57 practice questions on Judiciary from the Polity & Governance section of the UPSC Prelims syllabus.
57 come with a written explanation and 20 are actual previous year questions.
Try the sample set below - the answer stays hidden until you ask for it.
5 Easy34 Medium18 Hard20 from past papers
Sample questions
Q1
Previous year questioneasy
A Writ of Prohibition is an order issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts to:
Aa government officer prohibiting him from taking a particular action
Bthe Parliament/Legislative Assembly to pass a law on Prohibition
Cthe lower court prohibiting continuation of proceedings in a case
Dthe Government prohibiting it from following an unconstitutional policy
Show answer and explanation
Correct answer: C - the lower court prohibiting continuation of proceedings in a case
Prohibition is a judicial writ issued by a superior court to a lower court or tribunal to stop it from continuing proceedings in a case that lies beyond its jurisdiction. It is preventive in nature and operates only against judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, which is why the option about a lower court is correct. It does not lie against administrative officers or governments for executive actions, and it has nothing to do with directing legislatures to enact laws, so the other three options misdescribe the writ.
Q2
Previous year questionmedium
With reference to the 'Gram Nyayalaya Act', which of the following statements is/are correct?
1. As per the Act, Gram Nyayalayas can hear only civil cases and not criminal cases.
2. The Act allows local social activists as mediators/reconciliators.
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
A1 only
B2 only
CBoth 1 and 2
DNeither 1 nor 2
Show answer and explanation
Correct answer: B - 2 only
Under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, these village courts exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction, so statement 1, which restricts them to civil cases only, is incorrect. The Act does provide for the appointment of social workers and local activists as mediators and conciliators to encourage settlement of disputes, making statement 2 correct. Since only statement 2 holds, the answer is (b). Options (a), (c) and (d) all mischaracterise the jurisdiction and are therefore wrong.
Q3
Previous year questionmedium
With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?
AThe decisions taken by the Election Commission of India while discharging its duties cannot be challenged in any court of law.
BThe Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament.
CIn the event of grave financial crisis in the country, the President of India can declare Financial Emergency without the counsel from the Cabinet.
DState Legislatures cannot make laws on certain matters without the concurrence of Union Legislature.
Show answer and explanation
Correct answer: B - The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament.
Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any matter before it, and the Court has held that limitations contained in ordinary statutes cannot restrict this constitutional power. The statement in the question therefore means that the Supreme Court is not constrained by laws made by Parliament when exercising Article 142. The option on the Election Commission relates to the bar in Article 329, not Article 142. The Financial Emergency option misdescribes Article 360, under which the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and the option on State Legislatures concerns legislative relations, not judicial power.
Q4
Previous year questionmedium
Consider the following statements:
1. The Constitution of India defines its 'basic structure' in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy.
2. The Constitution of India provides for 'judicial review' to safeguard the citizens' liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the Constitution is based.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A1 only
B2 only
CBoth 1 and 2
DNeither 1 nor 2
Show answer and explanation
Correct answer: D - Neither 1 nor 2
Statement 1 is wrong: the Constitution nowhere defines or enumerates a 'basic structure'; the doctrine is a judicial innovation evolved by the Supreme Court from Kesavananda Bharati (1973) onwards, with its contents identified case by case rather than written into the text. Statement 2 is also treated as incorrect in the official UPSC key, because the Constitution does not use the express term 'judicial review' or spell it out as a named safeguard; the power is only inferred from provisions such as Articles 13, 32 and 226. Since neither statement is accepted as correct, the official answer is Neither 1 nor 2.
Q5
Previous year questionmedium
In India, Judicial Review implies
Athe power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders
Bthe power of the Judiciary to question the wisdom of the laws enacted by the Legislatures
Cthe power of the Judiciary to review all the legislative enactments before they are assented to by the President
Dthe power of the Judiciary to review its own judgements given earlier in similar or different cases
Show answer and explanation
Correct answer: A - the power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders
Judicial review is the power of courts to examine whether laws and executive actions conform to the Constitution and to strike them down if they violate it, so option A is correct. The judiciary cannot sit in judgement over the policy wisdom of legislation, only its constitutionality, so option B is wrong. Indian courts do not pre-screen all bills before presidential assent, so option C is wrong. Reviewing the court's own past judgements is the power of review under Article 137, a different concept from judicial review, so option D is wrong.
Q6
Previous year questionmedium
The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in
Athe president of india
Bthe parliament
Cthe Chief Justice of India
Dthe Law Commission
Show answer and explanation
Correct answer: B - the parliament
The strength of the Supreme Court (number of judges) is fixed by law, and Parliament can increase it by amending the relevant Act, so option (b) is correct. The President appoints judges but cannot unilaterally raise their sanctioned number, and neither the Chief Justice of India nor the Law Commission has the power to alter the Court's strength, so (a), (c) and (d) are wrong.
Q7
Previous year questionmedium
Consider the following statements:
1. The Parliament of India can place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
2. The validity of a law placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be examined by any court and no judgement can be made on it.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?
A1 only
B2 only
CBoth 1 and 2
DNeither 1 nor 2
Show answer and explanation
Correct answer: A - 1 only
Only statement 1 is correct. Parliament can place a law in the Ninth Schedule (via constitutional amendment under Article 31B) to shield it from challenge on fundamental-rights grounds. Statement 2 is wrong after the Supreme Court's I.R. Coelho judgment (2007), which held that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are open to judicial review if they violate the basic structure. So blanket immunity does not exist, making 'A' (1 only) correct.
Q8
Previous year questionmedium
Consider the following statements:
1. The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review.
2. The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A1 only
B2 only
CBoth 1 and 2
DNeither 1 nor 2
Show answer and explanation
Correct answer: B - 2 only
It was the 39th Amendment of 1975, enacted during the Emergency, that placed the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review; the 44th Amendment of 1978 in fact undid several Emergency-era distortions, so statement 1 is wrong. In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Amendment, which had created the National Judicial Appointments Commission, holding that it violated the independence of the judiciary, a part of the basic structure. Therefore only statement 2 is correct.
Practice all 57 Judiciary questions free
Timed practice, instant scoring, and explanations for every question. Free forever - no card, no catch.