Supreme Court & High Courts: Polity notes for UPSC Prelims

Last reviewed 28 October 2026 · Written and checked by the Prelims Lab faculty · About 40 min to read

Appointment and removal of judges, jurisdiction, judicial review and PIL, High Courts, subordinate courts and Lok Adalats. Free notes for UPSC CSE Prelims 2027, written around the traps UPSC sets, with the exact text of the Constitution and every past question on the topic.

Supreme Court & High Courts in short

Supreme Court: composition, appointment and removal: India has one integrated judiciary: the Supreme Court at the top, High Courts in the States, and subordinate courts in districts below them.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: "Jurisdiction" means which cases a court is allowed to hear. Some cases start in the Supreme Court itself (disputes between governments, rights cases), most come to it on appeal from High Courts, and sometimes the President simply asks it for advice.
Judicial review, PIL and contempt: Judicial review is the power of courts to check whether a law or government action follows the Constitution, and to strike it down if not. That makes the Supreme Court the guardian of the Constitution.
High Courts: Each State has a High Court at the top of its judicial system (a few High Courts serve more than one State). It hears appeals from district courts, protects rights through writs, and supervises all courts below it in the State.
Subordinate courts and access to justice: Most people meet the justice system in a district court, not the Supreme Court. Below the High Court sit district and sessions courts and magistrates.
Tribunals: Courts are slow and overloaded, and some disputes need special expertise, such as tax, environment or service matters of government employees. So the Constitution allows tribunals: specialised bodies that decide such cases faster, with judges and technical experts sitting together.

How to read: each section has The idea in brief (start here if the topic is new), Exam notes (the facts UPSC tests) and Ranker’s edge (the fine points). Each section opens with the bare text of the Constitution. Open In depth for the story behind it and past questions.

1. Supreme Court: composition, appointment and removal

The bare text

Bare text · Article 124Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

124. Establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court.—(1) There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than [seven] other Judges.

(2) Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal [on the recommendation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission referred to in article 124A] and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years:

[Provided that]—

(a) a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office;

(b) a Judge may be removed from his office in the manner provided in clause (4).

(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he is a citizen of India and—

(a) has been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or

(b) has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or

(4) 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.

(5) 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 under clause (4).

(7) No person who has held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority within the territory of India.

Clauses not relevant here are left out.

Amended by: 15th (1963), 99th (2014) Amendments

Subs. by the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, s. 2, for "after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Court in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose" (w.e.f. 13-4-2015). This amendment has been struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Vs. Union of India in its judgment dated 16-10-2015, AIR 2016 SC 117. 3. The first proviso was omitted by s. 2, ibid. The proviso was as under:— "Provided that in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of India shall always be consulted:" This amendment has been struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Vs. Union of India in its judgment dated 16-10-2015, AIR 2016 SC 117.Subs. by s. 2, ibid. for "provided further that" This amendment has been struck down by the Supreme Court in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Vs Union of India judgment dated 16-10-2015, AIR 2016 SC 117.

Bare text · Article 124AConstitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

[124A. National Judicial Appointments Commission.—(1) There shall be a Commission to be known as the National Judicial Appointments Commission consisting of the following, namely:—

(a) the Chief Justice of India, Chairperson, ex officio;

(b) two other senior Judges of the Supreme Court next to the Chief Justice of India––Members, ex officio;

(d) two eminent persons to be nominated by the committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition in the House of the People or where there is no such Leader of Opposition, then, the Leader of single largest Opposition Party in the House of the People––Members:

Clauses not relevant here are left out.

Amended by: 99th (2014) Amendment

Ins. by the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, s. 3 (w.e.f. 13-4-2015). This amendment has been struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Advocates- on-Record Association and another Vs Union of India in its judgment dated 16-10-2015, AIR 2016 SC 117.

Bare text · Article 121Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

121. Restriction on discussion in Parliament.—No discussion shall take place in Parliament with respect to the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties except upon a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the removal of the Judge as hereinafter provided.

Reading the text: the words that are printed but not in force

The official text still says “on the recommendation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission”. The 99th Amendment (2014) put these words into Articles 124(2), 217(1), 222 and 224A, and added Article 124A. The Supreme Court struck the amendment down on 16 October 2015 (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, the Fourth Judges case). The footnote in the text records this, but the words stay printed. In law, the older wording, “after consultation with” the judges, and the collegium system apply. An option saying “the Constitution provides for the NJAC” is a trap.
“Until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number”: the Constitution began with 7 judges besides the Chief Justice. Parliament raises the number by an ordinary law, now the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, at 33 plus the Chief Justice since 2019 (UPSC 2014).
Three routes to qualify: five years as a High Court judge, ten years as a High Court advocate, or a “distinguished jurist” in the President’s opinion. No minimum age is written, and no jurist has yet been appointed directly.
The word “impeachment” is not used for judges. Article 124(4) speaks of “removal” by an “address” of both Houses, each with a special majority, in the same session, on two grounds only: proved misbehaviour or incapacity. “Impeachment” in the text belongs to the President (Article 61).
Clause (5) leaves the procedure to law: the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Under it, the Speaker or Chairman may admit or refuse the motion; a three-member committee investigates; only if it finds the judge guilty does the House vote (UPSC 2019).
Article 121 bars Parliament from discussing a judge’s conduct, except on a removal motion. Article 211 bars State Legislatures completely.

The idea in brief

India has one integrated judiciary: the Supreme Court at the top, High Courts in the States, and subordinate courts in districts below them.

Why so hard to remove?Judges must decide cases without fear, even against the government. If they could be removed easily, they might be pressured. Their salaries are also fixed and cannot be cut.

Exam notes

Strength	Started with 8 judges (CJI + 7); now 34 (CJI + 33) since 2019. Parliament fixes the number by law (PYQ 2014)
Appointment (Art 124)	By the President. In practice through the collegium (CJI + four senior-most judges), evolved in the Second (1993) and Third (1998) Judges Cases. The NJAC (99th Amendment) was struck down in 2015
Qualifications	Citizen; 5 years as a High Court judge, or 10 years as a High Court advocate, or a distinguished jurist in the President’s opinion
Tenure	Till 65
Removal	Grounds: proved misbehaviour or incapacity (not defined in the Constitution). Procedure in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: motion signed by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members; the Speaker/Chairman may admit or reject it; a three-member committee inquires; then each House passes it by a special majority (PYQ 2019). No judge has been removed so far
Other judges	Ad hoc judges (Art 127); retired judges can be requested by the CJI, with the President’s prior consent, to sit (Art 128)
In detail, independence safeguards: security of tenure; salaries charged on the Consolidated Fund (not voted); conduct of judges cannot be discussed in Parliament except on a removal motion; no practice after retirement in any court in India; staff appointed by the CJI; power to punish for contempt (PYQ 2005, 2012).

Item	Point
Firsts	CJI H.J. Kania (1950); first woman judge M. Fathima Beevi (1989)
Judges cases	First (S.P. Gupta, 1981): executive primacy · Second (1993): CJI primacy · Third (1998): collegium of CJI + 4 · NJAC struck down (2015)
Removal	Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968; motion by 100 LS or 50 RS members; 3-member committee; none removed (V. Ramaswami motion failed, 1993)
Strength	34 including CJI (2019 Act)

Appointment and working	Details
CJI appointment	By convention the senior-most judge; the outgoing CJI recommends the successor under the Memorandum of Procedure. Convention broken in 1973 (A.N. Ray) and 1977 (M.H. Beg)
Collegium for High Courts	CJI + two senior-most Supreme Court judges recommend HC judges; the HC collegium (Chief Justice + two senior-most) initiates names
Acting CJI (Art 126)	Appointed by the President when the CJI’s office is vacant or the CJI is absent
Benches	Division Benches (2–3 judges) hear most cases; Constitution Benches (at least 5) under Art 145(3). The CJI is the “master of the roster” (Shanti Bhushan, 2018)
Salaries	Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958; cannot be reduced to their disadvantage except in a Financial Emergency
Seat (Art 130)	Delhi, or elsewhere decided by the CJI with the President’s approval
Prelims trap: The word “collegium” is not in the Constitution; Article 124 only says “consultation”. Parliament, not the Constitution, fixes the number of judges.

Removal of a Supreme Court or High Court judge

Notice of motionSigned by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members
AdmissionSpeaker or Chairman may admit or refuse it
Inquiry committeeA Supreme Court judge (or the CJI), a High Court Chief Justice and a distinguished jurist
ReportIf not guilty, the motion ends. If guilty, the House takes up the motion
Special majority in each HouseMajority of total membership + two-thirds present and voting, in the same session
President’s orderThe judge is removed (Art 124(4); Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968)

Remember it34, 65, 100/50, never: 34 judges, retire at 65, a removal motion needs 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha signatures, and no judge has ever been removed. Judges Cases: 1981 executive → 1993 CJI → 1998 collegium of 5 → 2015 NJAC struck down.

Beyond the basics · ranker’s edge

Point	Depth
Strength history	8 (1950) → 11 (1956) → 14 (1960) → 18 (1977) → 26 (1986) → 31 (2008) → 34 (2019), each by a Parliamentary Act
CJI	Justice Surya Kant became the 53rd CJI in November 2025. Seniority convention for CJI was broken in 1973 and 1977
Removal history	V. Ramaswami (1993, failed in Lok Sabha); Soumitra Sen of Calcutta HC (passed Rajya Sabha 2011, resigned); motion against CJI Dipak Misra rejected by the Chairman (2018)
Justice Yashwant Varma (2025–26)	Cash found at his residence (March 2025); removal motion admitted in the Lok Sabha and a three-member inquiry committee set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act (August 2025). He resigned in April 2026; the committee’s report (May 2026) found the charges proved. No judge has yet been removed by Parliament
In-house procedure	Adopted in 1999 for complaints against judges, short of removal
Prelims trap: “Misbehaviour” and “incapacity” are not defined in the Constitution; the Speaker or Chairman may refuse to admit a motion. (PYQ 2019)

In depth: the story behind it and how UPSC asks it

The story behind it: who appoints the judges

The text says the President appoints “after consultation with” the Chief Justice and other judges. In the First Judges case (S.P. Gupta, 1981) the Court held that consultation did not mean agreement, so the executive had the final word. The Second Judges case (1993) reversed this and created the collegium: the Chief Justice’s opinion, formed with senior judges, has primacy. The Third Judges case (1998), a Presidential reference, fixed the collegium at the Chief Justice and four senior-most judges. None of this is in the text. The NJAC was Parliament’s attempt to replace it; the Court held that giving the Law Minister and two eminent persons a role in appointments damaged judicial independence, part of the basic structure.

No judge has ever been removed. A motion against Justice V. Ramaswami failed in the Lok Sabha in 1993; Justice Soumitra Sen resigned in 2011 after the Rajya Sabha voted for his removal. In August 2025 the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted a motion against Justice Yashwant Varma, after cash was found at his Delhi residence, and set up an inquiry committee. He resigned in April 2026 before the process ended.

How UPSC asks it

UPSC 2019 Consider the following statements:
1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes 'incapacity and proved misbehaviour' of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.
1. 1 and 2
2. 3 only
3. 3 and 4 only
4. 1, 3 and 4
Show answer
(c) 3 and 4 only. The Speaker may admit or reject the motion, and the grounds are not defined in the Constitution.
UPSC 2014 The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in
1. The President of India
2. The Parliament
3. The Chief Justice of India
4. The Law Commission
Show answer
(b) The Parliament. Article 124(1).
UPSC 2012 What is the provision to safeguard the autonomy of the Supreme Court of India?
1. While appointing the Supreme Court Judges, the President of India has to consult the Chief Justice of India.
2. The Supreme Court Judges can be removed by the Chief Justice of India only.
3. The salaries of the Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India to which the legislature does not have to vote.
4. All appointments of officers and staff of the Supreme Court of India are made by the Government only after consulting the Chief Justice of India.
1. 1 and 3 only
2. 3 and 4 only
3. 4 only
4. 1, 2, 3 and 4
Show answer
(a) 1 and 3 only. Judges are removed by the President after Parliament’s address; staff are appointed by the CJI, not the Government.

2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

The bare text

Bare text · Article 131Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

131. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.—Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute—

(a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or

(b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or

(c) between two or more States, if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends:

Clauses not relevant here are left out.

Amended by: 7th (1956) Amendment

Bare text · Article 143Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

143. Power of the President to consult the Supreme Court.—(1) 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 its opinion thereon.

Clauses not relevant here are left out.

Bare text · Article 142Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.—(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order1 prescribe.

Clauses not relevant here are left out.

Bare text · Article 136Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

Reading the text

Article 131 is only for disputes between governments. The parties must be the Union and States, or States among themselves; a private person cannot file under it. “To the exclusion of any other court” makes it exclusive (UPSC 2014). Article 32 is also filed directly in the Supreme Court, but it is not exclusive, since High Courts share it under Article 226.
Exclusions: the proviso to 131 removes disputes over pre-Constitution treaties and agreements, and Article 262 lets Parliament remove inter-State river water disputes from all courts, which the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does.
Article 143 says “may” twice: the President may refer, and the Court “may” report its opinion. So the Court can decline. It did so in the Ayodhya reference (1993). The Court advises only when the President refers a question (UPSC 2001), and its opinion is advisory, not binding.
Article 142, “complete justice”: the Court can pass any order needed to do complete justice in a case before it. UPSC 2019’s line, that ordinary laws cannot limit this constitutional power, describes Article 142.
Article 136, special leave: “in its discretion”, from “any court or tribunal” (except military tribunals, clause 2). It is the widest door to the Court, and the reason it hears so many appeals.
Article 138: Parliament can enlarge the Court’s jurisdiction on Union List matters by law (UPSC 2003, 2005).

The idea in brief

“Jurisdiction” means which cases a court is allowed to hear. Some cases start in the Supreme Court itself (disputes between governments, rights cases), most come to it on appeal from High Courts, and sometimes the President simply asks it for advice. Knowing the door through which a case enters is the key to this topic.

Exam notes

Jurisdiction	What it covers
Original (Art 131)	Disputes between the Centre and States, or between States. Not election disputes, and not disputes with a Union Territory (PYQ 1996, 2012, 2014)
Writ (Art 32)	Enforcement of Fundamental Rights only; itself a Fundamental Right
Appellate	Constitutional, civil and criminal appeals (Arts 132–134); special leave against any court or tribunal except military (Art 136)
Advisory (Art 143)	Only when the President asks; opinion not binding (PYQ 2001)
Court of record (Art 129)	Its records have evidentiary value; can punish for contempt of itself
Review (Art 137)	Can review its own judgments; curative petitions since 2002
Article 142	Can pass any order for “complete justice“; ordinary laws do not limit this constitutional power (PYQ 2019)
Enlarging jurisdiction	Parliament can enlarge the Court’s jurisdiction on Union List matters (Art 138) (PYQ 2003, 2005)

Article 143 references	Delhi Laws (1951), Kerala Education Bill (1958), Ayodhya (1993, declined), Third Judges (1998)
Curative petition	Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002), after review fails
Article 139A	Transfer of cases between High Courts and to the SC (42nd Amdt)

Article	Jurisdiction in detail
131 exclusions	Disputes arising from pre-Constitution treaties or agreements; inter-State water disputes (Art 262); matters referred to the Finance Commission; adjustment of certain expenses between Centre and States
71	Disputes on the election of the President and Vice-President: decided only by the Supreme Court (an original jurisdiction outside Art 131)
132 / 133 / 134	Appeals: constitutional (with HC certificate), civil, criminal (as of right where a High Court reverses an acquittal and awards death, or withdraws a case and sentences to death)
134A	High Court decides on granting a certificate for appeal
136	Special leave: discretionary; against any court or tribunal except military tribunals
139A / 140	Transfer of cases; ancillary powers given by Parliament
141 / 144	Law declared binds all courts; all authorities act in aid of the Supreme Court
Prelims trap: Writ jurisdiction (Art 32) is not “original jurisdiction” under Art 131. A private citizen cannot file an Article 131 suit; only the Union and States are parties.

Remember it131 governments, 32 rights, 136 special leave, 143 advice, 129 contempt, 142 complete justice. Original jurisdiction excludes election disputes and suits against UTs; advice is not binding.

Beyond the basics · ranker’s edge

Point	Depth
Article 131 suits	States sue the Union: Kerala on borrowing limits (2024, referred to a Constitution Bench); West Bengal on CBI cases without State consent (held maintainable, July 2024)
Benches	Art 130: seat in Delhi, other places with the President’s approval. Art 145(3): at least 5 judges for substantial questions of interpretation
Article 144	All authorities, civil and judicial, must act in aid of the Supreme Court
Article 142 uses	Ayodhya land (2019), Perarivalan release (2022), divorce on irretrievable breakdown (Shilpa Sailesh, 2023)
Prelims trap: Original jurisdiction excludes election disputes and disputes with UTs. (PYQ 2012, 2014) Advisory opinions are not binding; the Court may decline (Ayodhya, 1993).

In depth: the story behind it and how UPSC asks it

The story behind it

Article 142 has been used for some of the Court’s biggest orders: the Bhopal gas settlement (Union Carbide, 1991), handing over the disputed site in Ayodhya (2019), declaring the result of the Chandigarh mayoral election (2024) and, in April 2025, treating Tamil Nadu’s ten pending Bills as assented. The last use was not followed in the November 2025 reference, which held there is no “deemed assent”. The Court has also set a limit on itself: Article 142 cannot be used to ignore a substantive statute on the same subject (Supreme Court Bar Association, 1998).

There have been sixteen Presidential references so far. Well-known ones: the Kerala Education Bill (1958), Berubari (1960), on whether ceding territory needs a constitutional amendment, the Third Judges case (1998), and the 16th reference on Governors and Bills (2025).

How UPSC asks it

UPSC 2019 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?
1. The decisions taken by the Election Commission of India while discharging its duties cannot be challenged in any court of law.
2. The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament.
3. In the event of a grave financial crisis in the country, the President of India can declare a Financial Emergency without the counsel from the Cabinet.
4. State Legislatures cannot make laws on certain matters without the concurrence of the Union Legislature.
Show answer
(b) The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament. Article 142 (complete justice) is a constitutional power that ordinary laws cannot limit.
UPSC 2014 The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the Centre and the States falls under its:
1. advisory jurisdiction
2. appellate jurisdiction
3. original jurisdiction
4. writ jurisdiction
Show answer
(c) original jurisdiction. Article 131. (A near-identical question was asked in 1996.)
UPSC 2012 Which of the following are included in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
1. A dispute between the Government of India and one or more States
2. A dispute regarding elections to either House of the Parliament or that of Legislature of a State
3. A dispute between the Government of India and a Union Territory
4. A dispute between two or more States
1. 1 and 2
2. 2 and 3
3. 1 and 4
4. 3 and 4
Show answer
(c) 1 and 4. Article 131 covers Centre-State and inter-State disputes. Election disputes go to High Courts.
UPSC 2005 Consider the following statements:
1. The Parliament cannot enlarge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India as its jurisdiction is limited to that conferred by the Constitution.
2. The officers and servants of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by the concerned Chief Justice and the administrative expenses are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.
1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
(b) 2 only. Parliament can enlarge the Court’s jurisdiction (Art 138). UPSC accepted 2 as correct.
UPSC 2003 The power to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India with respect to any matter included in the Union List of Legislative Powers rests with:
1. The President of India
2. The Chief Justice of India
3. The Parliament
4. The Union Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs
Show answer
(c) The Parliament. Article 138(1).
UPSC 2001 The Supreme Court of India tenders advice to the President on a matter of law or fact:
1. on its own initiative
2. only if he seeks such advice
3. only if the matter relates to the Fundamental Rights of citizens
4. only if the issue poses a threat to the unity and integrity of the country
Show answer
(b) only if he seeks such advice. Article 143: only on reference by the President.

3. Judicial review, PIL and contempt

The bare text

Bare text · Article 13Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.

Clauses not relevant here are left out.

Amended by: 24th (1971) Amendment

Bare text · Article 141Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.— The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.

Bare text · Article 137Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court.—Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.

Bare text · Article 129Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

129. Supreme Court to be a court of record.—The Supreme 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.

Reading the text

“Judicial review” is not a phrase in the Constitution. The power is built from Article 13 (laws contrary to Fundamental Rights are void), Articles 32 and 226 (the writ powers), and Articles 131–136 and 246. The Supreme Court is called the “custodian” or “guardian” of the Constitution for this reason (UPSC 2015, 2017).
Article 141 binds “all courts”, but not the Supreme Court itself. The Court can overrule its own earlier decisions with a larger bench.
Article 137 allows review of its own judgments. A curative petition, the last remedy after review fails, is not in the text; the Court created it in Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002) using Articles 129 and 142.
Article 129 recognises the power to punish for contempt; it does not define contempt. The definition is in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, passed after the H.N. Sanyal Committee (1963) (UPSC 2022). Article 215 gives High Courts the same power. Under Article 19(2), contempt of court is also a ground for restricting free speech.

The idea in brief

Judicial review is the power of courts to check whether a law or government action follows the Constitution, and to strike it down if not. That makes the Supreme Court the guardian of the Constitution.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) lets anyone approach the court on behalf of people who cannot do so themselves, such as poor workers or prisoners. It began around 1980 with judges like P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer.

ExampleA letter written to the Supreme Court about bonded labourers was treated as a petition, and the court ordered their release.

Exam notes

Judicial review	Power to examine the constitutionality of laws and executive orders and strike them down (Arts 13, 32, 226); not to question the wisdom of laws (PYQ 2017). The Supreme Court is the guardian/custodian of the Constitution (PYQ 2015)
PIL	Started in the late 1970s–80s by Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer and P.N. Bhagwati (S.P. Gupta, 1981). Bhagwati later became CJI; Krishna Iyer never did (PYQ 2006, 2008)
Contempt	Constitution gives the Supreme Court (Art 129) and High Courts (Art 215) power to punish for contempt of themselves. Civil and criminal contempt are defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (after the H.N. Sanyal Committee), not in the Constitution; Parliament makes contempt law (PYQ 2022)
Reservation and efficiency	Article 335 asks that SC/ST claims be balanced with efficiency of administration; the term is not defined in it (PYQ 2023)
In detail: The Bar Council of India lays down standards of legal education and recognises law colleges (PYQ 2022). Only individuals enrolled with a State Bar Council are advocates; a law firm is not. Wilful disobedience of court orders is contempt (PYQ 1997).

Concept	Details
Judicial activism vs restraint	Activism: courts filling gaps (PIL, guidelines like Vishaka, 1997). Restraint: deferring to legislature on policy choices
Kinds of contempt	Civil: wilful disobedience of a judgment or undertaking. Criminal: scandalising the court, prejudicing proceedings, obstructing justice. Punishment up to 6 months or ₹2,000 fine or both; truth a defence since 2006
Review and curative	Review under Art 137 (usually by the same Bench); curative petition after review fails (Rupa Ashok Hurra, 2002), needs a senior advocate’s certificate
Doctrines used in review	Severability, eclipse, harmonious construction, prospective overruling, pith and substance, colourable legislation

Remember itJudicial review asks “is it constitutional?”, never “is it wise?”. PIL pioneers: Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer. Contempt power is in the Constitution (129, 215); its definition is in the 1971 Act.

Beyond the basics · ranker’s edge

Point	Depth
PIL guardrails	State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) laid down guidelines to curb frivolous PILs
Contempt law	Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, amended in 2006 to allow truth as a defence in public interest. Prashant Bhushan (2020): fined ₹1 for criminal contempt
Guardian role	Judicial review under 13, 32, 226 is basic structure (L. Chandra Kumar, 1997)

In depth: the story behind it and how UPSC asks it

The story behind it: PIL

Normally only the person whose right is violated can go to court. In the late 1970s Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer relaxed this rule. In Hussainara Khatoon (1979), a newspaper report on undertrial prisoners in Bihar led to the release of thousands. In the First Judges case (1981) the Court accepted that any public-spirited person can approach it for those who cannot. A letter or postcard could be treated as a writ petition. Krishna Iyer never became Chief Justice (UPSC 2008).

In 2006 Parliament amended the Contempt Act to allow truth as a defence if it is in the public interest and the request is made in good faith. In 2020 the Court held lawyer Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt for two tweets and fined him one rupee.

How UPSC asks it

UPSC 2023 Consider the following statements: Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgments that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for the maintenance of efficiency of administration. Statement-II: Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term 'efficiency of administration'.
1. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I
2. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I
3. Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect
4. Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct
Show answer
(c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect. Courts (e.g., Indra Sawhney, M. Nagaraj) linked reservation to efficiency under Article 335, but the Article does not define ‘efficiency of administration’.
UPSC 2022 Consider the following statements:
1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.
2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.
4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court.
1. 1 and 2 only
2. 1, 2 and 4
3. 3 and 4 only
4. 3 only
Show answer
(b) 1, 2 and 4. Civil and criminal contempt are defined in the 1971 Act, not the Constitution. The rest are correct.
UPSC 2022 With reference to India, consider the following statements:
1. Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates.
2. Bar Councils have the power to lay down the rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges.
1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
(b) 2 only. The Bar Council of India regulates legal education and recognises law colleges. Statement 1 misstates the rules: only individuals enrolled with a Bar Council are advocates, and a law firm is not.
UPSC 2017 In India, Judicial Review implies:
1. the power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders.
2. the power of the Judiciary to question the wisdom of the laws enacted by the Legislatures.
3. the power of the Judiciary to review all the legislative enactments before they are assented to by the President.
4. the power of the Judiciary to review its own judgements given earlier in similar or different cases.
Show answer
(a) the power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders. Judicial review tests constitutionality of laws and orders, not their wisdom.
UPSC 2015 Who/Which of the following is the custodian of the Constitution of India?
1. The President of India
2. The Prime Minister of India
3. The Lok Sabha Secretariat
4. The Supreme Court of India
Show answer
(d) The Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter and guardian of the Constitution.
UPSC 2008 Consider the following statements:
1. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer was the Chief Justice of India.
2. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer is considered as one of the progenitors of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Indian judicial system.
1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
(b) 2 only. He was never CJI, but he is a pioneer of PIL.
UPSC 2006 Who was the Chief Justice of India when Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was introduced to the Indian judicial system?
1. M. Hidayatullah
2. A.M. Ahmadi
3. A.S. Anand
4. P.N. Bhagwati
Show answer
(d) P.N. Bhagwati. UPSC’s key: P.N. Bhagwati, the judge most associated with PIL.
UPSC 1997 Assertion (A): Wilful 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 practised without arming the judiciary with punitive powers to punish contemptuous behaviour.
1. Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
2. Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A
3. A is true but R is false
4. A is false but R is true
Show answer
(b) Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A. A describes civil and criminal contempt. R may be true, but it does not explain why such acts are contempt.

4. High Courts

The bare text

Bare text · Article 214Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

214. High Courts for States.—*** There shall be a High Court for each State.

(2)

(3)

Bare text · Article 231Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

231. Establishment of a common High Court for two or more States.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this Chapter, Parliament may by law establish a common High Court for two or more States or for two or more States and a Union territory.

Clauses not relevant here are left out.

Bare text · Article 217Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

217. Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court.—(1) Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal [on the recommendation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission referred to in article 124A], and the Governor of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court, [shall hold office, in the case of an additional or acting Judge, as provided in article 224, and in any other case, until he attains the age of [sixty-two years:]]

Provided that—

(a) a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office;

(b) a Judge 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;

(c) the office of a Judge shall be vacated by his being appointed by the President to be a Judge of the Supreme Court or by his being transferred by the President to any other High Court within the territory of India.

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India and—

(a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or

(b) has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court

Clauses not relevant here are left out.

Amended by: 7th (1956), 15th (1963), 42nd (1976), 44th (1978), 99th (2014) Amendments

Subs. by the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, s. 6, for "after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court" (w.e.f. 13-4-2015). This amendment has been struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another Vs. Union of India in its judgment dated 16-10-2015, AIR 2016 SC 117.

Bare text · Article 220Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

[220. Restriction on practice after being a permanent Judge.—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.

Explanation.—In this article, the expression “High Court” does not include a High Court for a State specified in Part B of the First Schedule as it existed before the commencement4 of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956.]

Bare text · Article 226Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

[226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32 ***, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including [writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.]

Clauses not relevant here are left out.

Amended by: 42nd (1976), 44th (1978) Amendments

Bare text · Article 227Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

[(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.]

(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

Clauses not relevant here are left out.

Amended by: 42nd (1976) Amendment

Reading the text

Article 214 says “for each State”, but Article 231 allows one High Court for two or more States. Goa, Haryana, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh have no High Court of their own. Three High Courts serve more than one State: Bombay (Maharashtra, Goa), Punjab and Haryana, and Gauhati (Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh). There are 25 High Courts (UPSC 2005, 2006, 2008).
Article 217(1) also shows the NJAC words, struck down in 2015, like Article 124. The Governor of the State is consulted on appointments.
Age 62, not 65. The 15th Amendment (1963) raised it from 60. Article 217(3) says the President decides any question about a judge’s age, after consulting the Chief Justice of India.
Removal is the same as for a Supreme Court judge: Article 217(1)(b) points to Article 124(4). The President appoints, but cannot remove at will (UPSC 2007).
Article 220: after retiring, a permanent High Court judge can still practise, but only in the Supreme Court and other High Courts, not in their own (UPSC 2006). A Supreme Court judge cannot practise anywhere in India (Article 124(7)).
Article 226 is wider than Article 32. It covers Fundamental Rights “and for any other purpose”, meaning legal rights too. It opens with “Notwithstanding anything in article 32”.
Article 227: superintendence over all courts and tribunals in its territory, except military ones (clause 4).

The idea in brief

Each State has a High Court at the top of its judicial system (a few High Courts serve more than one State). It hears appeals from district courts, protects rights through writs, and supervises all courts below it in the State.

Exam notes

Number	25 High Courts. Article 231: Parliament can set up a common High Court for two or more States
Over more than one State	Three: Guwahati (Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal), Bombay (Maharashtra, Goa), Punjab and Haryana (PYQ 2008)
UTs	Delhi has its own High Court; J&K and Ladakh share one; Calcutta covers Andaman and Nicobar (PYQ 2003, 2005); Kerala covers Lakshadweep; Madras covers Puducherry; Bombay covers Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu; Punjab and Haryana covers Chandigarh
Appointment	By the President after consulting the CJI, the Governor and the High Court Chief Justice (collegium in practice)
Qualifications	Citizen; 10 years of judicial office or 10 years as a High Court advocate (PYQ 2006)
Tenure and removal	Till 62; removed the same way as a Supreme Court judge (PYQ 2007)
Salaries	Charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State; pensions on the Consolidated Fund of India (PYQ 2002)
After retirement	Can practise in the Supreme Court and other High Courts, not in the High Court where he served (PYQ 2006, 2007)
Writs (Art 226)	For Fundamental Rights and “any other purpose“: wider than Article 32. High Courts can review their own judgments
Prelims trap: Not every State has its own High Court, though Article 214 says there shall be one for each State (PYQ 2006). The Advocate General, not the High Court, gives legal advice to a State: High Courts have no advisory jurisdiction.

High Courts	25 today; oldest Calcutta, Bombay, Madras (1862); Allahabad largest (160 judges); Delhi HC 1966
Shared jurisdictions	Bombay (Goa, DNH&DD), Guwahati (4 States), Punjab & Haryana (Chandigarh), Calcutta (A&N), Kerala (Lakshadweep), Madras (Puducherry)

Article	High Court provision
216 / 217	Number of judges fixed by the President; appointment after consulting the CJI, Governor and HC Chief Justice
222 / 223	Transfer of judges by the President after consulting the CJI; acting Chief Justice
224 / 224A	Additional and acting judges (up to 2 years); retired judges sitting at the Chief Justice’s request with the President’s consent
227	Superintendence over all courts and tribunals in its territory, except military ones
228	Withdraws a case from a subordinate court when it involves a substantial question of constitutional law
230 / 231	Parliament can extend a High Court’s jurisdiction to a UT; common High Court for two or more States
Prelims trap: High Court judges are appointed by the President, not the Governor; the Governor is only consulted. Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High Courts were set up in 1862 under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861.

Remember it25 High Courts, retire at 62, three serve more than one State (Guwahati, Bombay, Punjab & Haryana). Salary from the State’s fund, pension from India’s. Article 226 is wider than 32: rights “and any other purpose”.

Beyond the basics · ranker’s edge

Point	Depth
Newest High Courts	Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura (2013); Telangana and Andhra Pradesh separated on 1 January 2019
Additional and ad hoc	Art 224: additional judges for up to 2 years. Art 224A: retired judges; in 2025 the Supreme Court allowed ad hoc judges to clear criminal-appeal backlogs
Transfers	Art 222: President transfers HC judges after consulting the CJI (collegium)
Prelims trap: Salaries from the State’s Consolidated Fund, pensions from India’s. (PYQ 2002) A retired HC judge can practise in the SC and other HCs. (PYQ 2006, 2007)

In depth: the story behind it and how UPSC asks it

The story behind it

The Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High Courts, set up in 1862 under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861, are older than the Constitution. The newest are Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura (2013), Telangana and Andhra Pradesh (2019, after the Hyderabad High Court was split). Salaries of High Court judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, but their pensions on the Consolidated Fund of India (UPSC 2002).

In L. Chandra Kumar (1997) the Court held that the writ powers of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, like Article 32, are part of the basic structure. No law can take them away. Retired judges can be brought back under Article 224A to reduce arrears; in 2025 the Supreme Court relaxed the conditions so that ad hoc judges could sit on criminal appeals.

How UPSC asks it

UPSC 2008 How many High Courts in India have jurisdiction over more than one State (Union Territories not included)?
1. 2
2. 3
3. 4
4. 5
Show answer
(b) 3. Guwahati, Bombay, and Punjab and Haryana.
UPSC 2007 Consider the following statements:
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 cannot plead or act in any court or before any authority in India.
1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
(a) 1 only. Retired High Court judges can practise in the Supreme Court and other High Courts.
UPSC 2006 Assertion (A): In India, every State has a High Court in its territory. Reason (R): The Constitution of India provides a High Court in each State.
1. Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A
2. Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A
3. A is true but R is false
4. A is false but R is true
Show answer
(d) A is false but R is true. Article 214 says there shall be a High Court for each State, but Article 231 allows common High Courts, so some States have none in their territory.
UPSC 2006 Consider the following statements:
1. A person who has held office as a permanent Judge of a High Court cannot plead or act in any court or before any authority in India except of the Supreme Court.
2. A person is not qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court in India unless he has for at least five years held a judicial office in the territory of India.
1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
(d) Neither 1 nor 2. Retired judges can also practise in other High Courts; the requirement is 10 years, not 5.
UPSC 2005 Consider the following statements:
1. There are 25 High Courts in India.
2. Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh have a common High Court.
3. The National Capital Territory of Delhi has a High Court of its own.
1. 2 and 3
2. 1 and 2
3. 1, 2 and 3
4. 3 only
Show answer
(a) 2 and 3. In 2005 there were 21 High Courts (today there are 25). 2 and 3 are correct.
UPSC 2003 Which one of the following High Courts has the territorial jurisdiction over Andaman and Nicobar Islands?
1. Andhra Pradesh
2. Kolkata
3. Chennai
4. Orissa
Show answer
(b) Kolkata. Calcutta High Court.
UPSC 2002 The salaries and allowances of the Judges of the High Court are charged to the:
1. Consolidated Fund of India
2. Consolidated Fund of the State
3. Contingency Fund of India
4. Contingency Fund of the State
Show answer
(b) Consolidated Fund of the State. Consolidated Fund of the State (pensions: Consolidated Fund of India).
UPSC 1996 When the Chief Justice of a High Court acts in an administrative capacity, he is subject to:
1. the writ jurisdiction of any of the other judges of the High Court
2. special control exercised by the Chief Justice of India
3. discretionary powers of the Governor of the State
4. special powers provided to the Chief Minister
Show answer
(a) the writ jurisdiction of any of the other judges of the High Court. Administrative acts are open to writ jurisdiction, even of other judges of the same court.

5. Subordinate courts and access to justice

The bare text

Bare text · Article 233Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

233. Appointment of district judges.—(1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.

(2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.

Bare text · Article 235Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

235. Control over subordinate courts.—The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may have under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law.

Bare text · Article 236Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

236. Interpretation.—In this Chapter—

(a) the expression “district judge” includes judge of a city civil court, additional district judge, joint district judge, assistant district judge, chief judge of a small cause court, chief presidency magistrate, additional chief presidency magistrate, sessions judge, additional sessions judge and assistant sessions Judge;

Clauses not relevant here are left out.

Bare text · Article 39AConstitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

[39A. Equal justice and free legal aid.—The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.]

Reading the text

The Governor appoints district judges, but only “in consultation with the High Court”. The Supreme Court has held that this consultation must be real and effective, so the High Court’s view carries primacy. Article 235 gives the High Court control over posting, promotion and leave.
Article 233(2): seven years as an advocate or pleader for direct entry. In 2025 the Supreme Court also restored a minimum of three years of practice for entry-level civil judges.
Article 236(a) defines “district judge” widely: city civil court judges, additional and assistant district judges, chief judge of a small cause court, chief presidency magistrate, sessions judges and their additional and assistant judges. A question on what the term does “not include” is answered from this list (UPSC 1996).
Article 39A, added by the 42nd Amendment (1976), is a Directive Principle. It asks for free legal aid so that no one is denied justice “by reason of economic or other disabilities”. It is the basis of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

The idea in brief

Most people meet the justice system in a district court, not the Supreme Court. Below the High Court sit district and sessions courts and magistrates. To make justice cheaper and faster, India also uses Lok Adalats (settlement by compromise), free legal aid and village courts.

Exam notes

District judges (Art 233)	Appointed by the Governor in consultation with the High Court; 7 years as advocate or pleader. The District and Sessions Judge is the highest criminal court of the district; a death sentence by a Sessions Court must be confirmed by the High Court (PYQ 2004)
“District judge” (Art 236)	Includes city civil court judges, chief presidency magistrates, sessions judges, chief judge of a small cause court; not tribunal judges (PYQ 1996)
Lok Adalats	Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Settle cases at the pre-litigation stage and pending cases, civil and compoundable criminal, including family, motor accident, pension and telecom disputes. Award = decree of a civil court; no appeal (PYQ 2005, 2009, 2010)
NALSA	Gives free, competent legal services to weaker sections and issues guidelines to State Legal Services Authorities; CJI is patron-in-chief (PYQ 2013)
Gram Nyayalayas	Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008: at the intermediate panchayat level; hear both civil and criminal cases; can use local social workers as conciliators (PYQ 2016)
Tribunals	Article 323A (administrative tribunals) and 323B (other matters), added in 1976. Central Administrative Tribunal: 1985, under Rajiv Gandhi; members from judicial and administrative streams (PYQ 2009)

Lok Adalats	Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; award = civil court decree, no appeal; Permanent Lok Adalats (2002)
Other forums	Family Courts Act 1984; Gram Nyayalayas Act 2008 (Nyayadhikari); Mediation Act 2023; All India Judicial Service (Art 312) not yet created

Point	Details
Hierarchy	District and Sessions Judge → Civil Judge (Senior/Junior Division) on the civil side; Chief Judicial Magistrate → Judicial Magistrates on the criminal side
Article 234 / 235	Other judicial officers appointed by the Governor after consulting the State PSC and the High Court; High Court controls subordinate courts
Consumer forums	Consumer Protection Act, 2019: District, State and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions
Family Courts	Family Courts Act, 1984; mandatory in cities with population over 10 lakh

Remember itGovernor appoints, High Court controls (Arts 233–235). Lok Adalat award = civil court decree, no appeal. Gram Nyayalaya sits at the intermediate panchayat level.

Beyond the basics · ranker’s edge

Point	Depth
Laws	Commercial Courts Act (2015): commercial courts and commercial divisions in High Courts for business disputes, with pre-institution mediation
Tribunals	Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 abolished several appellate tribunals; tenure and age rules have been challenged repeatedly in the Madras Bar Association cases
All India Judicial Service	Provided by Art 312 (42nd Amendment); never created
e-Courts	Phase III approved in 2023; National Judicial Data Grid tracks pendency
Prelims trap: Lok Adalats settle pending and pre-litigation cases, including compoundable criminal matters

In depth: the story behind it and how UPSC asks it

The story behind it

The 1987 Act created NALSA (working from 1995), with the Chief Justice of India as patron-in-chief and the senior-most judge after the Chief Justice as executive chairman. It also gave statutory status to Lok Adalats, which began in Gujarat in 1982. A Lok Adalat award is deemed to be a civil court decree and there is no appeal against it. Parties who are unhappy can only start fresh proceedings (UPSC 2009, 2010). Permanent Lok Adalats for public utility services were added in 2002.

Gram Nyayalayas under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 are village-level courts that hear both civil and criminal cases and can work as mobile courts (UPSC 2016). Most States have set up only a few.

How UPSC asks it

UPSC 2016 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.
1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
(b) 2 only. Gram Nyayalayas hear both civil and criminal cases; the Act allows social workers as conciliators.
UPSC 2013 With reference to National Legal Services Authority, consider the following statements:
1. Its objective is to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society on the basis of equal opportunity.
2. It issues guidelines for the State Legal Services Authorities to implement the legal programmes and schemes throughout the country.
1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
(c) Both 1 and 2. Both are NALSA’s functions under the 1987 Act.
UPSC 2010 With reference to Lok Adalats, which of the following statements is correct?
1. Lok Adalats have the jurisdiction to settle matters at pre-litigation stage and not those matters pending before any court
2. Lok Adalats can deal with matters which are civil and not criminal in nature
3. Every Lok Adalat consists of either serving or retired judicial officers only and not any other person
4. None of the statements given above is correct
Show answer
(d) None of the statements given above is correct. They handle pending and pre-litigation cases, compoundable criminal cases too, and include social workers and lawyers.
UPSC 2009 With reference to Lok Adalats, consider the following statements:
1. An award made by a Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court and no appeal lies against it to any court.
2. Matrimonial/Family disputes are not covered under Lok Adalat.
1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
(a) 1 only. Family disputes are covered.
UPSC 2005 Consider the following:
1. Disputes with mobile cellular companies
2. Motor accident cases
3. Pension cases. For which of the above are Lok Adalats held?
1. 1 only
2. 1 and 2
3. 2 only
4. 1, 2 and 3
Show answer
(d) 1, 2 and 3. All three types are taken up by Lok Adalats.
UPSC 2004 Consider the following statements:
1. The highest criminal court of the district is the Court of District and Session Judge.
2. The District Judges are appointed by the Governor in consultation with the High Courts.
3. A person to be eligible for appointment as a District Judge should be an advocate or a pleader of seven years' standing or more, or an officer in judicial service of the Union or the State.
4. When the sessions judge awards a death sentence, it must be confirmed by the High Court before it is carried out.
1. 1 and 2
2. 2, 3 and 4
3. 3 and 4
4. 1, 2, 3 and 4
Show answer
(d) 1, 2, 3 and 4. All four are correct (Articles 233, 233(2); CrPC confirmation of death sentences).
UPSC 1996 According to the Constitution of India the term 'district judge' shall not include:
1. chief presidency magistrate
2. sessions judges
3. tribunal judge
4. chief judge of a small cause court
Show answer
(c) tribunal judge. Article 236 lists the others; tribunal judges are not included.

6. Tribunals

The bare text

Bare text · Article 323AConstitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

323A. Administrative tribunals.—(1) Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government.

Clauses not relevant here are left out.

Bare text · Article 323BConstitution of India, as on 1 May 2024

323B. Tribunals for other matters.—(1) The appropriate Legislature may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by tribunals of any disputes, complaints, or offences with respect to all or any of the matters specified in clause (2) with respect to which such Legislature has power to make laws.

(2) The matters referred to in clause (1) are the following, namely:—

(a) levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of any tax;

(b) foreign exchange, import and export across customs frontiers;

(d) land reforms by way of acquisition by the State of any estate as defined in article 31A or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights or by way of ceiling on agricultural land or in any other way;

(e) ceiling on urban property;

(f) elections to either House of Parliament or the House or either House of the Legislature of a State, but excluding the matters referred to in article 329 and article 329A;

(g) production, procurement, supply and distribution of food-stuffs (including edible oilseeds and oils) and such other goods as the President may, by public notification, declare to be essential goods for the purpose of this article and control of prices of such goods;

[(h) rent, its regulation and control and tenancy issues including the right, title and interest of landlords and tenants;]

Clauses not relevant here are left out.

Amended by: 75th (1993) Amendment

Reading the text

Two Articles, two kinds of tribunals. Article 323A is about public service matters, and only Parliament can make the law. Article 323B covers a list of other subjects, from taxes to elections and rent, and the “appropriate Legislature”, Parliament or a State, can make the law.
Both Articles let the law “exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, except” the Supreme Court under Article 136. That exclusion of the High Courts is what the Supreme Court later struck down.
Part XIVA was added by the 42nd Amendment (1976), during the Emergency, on the Swaran Singh Committee’s recommendation.

The idea in brief

Courts are slow and overloaded, and some disputes need special expertise, such as tax, environment or service matters of government employees. So the Constitution allows tribunals: specialised bodies that decide such cases faster, with judges and technical experts sitting together.

ExampleA Central government employee who is unfairly denied a promotion goes to the Central Administrative Tribunal, not straight to a regular court.

Exam notes

Point	Key facts
Constitutional base	Part XIVA, added by the 42nd Amendment (1976) on the Swaran Singh Committee’s advice
Article 323A	Administrative tribunals for recruitment and service matters of public servants; only Parliament can create them
Article 323B	Tribunals for other matters (taxation, foreign exchange, industrial disputes, land reforms, ceiling on property, elections to legislatures, food supplies, rent); Parliament and State legislatures can both create them, within their subjects
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985	Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT, 1985), State Administrative Tribunals and Joint Administrative Tribunals. CAT covers Central government employees; not defence forces, Supreme Court staff or Parliament’s secretariats
Procedure	CAT is not bound by the Civil Procedure Code; it follows natural justice
Appeals after 1997	L. Chandra Kumar: tribunal decisions go first to a Division Bench of the High Court; tribunals cannot fully replace High Courts
Other statutory tribunals	Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (1941, the oldest); Armed Forces Tribunal (2007 Act); National Green Tribunal (2010 Act); NCLT and NCLAT (Companies Act, 2013); Securities Appellate Tribunal; TDSAT; APTEL; GST Appellate Tribunal
Prelims trap: 323A tribunals: Parliament only. 323B: Parliament and States. The NGT is a statutory body, not a constitutional one.

Remember it323A Parliament only (services); 323B Parliament and States (tax, land, elections and more). L. Chandra Kumar (1997): tribunal orders go to a High Court Division Bench first.

Beyond the basics · ranker’s edge

Point	Depth
S.P. Sampath Kumar (1987)	Tribunals can substitute High Courts if equally effective; overruled in part by L. Chandra Kumar (1997)
Madras Bar Association (2014)	Struck down the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 for taking over High Court jurisdiction
Rojer Mathew (2019)	Struck down tribunal service rules framed under the Finance Act, 2017 for undermining independence
Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021	Abolished several appellate tribunals (their work went to High Courts) and fixed tenure and age rules, repeatedly challenged in the Madras Bar Association cases

In depth: the story behind it and how UPSC asks it

The story behind it

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 set up the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) under Rajiv Gandhi’s government, not Lal Bahadur Shastri’s (UPSC 2009). In L. Chandra Kumar (1997) the Court held that tribunals cannot replace High Courts: their decisions can be challenged before a High Court division bench under Articles 226 and 227.

Since then the Court and Parliament have repeatedly clashed over how tribunal members are appointed and how long they serve. The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 brought back terms the Court had already struck down. In Madras Bar Association (November 2025) the Court struck down key provisions of the 2021 Act for violating judicial independence, and asked the government to set up a National Tribunals Commission.

How UPSC asks it

UPSC 2009 Consider the following statements:
1. Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was set up during the Prime Ministership of Lal Bahadur Shastri.
2. The Members of CAT are drawn from both judicial and administrative streams.
1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
(b) 2 only. CAT was set up in 1985, under Rajiv Gandhi.

7. Quick revision and traps

Exam notes

65 / 62	Retirement age: Supreme Court / High Court
131 / 32 / 143	Original / writ / advisory jurisdiction
1968 Act	Judges (Inquiry) Act: removal procedure
25 High Courts	Three cover more than one State

Beyond the basics · ranker’s edge

PYQ pattern	How to prepare
Jurisdiction types	One example per Article: 131, 32, 136, 143, 129, 142
Independence of judiciary	Safeguards list; judges’ removal steps
Access to justice	Lok Adalats, NALSA, Gram Nyayalayas: features