Judiciary

Answer: (b) 2 only

Only statement 2 is correct. It was the 39th Amendment (1975) that inserted Article 329A to shield the Prime Minister's election from the courts, and the 44th Amendment (1978) removed it. The Supreme Court did strike down the 99th Amendment, which created the NJAC, in October 2015.

• ✗ 1. Article 329A, on elections of the Prime Minister and the Speaker, was inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975. The 44th Amendment, passed after the Emergency, omitted it instead of introducing it.
• ✓ 2. In the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association case (16 October 2015), a five-judge Bench struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC scheme, holding that the Union Law Minister's place in the Commission and the 'eminent persons' clause breached judicial independence, part of the basic structure.

Remember · 39th Amendment (1975) inserted Article 329A for the Prime Minister's election; the 44th (1978) omitted it. The 99th Amendment (NJAC) was struck down on 16 October 2015.

📘 Read it in NCERT: Class 12 Politics in India since Independence, Ch 6 (practise this chapter)

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2019, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink · Report an error

Answer: (c) 3 and 4 only

Statements 3 and 4 are correct. Article 124(4) sets the voting rule for removing a Supreme Court Judge and leaves the procedure to a law of Parliament, which is the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. That Act lets the Speaker refuse to admit the motion, and the Constitution never defines 'misbehaviour'.

• ✗ 1. Under section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, the Speaker (or Chairman) may, after consulting such persons as he thinks fit, either admit the motion or refuse to admit it. So it can be rejected at that stage.
• ✗ 2. Article 124(4) speaks of 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' but does not define either term. The Supreme Court has observed that 'misbehaviour' is advisedly not defined.
• ✓ 3. Article 124(5) lets Parliament regulate by law the presentation of the address and the investigation and proof of misbehaviour or incapacity. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 does this, including the inquiry committee.
• ✓ 4. Article 124(4) requires an address by each House, supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by at least two-thirds of the members present and voting.

Remember · A Supreme Court Judge is removed by a Presidential order on an address of both Houses (special majority in each); the process is in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and the Speaker may refuse to admit the motion.

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2019, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink · Report an error

Answer: (b) The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament.

Article 142 belongs to the Supreme Court: it lets the Court pass whatever order is necessary for 'complete justice' in a case before it. The statement therefore means the Supreme Court is not held back, in using this power, by the limits found in ordinary laws made by Parliament.

• ✓ (b) Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, a power drawn from the Constitution itself and not from Parliament's ordinary laws.
• ✗ (a) Article 142 is about the Supreme Court's orders, not about decisions of the Election Commission of India.
• ✗ (c) A Financial Emergency is a power of the President under Article 360 and has nothing to do with Article 142, which concerns the Supreme Court.
• ✗ (d) State legislative powers are dealt with in Articles 245 to 255, not in Article 142.

Remember · Article 142: the Supreme Court may pass any order necessary for doing complete justice in a matter before it.

📘 Read it in NCERT: Class 8 Exploring Society: India and Beyond (Part 2), Ch 4 (practise this chapter)

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2019, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink · Report an error

Answer: (d) Neither 1 nor 2

Both statements are wrong. High Courts, like the Supreme Court, can examine any law and declare it unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court can strike down even a constitutional amendment if it violates the basic structure.

• ✗ 1. Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court or the High Courts to test whether any law conforms to the Constitution. A High Court can therefore hold a central law invalid.
• ✗ 2. In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) the Supreme Court held that even Parliament cannot violate the basic structure through an amendment. When the 42nd Amendment tried to assert parliamentary supremacy, the Court repeated its stand in Minerva Mills (1980).

Remember · Judicial review belongs to High Courts as well as the Supreme Court, and after Kesavananda Bharati (1973) the courts can strike down amendments that violate the basic structure.

📘 Read it in NCERT: Class 11 Indian Constitution at Work, Ch 6 (practise this chapter) · Class 11 Indian Constitution at Work, Ch 6 (practise this chapter) · Class 11 Indian Constitution at Work, Ch 9 (practise this chapter)

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2019, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink · Report an error