complete Jurisdiction Map

Four Judges Cases: Evolution of Judicial Appointments

Collegium: Composition Rules & HC Appointments

Judicial Review: Scope, Doctrines & Landmark Cases

High Courts: Jurisdiction, Powers & Key Features

Tribunals: Constitutional Basis, Key Cases & Reforms

Lok Adalat & Alternative Dispute Resolution

NALSA & Legal Aid: Art. 39A & Legal Services Authorities

Master UPSC Traps — Judiciary

⚑ High-Frequency UPSC Traps — All Topics Consolidated

MCQ Practice — Judiciary (PYQ + Trap-Based)

Mnemonics & Memory Aids — Judiciary

Quick Comparison — SC vs HC Jurisdiction

Book a Free Demo Class

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

About

Newsletter

Contact us