Prelims · Polity & governance · 24 questions

Judiciary

Every UPSC Prelims question on this topic, 2016–2026, newest first. Tap an option to check yourself; the answer and explanation open below it.

Asked in 8 of 11 years · most in 2019 (4)

UPSC syllabus: “Indian Polity and Governance-Constitution, Political System, Panchayati Raj, Public Policy, Rights Issues, etc.” See the full syllabus →

Prelims 2022 · Q11

Medium

Consider the following statements:

1.Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.
2.The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
3.The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.
4.In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Answer & explanation

Answer: (b) 1, 2 and 4

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted on the Sanyal Committee's 1963 report, under Parliament's power in Entry 77 of List I and Entry 14 of List III. Articles 129 and 215 give the Supreme Court and High Courts power to punish contempt of themselves, but the definitions of civil and criminal contempt are in Section 2 of the Act, not the Constitution.

✓ 1. A committee under H.N. Sanyal, then Additional Solicitor General, was set up in 1961 and reported in 1963; the 1971 Act was enacted to give effect to its recommendations.
✓ 2. Article 129 (Supreme Court) and Article 215 (High Courts) make them courts of record with the power to punish for contempt of themselves.
✗ 3. The Constitution does not define the two kinds of contempt. Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines 'civil contempt' and 'criminal contempt'.
✓ 4. Entry 77 of the Union List (contempt of the Supreme Court) and Entry 14 of the Concurrent List (contempt of other courts) let Parliament legislate on contempt; the 1971 Act is such a law.

Remember · Contempt: power from Articles 129 and 215 (courts of record); definitions from the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Sanyal Committee, 1963); legislative entries — List I Entry 77, List III Entry 14.

Sources

Law Commission of India, Report No. 274 — Review of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (2018) ↗ “The Act 1971 was enacted to give effect to the recommendations contained in Sanyal Committee report of 1963. … The Constitution of India designates the Supreme Court and the High Courts as the Courts of Record. It further grants the Supreme Court and every High Court the power to punish for contempt of itself. … The said Act 1971 inter alia categorises contempt under two heads i.e. ‘civil contempt’ and ‘criminal contempt’, providing thereunder specific definitions for both (Section 2). … can be regulated by legislation by appropriate legislature under Entry 77 of List I and Entry 14 of List III in exercise of which the Parliament has enacted the Act of 1971”

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2022, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·

Prelims 2022 · Q12

Hard

With reference to India, consider the following statements:

1.Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates.
2.Bar Councils have the power to lay down the rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Answer & explanation

Answer: (b) 2 only

Under the Advocates Act, 1961 an advocate is an individual enrolled on a State Bar Council's roll; a law firm is not an advocate, and corporate lawyers or patent attorneys are not excluded as a class. The Bar Council of India does have statutory functions over legal education and recognition of law degrees.

✗ 1. The Act's definition of advocate does not extend to law firms, partnerships or companies, so 'legal firms' are not recognised as advocates. Recognition turns on an individual's enrolment, not on whether one works for government, a company or in patent practice.
✓ 2. Section 7 of the Advocates Act gives the Bar Council of India legal-education functions, including recognising universities whose law degree qualifies a person for enrolment, and inspecting them for that purpose.

Remember · Advocates Act, 1961: advocates are enrolled individuals (firms are not); the Bar Council of India sets legal-education standards and recognises law degrees for enrolment.

Sources

Law Commission of India, Report No. 266 — The Advocates Act, 1961 (Regulation of Legal Profession), 2017 ↗ “to recognize Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities … a number of responses have highlighted the existence of faulty/unsatisfactory definitions such as the definition of advocate (which does not extend to the law firms, partnerships, body corporate etc.).”

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2022, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·

Prelims 2022 · Q18

Hard

With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements:

1.Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty.
2.Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company.
3.Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Answer & explanation

Answer: (d) 1, 2 and 3

UPSC's official answer: (d) · the answer UPSC accepted, and the one that counts in the exam

Also defensible: (c)

Statements 1 and 3 are settled law: mandamus enforces a public or statutory duty, and quo warranto may be sought by any member of the public. The dispute is statement 2.
UPSC's (d) follows Praga Tools (1969), where the Supreme Court refused mandamus against a company 88 per cent owned by the Union and Andhra Pradesh governments, because 'the company being a non-statutory body and one incorporated under the Companies Act there was neither a statutory nor a public duty imposed on it'. Government ownership alone does not attract the writ.
But the same judgment adds that 'a mandamus would also lie against a company constituted by a statute for the purposes of fulfilling public responsibilities', and Article 226 lets a High Court issue writs 'to any person or authority'. A government company that carries a public duty is therefore not immune, so statement 2, written without any exception, is too absolute.
Read as the general rule it is correct, giving (d); read as an absolute statement it is wrong, giving (c).

UPSC's key is (d), following Praga Tools: a company does not become subject to mandamus merely because the government holds its shares. In the exam, read statement 2 as that general rule and keep the public-duty exception in statement 1, which gives (d).

Supreme Court of India, Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual (1969): no mandamus against a non-statutory company ↗“In the present case the company being a non-statutory body and one incorporated under the Companies Act there was neither a statutory nor a public duty imposed on it by a statute”
Supreme Court of India, Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual (1969): when mandamus does lie against a company ↗“A mandamus would also lie against a company constituted by a statute for the purposes of fulfilling public responsibilities.”
Constitution of India, Article 226(1) (Legislative Department) ↗“every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs”

This box is Minimalist IAS's analysis, with its sources; it does not change UPSC's answer.

Mandamus commands the performance of a statutory or public duty, so it reaches a private body only when the law entrusts it with a public duty, and not a company registered under the Companies Act merely because the government owns it: in Praga Tools Corporation (1969) the Supreme Court refused mandamus against a company in which the Union and Andhra Pradesh governments held 88 per cent of the shares. Quo warranto tests a person's title to a public office, and any member of the public may seek it.

✓ 1. Mandamus is a command to do a thing that is in the nature of a public duty. The Supreme Court in Praga Tools said it can issue to companies or corporations to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their undertakings, so a private body is reached only when a statute entrusts it with a public duty.
✓ 2. In Praga Tools the company was a government company in substance (56 per cent Union and 32 per cent Andhra Pradesh shareholding), yet the Court held that, being a non-statutory body incorporated under the Companies Act, it bore no statutory or public duty enforceable by mandamus. Government ownership alone does not expose a company to the writ.
✓ 3. Quo warranto asks by what authority a person holds a public office. Because the aim is to stop usurpation of public office, the petitioner need not be personally affected — any public-minded person may apply.

Remember · Mandamus: enforces a statutory or public duty; not against a private body without one, nor against a company merely because the government owns it (Praga Tools, 1969). Quo warranto: challenges title to a public office; any public-minded person can file.

📘 Read it in NCERT: Class 11 Indian Constitution at Work, Ch 2 (practise this chapter) · Class 11 Indian Constitution at Work, Ch 2 (practise this chapter)

Sources

NCERT Class 11 · Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 2 “Mandamus: This writ is issued when the court finds that a particular office holder is not doing legal duty and thereby is infringing on the right of an individual.”
Supreme Court of India, Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual (1969), headnote ↗ “An order of mandamus is, in form, a command directed to a person, corporation or an inferior tribunal requiring him or them to do a particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. … In the present case the company being a non-statutory body and one incorporated under the Companies Act there was neither a statutory nor a public duty imposed on it by a statute”
NCERT Class 11 · Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 2 “Quo Warranto: If the court finds that a person is holding office but is not entitled to hold that office, it issues the writ of quo warranto”
Delhi High Court judgment (W.P.(C) 9382/2021, 6 June 2025), quoting the Supreme Court on quo warranto ↗ “a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto and he stands in the position of a relater. He need not have any special interest or personal interest.”
Praga Tools Corporation v. C. A. Imanual (Supreme Court, 19 February 1969), 1969 AIR 1306, headnote on shareholding; Indian Kanoon copy, as main.sci.gov.in refuses automated fetches ↗ · reference work “At the material time 56% of its shares were held by the Union Government, 32% by the Andhra Pradesh Government and 12% by private individuals. … The company being a non-statutory body and one incorporated under the Companies Act there was neither a statutory nor a public duty imposed on it by a statute in respect of which enforcement could be sought by means of a mandamus … A mandamus would also lie against a company constituted by a statute for the purposes of fulfilling public responsibilities.”

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2022, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·

The same topic in Mains

Separation of powers & dispute redressalGS 2 syllabus
Executive, judiciary & pressure groupsGS 2 syllabus

Read it in NCERT

Class 11 Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 2cited in 2 explanations

From the UPSC Blog

J&K Statehood Resolution Explained: Article 3, the 2019 Reorganisation and the Supreme Court’s DirectionSep 26, 2026

Judiciary

Prelims 2022 · Q11

Prelims 2022 · Q12

Prelims 2022 · Q18

The same topic in Mains

Read it in NCERT

From the UPSC Blog

More in Polity & governance