The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is not wider than that of the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 because the High Courts may exercise this power in relation to:

Consider the following statements:
1. The powers of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are wider than those of Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
2. Both High Court and Supreme Court have concurrent power to enforce the fundamental rights.
3. It is mandatory for a petitioner first to approach the High Court instead of approaching the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

A

1, 2 and 3

B

1 and 2

C

2 and 3

D

1 and 3

Study the following statements and pick up the correct code:
Statement I: The power of High Court to issue writs under Article 226 is wider than the power of Supreme Court under Article 32.
Statement II: The Supreme Court has the power to issue writs only for violation of fundamental rights whereas the power of High Court under Article 226 can be invoked for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as legal rights.

A

Statement I is correct but Statement II is incorrect

B

Statement II is correct but Statement I is incorrect

C

Both the statements are correct but Statement II does not justify Statement I

D

Both the Statements are correct and Statement II justifies Statement I

A seven member bench of the Supreme Court unanimously struck down clauses 2(d) of Article 323A and clause 3(d) of Article 323B of the Constitution relating to tribunals which excluded the jurisdiction of High Court and Supreme Court. The court held that power of judicial review over legislative action is vested in the High Court under Article 226 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32. This is an integral part of the basic structure of the constitution. Name the case:

A

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India

B

Kihota Hallahan v. Zachilhu

C

Nagaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh

D

Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya

"If the writ petition under Article 226 in a High Court is dismissed on the merits (i.e. dismissed in limine); but because of laches of the party applying for the writ or because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, then dismissal of writ petition (under Article 226) would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32." This principle was laid down by Supreme Court in:

A

Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh

B

Daryao v. State of Madhya Pradesh

C

Daryao v. State of Bihar

D

Mathura Prasad v. Dossibai

Part XIV-A entitled "Tribunals" was inserted by the Constitution (Forty Second) Amendment Act, 1976. Clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and Clause (3)(d) of Article 323-B excluded jurisdiction of all courts, except that of the Supreme Court under Article 136. In which case were these clauses struck down as being unconstitutional to the extent they barred the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and that of the Supreme Court under Article 32?

A

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597

B

Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789

C

S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918

D

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125

Where two or more courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try the offence, the question shall be decided
1. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court
2. By the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the accused resides, carries on business or is engaged in a gainful employment
3. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court in consultation with the State Government concerned
4. If the courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by that court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced
Which of the above are correct?

A

1 and 2

B

2 and 3

C

1 and 4

D

1, 2, 3 and 4

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court passes judgment in a matter. In a later case before a high court, a party presents the Supreme Court judgment as a binding authority. The opposing party claims that the high court is not bound by the Supreme Court's judgment because relevant provisions of law were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in that case. Which of the following is most correct in this case?
Principle: Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.

A

Since the relevant provisions of law were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court, the five-judge bench's decision is not 'law' within the meaning of Article 141, and is not binding on the high court

B

The Supreme Court must expressly declare that its judgment is binding on all courts within the territory of India when passing judgment. In this case, the Supreme Court has not done so, and therefore, the decision of the five-judge bench is not binding on the high court

C

The High Court cannot ignore the decision of the Supreme Court on the ground that relevant provisions of law were not brought to its notice. Under Article 141, it is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court

D

Only those decisions that are passed by a larger bench than the five-judge bench would be hinding on the high court, since legitimate doubts have been raised about the propriety of the five-judge bench's decision

E

The decision of the five-judge bench, since it is in conflict with other decisions, must first be decided upon by a larger bench on the Supreme Court. Only after that would the decision be binding on all other courts under Article 141 of the Constitution

Assertion (A): A Habeas Corpus writ petition dismissed by the Supreme Court can be admitted by High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
Reasons (R): In exercising writ jurisdiction the powers of the Supreme Court and High Court are concurrent

A

Both A and R are true and R is correct explanation

B

Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A

C

A is true but R is false

D

A is false but R is true

Consider the following statements:
1. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States.
2. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other State on the other.
3. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and any corporation of Individual one side and one or more States on the other.
4. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between two or more States.
Which of these statements are correct?

A

1 and 2

B

1, 2 and 4

C

3 and 4 only

D

1, 2, 3 and 4

Which of the following statements are correct? Answer by using the code given below:
1. Persons in Govt/Judicial service need not resign to participate in District judge selection process held in "Vijay Kumar Misra and another v. High Court of Judicature at Patna" by the Supreme Court of India
2. The Supreme Court of India held in S. Kazi v. Muslim Education Society that " All Tribunals are not necessary parties to the proceedings where legality of its orders challenged"
3. The Supreme Court of India observed in Cardanumom Marketing Corporation and others v. State of Kerala and others that Social Security to the legal profession becomes an essential part of legal system
4. The Supreme Court of India held in 'Union of India v. Rajasthan High Court and others that High Court judges are exempted from Airport frisking.

A

Only 2 is correct

B

1, 2 and 3 are correct

C

2, 3 and 4 are correct

D

1, 2 and 4 are correct