Consider the following about the Original Jurisdiction of a High Court.<br>1. Article 226 of the Constitution vests in the High Court the power to issue writs for the restoration of Fundamental Rights.<br>2. This power is derogatory to similar powers of Supreme Court.<br>Which of the statement(s) given above is/are correct?

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

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

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

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

Consider the following statements:
1. Supreme Court's power to issue writs is narrower than that of High Court
2. A citizen is free to approach High Court or Supreme Court's as he choose, whenever his fundamental rights are violated
3. The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts throughout India
Which of the above statements(s) is/are correct?

A

1 alone

B

1 and 2

C

1, 2 and 3

D

2 and 3

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

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

Which of the following statements regarding the 'advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court' is correct:
1. The opinion of Supreme Court may be sought by the President on any question of law or fact
2. In case the opinion of the Supreme Court is sought it is bound to give
3. The advice given by Supreme Court on matters referred to it is binding on the President
4. Advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court can also be exercised over disputes arising out of references made over preconstitutional treaties

A

1 and 3

B

1 and 4

C

2 and 3

D

1, 2, 3 and 4

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:
1. Supreme Court's power to issue writs is narrower than that of High Courts
2. A citizen is free to approach High Court or Supreme Court as he chooses, whenever his fundamental rights are violated
3. The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts throughout India

A

1 alone

B

1 and 2

C

1, 2 and 3

D

2 and 3