The Judiciary

The Supreme Court is called the guardian of the Constitution because it gives authoritative interpretations of constitutional provisions and exercises judicial review. Through this power, it can examine whether laws or executive actions violate constitutional limits and can invalidate unconstitutional measures. Conducting Parliament, distributing state budgets, and selecting election candidates belong to other institutions or processes. Therefore option B is correct.

Judicial review is the constitutional power of courts to examine laws, executive orders, and other government actions for consistency with the Constitution. If a measure violates constitutional provisions or protected rights, the court may declare it invalid within its legal authority. This process maintains constitutional supremacy and checks arbitrary power. It is not related to election campaigning, tax collection by courts, or party manifestos. Hence option B is correct.

The governing concept is the Right to Constitutional Remedies. Article 32 enables a person whose Fundamental Right has been violated to approach the Supreme Court directly and seek appropriate writs, such as habeas corpus or mandamus. Therefore, option A is correct. The other choices are unrelated: Article 32 neither reduces taxes, abolishes all laws, nor converts Parliament into a court. This provision makes rights enforceable rather than merely declaratory.

Article 226 gives a High Court power to issue constitutional writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto. This jurisdiction can protect Fundamental Rights and also extend to other legal rights, so option B is correct. The power is not limited to announcing elections, electing the President or dissolving Parliament. Those functions belong to different constitutional authorities and are not the purpose of Article 226.

Mandamus means a command issued by a court to a public authority requiring performance of a legal or public duty. If an official refuses or neglects a duty imposed by law, the writ may compel lawful action; therefore option A is correct. It is not a remedy for ordinary private travel, weather reporting or participation in sports. The key test is the existence of a public authority and an enforceable legal duty.

The writ of prohibition is a preventive judicial remedy. A higher court issues it to stop a lower court or tribunal from continuing proceedings when that body is acting without jurisdiction, exceeding its legal authority or violating rules of jurisdiction. Hence option A is correct. It is not a general order controlling ministers, citizens or schools. The important distinction is that prohibition prevents an improper proceeding while it is still pending.

Certiorari is a corrective writ issued by a higher court to review the record or proceedings of a lower court, tribunal or quasi-judicial body. If the lower body acted without jurisdiction, exceeded its authority or made a legally serious error, the higher court may quash the proceeding or order. Therefore option A is correct. The writ does not determine salaries, voter registration or gubernatorial appointments.

Quo warranto literally asks, “by what authority?” It is a judicial remedy used to challenge a person's legal right to occupy a substantive public office. The court examines whether the appointment satisfies the constitutional or statutory conditions. Thus option A is correct. It is not a count of election votes and has no connection with rainfall or school enrolment. Its focus is the legality of holding public office.

Original jurisdiction means that a dispute can be brought before the Supreme Court in the first instance, rather than arriving through an appeal. Under Article 131, the Court may hear certain disputes between the Union and one or more States, or between States, when the dispute involves a legal right. Therefore option A is correct. A private quarrel, school examination and local sports event do not fall within this constitutional jurisdiction.

Advisory jurisdiction allows the President to refer an important question of law or fact to the Supreme Court for its opinion under Article 143. The Court provides its considered view, which is distinct from deciding an ordinary adversarial appeal or trial. Hence option A is correct. The Supreme Court does not manage Parliament, announce state election results or set the salaries of all government employees. Those functions belong to other institutions or legal processes.

A court of record is a court whose judgments, proceedings, and records are preserved as authoritative legal records. These records can be relied upon as evidence of what the court decided, and its judgments may guide later cases. In India, the Supreme Court and High Courts have this status. Therefore, option A is correct; the other options confuse judicial records with land records, electoral work, or absence of decisions.

The contempt power supports the authority of courts by addressing conduct that disobeys a lawful order or obstructs the administration of justice. Its purpose is not to give judges unlimited personal protection, but to preserve the dignity, effectiveness, and obedience necessary for courts to function. Thus option A is correct. The other options describe election, commercial, or tax functions that have no connection with contempt jurisdiction.

India has one integrated judicial system rather than completely separate federal and state court systems. The Supreme Court stands at the top, followed by High Courts and subordinate courts, allowing constitutional provisions and laws to receive broadly consistent interpretation across the country. Therefore option A is correct. The system does not create a separate Supreme Court for every state, make courts departments of Parliament, or detach states from the Constitution.

Checks and balances is a constitutional principle under which each organ of government has limited means to restrain the others, preventing concentration of power. Through judicial review, courts can examine legislation or executive action and invalidate it when it violates the Constitution. Option A expresses this role. The judiciary does not vote in elections, appoint ministers as a general political function, or implement tax policy.

Secure tenure means that judges cannot be removed simply because a government, political group, or interested party dislikes a particular judgment. Removal is subject to a demanding constitutional procedure, which reduces fear and improper pressure. This protection allows judges to apply law and the Constitution impartially, so option A is correct. Tenure does not give judges legislative power, electoral rights, or membership in the executive.

A difficult removal procedure protects judicial independence by preventing the executive or a temporary political majority from dismissing judges for unpopular but lawful decisions. In India, removal is linked to proved misbehaviour or incapacity and requires a special constitutional process. Hence option A is correct. The safeguard does not place judges above the law, isolate courts from citizens, or allow the government to close courts.

Judicial activism describes a comparatively active approach by courts in interpreting the Constitution, protecting rights, and responding to serious public-interest concerns. Through devices such as Public Interest Litigation, courts may examine matters affecting groups that cannot easily seek relief themselves. Thus option A states a positive feature. Activism does not transform courts into political parties, abolish elections, or eliminate the legislature.

Public Interest Litigation broadened access to constitutional remedies by permitting a public-spirited person or organisation to approach the court on matters affecting disadvantaged groups or the wider public. This reduced the need for every affected person to file a conventional petition personally. Therefore option A is correct. PIL did not reserve justice for the wealthy, privatise courts, or abolish Fundamental Rights.

Lok Adalats are forums for alternative dispute resolution that encourage parties to settle disputes through compromise. Their procedure is intended to be accessible, inexpensive, and speedy, and a settlement can avoid prolonged litigation. Consequently, option A is correct. Lok Adalats do not impose the death penalty in every criminal matter, draft laws for Parliament, or replace and close the regular courts.

Civil cases generally concern disputes over private rights, duties, property, contracts, or compensation between individuals or institutions. Criminal cases concern conduct treated as an offence against law and involve prosecution, with penalties possible after proof according to legal procedure. Therefore option A correctly states the main distinction. Civil matters are not limited to Parliament, criminal matters do not occur only in schools, and laws apply to both.

The governing concept is natural justice, especially the rule of audi alteram partem, which means hearing the other side. Before making a decision that may affect a person, a fair authority should allow the concerned parties to explain their position and respond to material allegations. Therefore, option A is correct. Options B and D deny fairness, while option C wrongly rejects the importance of evidence.

The governing concept is evidence-based adjudication. A court must determine relevant facts through admissible evidence and then apply the appropriate legal rules; it should not decide merely on suspicion, personal preference, or unsupported claims. Option A is correct because evidence connects the facts of a dispute with the law used to decide it. Option B misstates judicial reasoning, while C and D exaggerate or trivialise evidence.

The governing concept is equality before law and the rule of law. Courts must apply legal standards impartially, regardless of a person's wealth, office, caste, or social position, and they may provide remedies when state action violates equality. Option A is correct. Options B, C, and D describe discriminatory practices that contradict constitutional equality and judicial fairness.

The governing concept is the rule of law, under which public authorities and citizens are subject to the Constitution and valid laws. The judiciary interprets legal provisions, resolves disputes, and can restrain arbitrary government action through constitutional review. Option A is correct. Options B, C, and D support unchecked authority or deny access to justice, all of which contradict the rule of law.

The governing concept is an integrated judiciary. India has a single judicial structure in which the Supreme Court stands at the apex and High Courts function at the state level, with lower courts connected through the system of appeals and supervision. Option A is correct. Option B wrongly describes separate national and state judiciaries, while C and D do not describe India's constitutional court structure.