Judiciary & Judicial Review

Statement I is correct: President’s pardoning power can be subjected to limited judicial review, especially on grounds like mala fides, irrelevant considerations, or arbitrariness (as held in Kehar Singh, Epuru Sudhakar cases). Statement II is incorrect: President cannot act independently; the power must be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 74.

❌ Statement I: Incorrect
*The President of India is NOT a member of the Jury.* ✅ Statement II: Correct
*The Prime Minister of India is the Chairperson of the Jury.* ✅ Statement III: Correct
*The Chief Justice of India (or a Supreme Court Judge nominated by the CJI) is a Jury member.* ✅ Statement IV: Correct
*The Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha (or leader of largest opposition party) is a Jury member.* Correct Answer: Statements II, III, and IV are correct.

* 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.

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.

* Option (a) is correct: The concept of 'Due Process of Law' primarily means that the procedure through which a person is deprived of life or liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable, following the principles of natural justice. It ensures that laws are not only enacted properly but also applied fairly and reasonably. * Option (b) is not correct: The phrase 'Procedure established by law', used in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, refers to any procedure laid down by law, even if it is unfair. However, after the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) judgment, the Supreme Court read into Article 21 the American concept of ‘Due Process of Law’, ensuring fairness and reasonableness in both substance and procedure. * Option (c) is not entirely correct: While fair application of law is part of due process, the phrase ‘Due Process of Law’ has a broader meaning that encompasses substantive fairness, procedural justice, and conformity with natural justice. Hence, option (a) captures its essence more accurately. * Option (d) is not correct: Equality before law (Article 14) is a distinct constitutional principle and not equivalent to due process.

* The First Amendment Act, of 1951, added the fourth clause to Article 15 that empowered the government to make any law for the upliftment of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled * Tribes. The added clause elucidates that in case such special provisions are introduced, they cannot be said to be breaching Article 15 and Article 29(2) of the Constitution. * The need to insert this clause was felt after the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam (1951). According to the facts of this case, the Madras government issued an Order that provided reservation on the grounds of religion, race, and caste. This Order was contended to be in breach of Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court also gave a literal interpretation to the constitutional provisions and held that reserving seats in public institutions for backward classes violates Articles 15(1) and 29(2). Therefore, to nullify the effect of similar judicial pronouncements, Article 15 was amended. * Similarly, Article 19(1)(a) grants the right to free speech and expression to Indian citizens. This right is considered an essential feature of democracy. However, Article 19(2) specifies the restrictions that can curtail this freedom. The First Amendment to the Indian Constitution altered these restrictions by widening their ambit. The second change, via the Amendment Act of 1951, was made to Clause 6 of Article 19. Note: UPSC deleted this question when the final answer key was issued.

* 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.

* Statement I is correct: It has frequently been argued that reservation is contrary to efficiency and merit. Even the Supreme Court of India appeared to have agreed with this argument in some of its judgments, holding that Article 335 mention of the term efficiency of administration will limit the scope of Article 16(4) provision for reservation in services.  * Statement II is incorrect: Article 335 of the Constitution of India states that the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.  * Article 335 of the Indian Constitution only mentions the efficiency of administration and does not define the same.

Statement 1 is correct: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted based on the recommendations of the H.N. Sanyal Committee, which examined the law relating to contempt of courts. Statement 2 is correct: Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution empower the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to punish for contempt of themselves. Statement 3 is incorrect: The Constitution does not define civil contempt and criminal contempt; these are defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Statement 4 is correct: Parliament has the power to make laws on contempt of court, as evidenced by the enactment of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Statement 1 is correct: Mandamus is a command issued by the court to a public official asking him to perform his official duties that he has failed or refused to perform. It can also be issued against any public body, a corporation, an inferior court, a tribunal, or a government for the same purpose. It is usually not usable against a private entity unless it is entrusted with a public duty. Statement 2 is correct: As explained above, Mandamus can be used against a government corporation and/or company when it is discharging a "public duty", so the statement is incomplete. Public Duty is Key: Mandamus aims to compel performance of a public duty, not just private functions. Statement 3 is correct: Quo Warranto is issued by the court to inquire into the legality of the claim of a person to a public office. Hence, it prevents illegal usurpation of public office by a person. Unlike the other writs, this can be sought by any interested person and not necessarily by the aggrieved person. Note (on Statement 2): In UPSC Prelims, statements must be judged as written, without adding extra conditions. A company does not become subject to the writ of Mandamus only because it is a Government company. Government ownership by itself is not enough. Since Statement 2 is framed in this limited and absolute sense, and no additional condition like “public duty” is mentioned, the statement is treated as correct.