The High Court (Indian Polity and Governance)

Total Questions: 42

21. Which one of the following writs examines the functioning of subordinate courts? [U.P.P.C.S. (Mains) 2008]

Correct Answer: (c) Certiorari
Solution:The writ of Certiorari is issued by the higher Court to a lower Court to examine the functioning of subordinate Court. The writ orders to he deliver in a case so that the higher court may review it.
  • As per Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court is empowered to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and any ordinary legal right.
  • The writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not exclusive but concurrent with the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
    ∗  It means, when the fundamental rights of a citizen are                    violated, the aggrieved party has the option of moving                      either the High Court or the Supreme Court directly.
  • However, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is wider than that of the Supreme Court.
    ∗  While the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, the High Court can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as any ordinary legal right.

22. Which among the following is issued when the procedure is pending in court? [U.P.P.C.S. (Pre) 2010]

Correct Answer: (c) Prohibition
Solution:The writ of Prohibition is issued when the procedure is pending in Court. When the lower court hears any case out of its Jurisdiction, then upper Court takes over the case by issuing Prohibition writ.
  • As per Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court is empowered to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and any ordinary legal right.
  • The writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not exclusive but concurrent with the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
    ∗  It means, when the fundamental rights of a citizen are                    violated, the aggrieved party has the option of moving                      either the High Court or the Supreme Court directly.
  • However, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is wider than that of the Supreme Court.
    ∗  While the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, the High Court can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as any ordinary legal right.

23. Given below are two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other labelled as Reason (R). [I.A.S. (Pre) 1997]

Assertion (A): Willful disobedience or non-compliance of Court orders and use of derogatory language about Judicial behaviour amount to Contempt of Court.

Reason (R): Judicial activism cannot be practiced without arming the Judiciary with punitive powers to punish contemptuous behavior.

In the context of the above two statements which one of the following is correct?

Correct Answer: (b) Both (A) and (R) are true but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)
Solution:Both the Assertion and the Reason are correct but the Reason does not explain the Assertion. Hence option (b) is correct.

As a Court of Record, the High Court has the following powers:

  • The judgments, proceedings, and acts of the Supreme Court are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony. These records are admitted to be of evidentiary value and cannot be questioned when produced before any court.
    ∗  Thus, these judgments are recognized as legal precedents                 and legal references.
  • It has the power to punish for contempt of not only itself but also contempt of subordinate courts.
    ∗  However, a High Court shall NOT take cognizance of a                    contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a                subordinate court, where such contempt is an offense                      punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  • The power to review and correct its own judgment, order, or decision.
    ∗  It is to be noted that while the Constitution specifically                  confers the power of review on the Supreme, such specific              power of review has not been conferred on the High Courts             by the Constitution.

24. With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements: [I.A.S. (Pre) 2022]

1. Mandamus will not lie against a private Organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty.

2. Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company.

3. Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Correct Answer: (c) 1 and 3 only
Solution:Under Articles 32 and 226, the Supreme Court and High Court respectively issues five kinds of writ-Habeaus corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo-Warranto. Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with public duty. Mandamus will be against a company if it is a government company. Thus statement (2) is wrong. Any public-minded person can be a petitioner to move the court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto.

25. The power of High Court to issue writ covers: [U.P.P.C.S. (Pre) 1997]

Correct Answer: (d) All of above
Solution:The power to issue writs is given to the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Court under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, and Certiorari. The power of the Supreme Court to issue writs is limited to Part III of the Constitution, but the High Court has the right to issue writs for enforcement of any of the rights conferred in Part III and for any other purpose (Legal Rights).

26. Consider the following statements and select the correct answer from the code given: [U.P.P.C.S. (Mains) 2004]

Assertion (A): High Courts are in better position to protect rights of Indian citizens than the Supreme Court.

Reason (R): Supreme Court can issue writs to protect only Fundamental Rights.

Correct Answer: (a) Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).
Solution:Both the statements are correct. According to Article 32, the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the protection of fundamental rights, but according to Article 226, the High Court can issue writs not only in matters relating to fundamental rights but also in any other matter.
  • As per Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court is empowered to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and any ordinary legal right.
  • The writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not exclusive but concurrent with the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
    ∗  It means, when the fundamental rights of a citizen are                    violated, the aggrieved party has the option of moving                      either the High Court or the Supreme Court directly.
  • However, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is wider than that of the Supreme Court.
    ∗  While the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, the High Court can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as any ordinary legal right.

27. Consider the following statements: [I.A.S. (Pre) 2007]

1. The mode of removal of a Judge of a High Court in India is same as that of removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court.

2. After retirement from the office, a permanent Judge of a High Court can not plead or act in any Court or before any authority in India.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Correct Answer: (a) 1 only
Solution:According to Article 217(1)(b), a Judge of the High Court may be removed from his office by the President in the manner provided in clause (4) of Article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court. So statement 1 is correct. According to Article 220, No person who, after the commencement of this Constitution, has held office as a permanent Judge of a High Court shall plead or act in any Court or before any authority in India except the Supreme Court and the other High Courts.

28. A High Court Judge addresses his letter of resignation to- [48th to 52nd B.P.S.C. (Pre) 2008]

Correct Answer: (a) The President
Solution:According to Article 217(1)(a), a Judge of the High Court may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office.

Removal of Judges of High Court

  • A judge of the High Court can be removed from his/her office by an order of the President.
  • They can be removed on the following two grounds:
    ∗ proved misbehaviour
    ∗ Incapacity
  • The procedure relating to the removal of a judge of the High Court is regulated by the Judges Enquiry Act (1968) and is the same as that for a judge of the Supreme Court.
  • As per the Act, the process of removal goes as follows:
    ∗ A removal motion signed by 100 members in the case of Lok Sabha or 50 members in the case of Rajya Sabha is to be given to the Speaker/Chairman.
  • The Speaker/Chairman may admit the motion or refuse to admit it.
    ∗ If the motion is admitted, then the Speaker/Chairman constitutes a three-member committee to investigate the charges. The Committee consists of:
    ∗ the Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court,
    ∗ a Chief Justice of a High Court, and
    ∗ a distinguished jurist.
    ∗ If the committee finds the judge guilty of the charges, then both the Houses of Parliament can take up the motion for consideration.
  • The motion must be passed by both Houses of Parliament with a Special Majority (50% of the total membership of the House two-thirds of the members present and
    voting).
    ∗ Once passed by both Houses of Parliament, an address is           presented to the President for the removal of the judge.
    ∗  Finally, the President passes an order, removing the judge.

29. Against which Judge the Rajya Sabha passed the motion of impeachment in 2011, but he resigned to save himself before it could be passed by the Lok Sabha? [R.A.S/R.T.S.(Pre) 2012]

Correct Answer: (c) Justice Soumitra Sen
Solution:Former Judge of Calcutta High Court, Justice Soumitra Sen was, charged for misappropriation of funds. So a motion of impeachment was passed against him in Rajya Sabha in 2011 It was also presented in Lok Sabha on 5 September, 2011 but he resigned from his post on 1-September 2011 define the bill was put in Lok Sabha.

Removal of Judges of High Court

  • A judge of the High Court can be removed from his/her office by an order of the President.
  • They can be removed on the following two grounds:
    ∗ proved misbehaviour
    ∗ Incapacity
  • The procedure relating to the removal of a judge of the High Court is regulated by the Judges Enquiry Act (1968) and is the same as that for a judge of the Supreme Court.
  • As per the Act, the process of removal goes as follows:
    ∗ A removal motion signed by 100 members in the case of Lok Sabha or 50 members in the case of Rajya Sabha is to be given to the Speaker/Chairman.
  • The Speaker/Chairman may admit the motion or refuse to admit it.
    ∗ If the motion is admitted, then the Speaker/Chairman constitutes a three-member committee to investigate the charges. The Committee consists of:
    ∗ the Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court,
    ∗ a Chief Justice of a High Court, and
    ∗ a distinguished jurist.
    ∗ If the committee finds the judge guilty of the charges, then both the Houses of Parliament can take up the motion for consideration.
  • The motion must be passed by both Houses of Parliament with a Special Majority (50% of the total membership of the House two-thirds of the members present and
    voting).
    ∗ Once passed by both Houses of Parliament, an address is           presented to the President for the removal of the judge.
    ∗  Finally, the President passes an order, removing the judge.

30. What is the nature of the dispute of Babri Mosque Ramjanmabhoomi Case before Allahabad High Court? [45th B.P.S.C. (Pre) 2001]

Correct Answer: (b) Title suit
Solution:The dispute of Babri Mosque Ramjanmabhoomi is presented before Allahabad High Court as a case of Title Suit, in which two separate communities have claimed for the same land and property.

Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991

  • It bans the conversion of a place of worship or even a section of it into a place of worship of a different religious denomination or a different segment of the same religious denomination.
  • Imposes a positive obligation on the State to maintain the religious character of every place of worship as it existed at the time of Independence.