Judicial Intervention for Social Justice

Writ of Prohibition: * It is a judicial order issued by a higher court (Supreme Court or High Court) to a lower court or tribunal. * It prevents the lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to law. * Purpose: To stop ongoing proceedings in a case where the lower court lacks jurisdiction or violates legal procedures. * Nature: It is preventive, ensuring the lower court does not act unlawfully rather than correcting a wrong decision after it has occurred. * Example: If a tribunal starts hearing a case that legally falls under the jurisdiction of a civil court, the Writ of Prohibition can halt such proceedings. * Comparison with Certiorari: Prohibition is issued before judgment to stop proceedings, whereas Certiorari is issued after judgment to quash orders passed unlawfully.

According to article 124(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 thirty-three other Judges.
Thus, the Constitution vests the authority to increase the number of Judges in the Parliament.

Statement 1 is correct: Under Article 128, the Chief Justice of India may, at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Judge of a High Court (who is duly qualified) to sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Statement 2 is not correct: Although there is no explicit Article in the Constitution equivalent to Article 137 (which grants review power to the SC) for High Courts, the High Courts are "Courts of Record" under Article 215. As a Court of Record, a High Court has the inherent power to review its own orders and judgments to correct any patent error or prevent a miscarriage of justice. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in various rulings.

* Statement 1 is incorrect: If the election of a person as President is declared void by the Supreme Court, acts done by him before the date of such declaration of the Supreme Court are not invalidated and continue to remain in force.  * Statement 2 is incorrect: The Supreme Court in 1974 held that the dissolution of the state legislative assembly would not be a ground for preventing the holding of the election on the expiry of the term of the President. Nor can it be grounds to suggest that the election to the office of the President could be held only after the election to the state is held, where the Legislative Assembly of a State is dissolved.  * Statement 3 is incorrect: The Constitution of India does not prescribe any time limit within which the President has to decide concerning a bill presented to him/her for his/her assent. Thus the President of India can simply keep the bills pending for an indefinite period.

* The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (2017), declared that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India. * The court held that this right is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. *  Article 21: States that 'No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.' The court interpreted 'personal liberty' broadly to include various aspects of privacy. _While the other options are fundamental rights, they are not directly where the Right to Privacy is placed:_ * Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. * Article 16: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. * Article 19: Guarantees certain freedoms like speech and expression, assembly, etc.