The Supreme Court — MCQs with Answers (Set 1)

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution has provisions similar to Article 32 and deals with writ jurisdiction, but it applies to High Courts, while Article 32 applies to the Supreme Court. Both articles empower their respective courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

A Writ of Prohibition is issued by a higher court (Supreme Court or High Court) to a lower court or tribunal, forbidding it from continuing proceedings in a case where it lacks jurisdiction or is exceeding its jurisdiction. It is preventive, issued before the lower court passes its final judgment. It applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, not to government officers, legislatures, or the executive generally — those are covered by other writs (Mandamus, Certiorari) or other remedies.

Justice Nagarathna quashed the approval and Justice Karol upheld it. The case went to the Chief Justice.

The correct answer is allowed work on the half-finished dam to continue. The movement lost this round, and Medha Patkar vowed to keep fighting. Memory hook: dam allowed, fight goes on.

The answer is a superior’s report plus the public servant’s own account. The old CrPC s.156(3) had no such step. The Supreme Court explained this on 21 October 2026.

The answer is unforeseeable or extraordinary economic conditions, or a change in law. The Bench also said the fee for the whole course must be notified before admission.

The answer is Section 15 of the POCSO Act and Section 67B of the IT Act. The Court also said revenue from such content should be forfeited.

The answer is Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a). The Bench said children, irrespective of age, enjoy this fundamental right. It also said blanket bans are disproportionate.

The Court read the section narrowly. It reaches only insults made with a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings. Insults made unwittingly or without malice are outside it.

In April 1957 the Supreme Court upheld Section 295A in Ramji Lal Modi v State of Uttar Pradesh. It held the section valid under Article 19(2). The other cases dealt with different questions.

The Court said civil servants cannot work on oral instructions alone. Orders must be in writing or confirmed in writing.

The Court held that a lease is a transfer and the Government is a person, so such a lease is void.

The Full Court resolved on 1 April 2025 that judges’ asset declarations would be placed on the Supreme Court website.

The Court held it is a qualified right, subject to the limits in Article 19(2).

On 16 October 2015 a five-judge bench held the 99th Amendment unconstitutional and void by a majority of four to one. Justice Chelameswar disagreed.

The Second Judges Case was decided on 6 October 1993 by a nine-judge bench, by 7:2. It overruled the First Judges Case and gave the Chief Justice’s opinion primacy.

The Court refused interim relief because the three prongs were not established. It then referred the suit to a five-judge Constitution Bench.

Kerala filed Original Suit No. 1 of 2024 under Article 131, which covers the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in disputes between the Union and a State.

The Court held the recommendations are not binding on the Union or the States. It gave reasons such as the deletion of Article 279B and the lack of a non-obstante clause in Article 279A.

Police seized the gold under statutory powers. The Court held that powers to arrest, search and seize are sovereign powers, so the State was not liable.

A government jeep, taken from a repair shop to the Collector’s residence, knocked down a pedestrian. The Court held the State liable like any other employer.

Art. 262(2) lets Parliament provide by law that no court will hear such a dispute.

In S.R. Bommai (1994), the Supreme Court held that a Proclamation under Article 356(1) is not immune from judicial review.