Judiciary – NDA Polity PYQs

Practice NDA Polity previous-year questions with detailed solutions and explanations.

Chapter-wise PYQs • Concept-based explanations • Exam insights

NDA 2026-I

Q. 1. With reference to the territorial jurisdictions of High Courts in India, consider the following pairs:

High Courts: Territorial Jurisdictions

	High Court	Territorial Jurisdiction
I.	Calcutta High Court	Lakshadweep
II.	Madras High Court	Puducherry
III.	Gauhati High Court	Manipur
IV.	Kerala High Court	Andaman and Nicobar Islands

How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

(a) One

(b) Two

(d) All four

Answer: (a) One

Explanation: Pair I: Calcutta High Court: Lakshadweep. INCORRECT. The Calcutta High Court covers West Bengal and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Lakshadweep is under the Kerala High Court. Pair II: Madras High Court: Puducherry. CORRECT. The Madras High Court covers Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Pair III: Gauhati High Court: Manipur. INCORRECT. Manipur has its own separate High Court (Manipur High Court) established in 2013. The Gauhati High Court now covers Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh. Pair IV: Kerala High Court: Andaman and Nicobar Islands. INCORRECT. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands is under the Calcutta High Court. The Kerala High Court covers Kerala and Lakshadweep. Only Pair II (Madras HC: Puducherry) is correctly matched. The answer is (a) One.
Concept Tested: High Court territorial jurisdiction: only Madras HC–Puducherry is correct; Calcutta : Andaman, Kerala: Lakshadweep, Manipur has its own HC since 2013

★ JOVIK Exam Insight: Three swapped pairs in this question: Calcutta covers Andamans (not Lakshadweep). Kerala covers Lakshadweep (not Andamans). Gauhati no longer covers Manipur (since 2013). Memory anchor: Calcutta covers the eastern islands (Andaman). Kerala covers the western islands (Lakshadweep). Madras covers the neighbouring French territory (Puducherry).

NDA 2022-I

Q. 2. Which one of the following does not fall under the jurisdiction of the apex court of India?

(a) Original Jurisdiction

(b) Appellate Jurisdiction

(d) Advisory Jurisdiction

Answer: (c) Collegiate Jurisdiction

Explanation: The Supreme Court of India has four recognised types of jurisdictions: Original Jurisdiction (Article 131), Appellate Jurisdiction (Articles 132–136), Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143), and Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32). ‘Collegiate Jurisdiction’ does not exist as a constitutional or legal category. It is a fabricated term. The word ‘Collegium’ is familiar in Indian judicial discourse: it refers to the panel of senior judges that recommends appointments. But ‘Collegiate Jurisdiction’ as a type of court jurisdiction does not exist anywhere in the Constitution or in legal doctrine.
Concept Tested: Supreme Court jurisdiction: four real types; ‘Collegiate Jurisdiction’ does not exist

★ JOVIK Exam Insight: The Collegium (senior judges who recommend appointments) and ‘Collegiate Jurisdiction’ (fabricated term) share a root word but are entirely different things. Four real types: Original (Art. 131), Appellate (Art. 132–136), Advisory (Art. 143), Writ (Art. 32). Memorise these four: no others exist.

Q. 3. Who among the following is the Head of the Committee appointed by the Supreme Court of India to enquire into the circumstances that led to the Prime Minister of India’s convoy being stuck for several minutes on a flyover in Punjab recently?

(a) Justice Indu Malhotra

(b) Justice Ashok Bhushan

(d) Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

Answer: (a) Justice Indu Malhotra

Explanation: This question refers to the convoy security incident in Punjab in January 2022, when the Prime Minister’s convoy was stuck on a flyover due to a security lapse. The Supreme Court appointed a committee headed by Justice Indu Malhotra (retired judge of the Supreme Court) to inquire into the circumstances of the incident. This is a current-affairs question embedded within the Judiciary chapter. It tests awareness of a specific Supreme Court committee constituted close to the time of the examination.
Concept Tested: Current affairs: Supreme Court committee on Punjab convoy security lapse (January 2022), headed by Justice Indu Malhotra

★ JOVIK Exam Insight: This is the only question in the P1–P10 series that tests a specific named individual in a time-bound current event. It cannot be answered from static constitutional knowledge. NDA occasionally embeds current-affairs questions within constitutional chapters. Monitor significant Supreme Court committee appointments and suo motu cases in the months before any NDA examination.

NDA 2021-II

Q. 4. Which one of the following is not a writ?

(a) Mandamus

(b) Habeas Corpus

(d) Severability

Answer: (d) Severability

Explanation: Mandamus, Habeas Corpus, and Certiorari are all constitutional writs: three of the five writs that courts can issue under Articles 32 and 226. The five constitutional writs are: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto. Severability is NOT a writ. It is a constitutional doctrine applied when courts hold part of a law unconstitutional: the valid portion is severed from the invalid and the valid part is upheld.
Concept Tested: Five constitutional writs: Severability is a doctrine, not a writ

NDA 2020-I/II

Q. 5. A common High Court for two or more states can be established by

(a) a law passed by the Parliament

(b) an order of the Supreme Court of India

(d) an amendment to the Constitution of India

Answer: (a) a law passed by the Parliament

Explanation: A common High Court for two or more States can be established by Parliament by law under Article 231 of the Constitution. This power rests exclusively with Parliament: the Supreme Court cannot establish a High Court by order, and the President cannot do so through an executive order. The current example of a common High Court is the Gauhati High Court, which covers Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh.
Concept Tested: Common High Court: established by Parliament by law under Article 231

NDA 2018-II

Q. 6. Every Judge of the Supreme Court of India is appointed by

(a) the Supreme Court Collegium

(b) the Cabinet

(d) the Lok Sabha

Answer: (c) the President of India

Explanation: Under Article 124(2) of the Constitution, every judge of the Supreme Court is appointed by the President of India. The Collegium of the Supreme Court plays a decisive role in recommending candidates for appointment: and in practice the President acts on the Collegium’s recommendation: but the constitutional text vests the formal power of appointment in the President. The Cabinet and the Lok Sabha play no role in appointing Supreme Court judges.
Concept Tested: Appointment of SC judges: by the President of India under Article 124(2); Collegium recommends but does not appoint

★ JOVIK Exam Insight: NDA tested the constitutional text, not institutional practice. The Constitution says the President appoints. The Collegium recommends, but the President is the formal appointing authority under Article 124(2). Both facts are true: but the constitutional answer is: the President.

NDA 2015-II

Q. 7. The two provisions of the Constitution of India that most clearly express the power of judicial review are:

(a) Article 21 and Article 446

(b) Article 32 and Article 226

(d) Article 17 and Article 143

Answer: (b) Article 32 and Article 226

Explanation: Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue constitutional writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Dr. Ambedkar called this the ‘heart and soul of the Constitution.’ Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other legal purpose: a broader scope than Article 32. Together, Articles 32 and 226 constitute the primary constitutional expression of judicial review in India.
Concept Tested: Judicial review: constitutional basis in Articles 32 (Supreme Court) and 226 (High Courts)

Q. 8. The ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’ was enunciated by the Supreme Court during the:

(a) Golak Nath case

(b) Maneka Gandhi case

(d) S R Bommai case

Answer: (c) Kesavananda Bharati case

Explanation: The Basic Structure Doctrine was enunciated by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). A thirteen-judge constitutional bench held by a 7:6 majority that Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 but cannot alter or destroy its basic structure. The Golak Nath case (1967) held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights at all: a stricter position that was overruled by Kesavananda Bharati. Maneka Gandhi (1978) expanded Article 21; S.R. Bommai (1994) restricted arbitrary use of Article 356. Neither enunciated the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Concept Tested: Basic Structure Doctrine: enunciated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

★ JOVIK Exam Insight: Golak Nath is the most dangerous distractor: it was the case that Kesavananda Bharati overruled. Golak Nath (1967): Parliament cannot amend FRs at all. Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Parliament can amend but cannot destroy the basic structure. The second case superseded the first.

NDA 2012-I

Q. 9. The writ of certiorari is issued by a superior court to

(a) an inferior court to stop further proceedings in a particular case

(b) an inferior court to transfer the record of proceedings in a case for review

(d) a public authority to produce a person detained by it before the court within 24 hours

Answer: (b) an inferior court to transfer the record of proceedings in a case for review

Explanation: The writ of certiorari is issued by a superior court to an inferior court to call up and transfer the record of proceedings in a case for review. Option (a) describes the writ of Prohibition, which is issued to stop further proceedings in an inferior court. Prohibition is preventive; certiorari is corrective. Option (c) describes Quo Warranto: issued to an officer to show by what authority they hold a public office. Option (d) describes Habeas Corpus: issued to produce a detained person before the court.
Concept Tested: Writ of certiorari: transfers record from inferior court for review; distinguished from Prohibition (stops proceedings)

★ JOVIK Exam Insight: Certiorari: ‘calls up’ the record from an inferior court for the superior court to review. It is a corrective writ. Prohibition: ‘stops’ proceedings from continuing in an inferior court. It is a preventive writ. Both are directed to inferior courts: the difference is timing and effect.

NDA 2010-I

Q. 10. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) may be linked with

(a) judicial review

(b) judicial activism

(d) judicial sanctity

Answer: (b) judicial activism

Explanation: PIL is most precisely linked to judicial activism: the expanded, self-initiated role of courts in addressing matters of public importance. PIL allows courts to take cognisance of cases suo motu (on their own motion) or on a petition from any public-spirited citizen, without the traditional requirement of locus standi. Judicial review is the broader power to examine the constitutionality of laws: an established legal power that predates PIL and is distinct from it. PIL is a specific instrument of judicial activism.
Concept Tested: PIL: linked to judicial activism, not judicial review; expansion of court’s self-initiated role in public interest matters

NDA 2009-I

Q. 11. On which of the following grounds can a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court be impeached?

Violation of the Constitution
Proved misbehaviour
Incapacity

Select the correct answer using the code given below:

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 only

(d) 2 and 3 only

Answer: (d) 2 and 3 only

Explanation: A judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court can be removed only on two grounds: proved misbehaviour, or incapacity. Violation of the Constitution is NOT a ground for judicial removal. It is a ground for Presidential impeachment under Article 61: not for judicial removal. The procedure is governed by Article 124(4) for Supreme Court judges and Article 218 (which applies Article 124(4) to High Court judges). Only grounds 2 and 3 are correct. The answer is (d).
Concept Tested: Grounds for judicial impeachment: proved misbehaviour and incapacity only; violation of the Constitution is NOT a ground

★ JOVIK Exam Insight: The confusion arises from Presidential impeachment (Article 61), which is based on ‘violation of the Constitution.’ Judicial removal has different grounds. Judges: proved misbehaviour OR incapacity. President: violation of the Constitution. These are constitutionally distinct processes.

Quick Revision

Concept	Key Point
Judicial impeachment: grounds	Proved misbehaviour OR Incapacity. Violation of the Constitution is NOT a ground for judicial removal (it is a Presidential impeachment ground).
PIL: linked to	Judicial activism: the expanded, self-initiated role of courts in matters of public importance. Not judicial review (which is the broader power to test constitutionality of laws).
Writ of Certiorari	Issued by superior court to inferior court to transfer the record of proceedings for review. Corrective in nature.
Writ of Prohibition	Issued by superior court to inferior court to STOP further proceedings. Preventive in nature. Often confused with Certiorari.
Writ of Habeas Corpus	‘You have the body.’ Requires production of a detained person before the court. Protects personal liberty.
Writ of Mandamus	‘We command.’ Orders a public authority to perform a public duty it has failed or refused to perform.
Writ of Quo Warranto	‘By what authority.’ Requires an office-holder to show their right to hold the office.
Severability	NOT a writ. A constitutional doctrine: the valid portion of a law is severed from the unconstitutional portion.
Five writs	Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto. Only these five.
Judicial review: constitutional basis	Article 32 (Supreme Court: FR enforcement only) and Article 226 (High Courts: FRs and any other legal purpose).
Article 32 vs Article 226	Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right (can be suspended during National Emergency). Article 226 is not a FR (cannot be suspended). Article 226 has broader scope.
Basic Structure Doctrine	Enunciated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). Parliament can amend but cannot destroy the Constitution’s basic structure.
Golak Nath case (1967)	Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights at all. This position was OVERRULED by Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
Maneka Gandhi case (1978)	Article 21 expanded: procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable: not merely any procedure.
S.R. Bommai case (1994)	Restricted arbitrary use of Article 356 (President’s Rule); floor test is the proper majority test.
SC judge: appointment	By the President of India under Article 124(2). The Collegium recommends but does not appoint.
Common High Court	Established by Parliament by law under Article 231. Not by SC order, not by Presidential order.
SC jurisdiction: four real types	Original (Art. 131), Appellate (Art. 132–136), Advisory (Art. 143), Writ (Art. 32).
‘Collegiate Jurisdiction’	Does NOT exist. Fabricated category used as NDA distractor in 2022-I.
Calcutta HC: territorial jurisdiction	West Bengal and Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
Madras HC: territorial jurisdiction	Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
Kerala HC: territorial jurisdiction	Kerala and Lakshadweep.
Gauhati HC: territorial jurisdiction	Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh. Does NOT cover Manipur (separate HC since 2013).
Manipur High Court	Established 2013: separated from Gauhati HC. Manipur has its own High Court.