Supreme Court and High Courts of India: Notes, Articles and PYQs

The correct answer is Seven. When the Supreme Court began in 1950, Article 124(1) provided for a Chief Justice of India and not more than seven other judges, eight in all, "until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number". Parliament has used that power several times as the Court's workload grew: to 11 judges in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986, 31 in 2009 and 34 in 2019, and in May 2026 an ordinance raised the sanctioned strength to 38, the Chief Justice and 37 judges.

The wrong options are nearby numbers designed to catch half-remembered facts. Eight is the total including the Chief Justice, which is exactly why it tempts; six and five have no basis. Read the question carefully: "besides the Chief Justice" means the answer excludes the Chief Justice. Note also that the number of judges is fixed by an Act of Parliament, the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, and not by a constitutional amendment, which is why it can be changed relatively easily.

The correct answer is 65. Article 124(2) says a judge of the Supreme Court shall hold office until he or she attains the age of 65 years. A judge can leave earlier by resigning in writing to the President, or be removed by the President after an address by both Houses of Parliament passed by a special majority on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. There is no minimum age for appointment and no fixed term, so a judge's tenure depends on the age at which he or she is appointed.

The wrong options are ages from other offices. Sixty-two is the retirement age of High Court judges, raised from 60 by the 15th Amendment in 1963, which makes it the most tempting wrong answer. Sixty was the original retirement age for High Court judges, and 67 has no basis. The pair to remember is Supreme Court 65, High Court 62. By contrast, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Chief Election Commissioner hold office for six years or until 65, whichever is earlier.

The correct answer is proven misbehaviour or incapacity. Under Article 124(4), a judge of the Supreme Court can be removed by an order of the President only after each House of Parliament, in the same session, presents an address supported by a majority of its total membership and by two-thirds of the members present and voting, on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 sets out how the charges are investigated by a three-member committee before Parliament votes.

The other options are not grounds recognised by the Constitution. "Disrespect of the Constitution" sounds close to the ground for impeaching the President, which is "violation of the Constitution", and that is the trap. Murder charges or lack of knowledge would have to be established as misbehaviour or incapacity through the same process; they are not separate grounds. The strict process protects judicial independence: no judge of the Supreme Court has ever been removed, and the first motion, against Justice V. Ramaswami in 1993, failed.

The correct answer is Original Jurisdiction. Under Article 131, the Supreme Court alone can hear, as a court of first instance, disputes between the Government of India and one or more States, between the Government of India and a State on one side and other States on the other, or between two or more States. "Original" means the case starts in the Supreme Court itself rather than coming to it on appeal. The dispute must involve a question of law or fact on which a legal right depends, and Parliament can exclude inter-state river water disputes from it under Article 262.

The other options are real kinds of jurisdiction but cover different cases. Appellate jurisdiction (Articles 132 to 134 and 136) covers appeals from the High Courts and other courts. Advisory jurisdiction (Article 143) covers questions referred by the President. "Residuary jurisdiction" is not a category of the Supreme Court's powers at all. This question shows the Court's role as the umpire of Indian federalism: when the Centre and a State disagree, it is the Supreme Court that decides.

The correct answer is Article 129. It declares that the Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Being a court of record means two things: its judgments and proceedings are preserved as permanent records of evidentiary value that cannot be questioned when produced before any court, and it has the inherent power to punish anyone who scandalises the court or disobeys its orders.

The other options are nearby Articles with different content. Article 123 gives the President the power to issue ordinances. Article 125 deals with the salaries and allowances of Supreme Court judges. Article 127 provides for the appointment of ad hoc judges when there is no quorum of permanent judges. The High Courts are courts of record too, under Article 215, so remember the pair: 129 for the Supreme Court and 215 for the High Courts. Contempt of court is further defined by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The correct answer is Article 137. It gives the Supreme Court the power to review any judgment it has pronounced or any order it has made, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament and the rules made by the Court under Article 145. A review petition is normally heard by the same bench that gave the judgment, and it succeeds only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record or some similar strong ground. Beyond review, the Court recognised the curative petition in the Rupa Ashok Hurra case (2002) as a last remedy to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice.

The other options are the Articles right around it. Article 135 lets the Supreme Court exercise the jurisdiction the Federal Court had under earlier law. Article 136 is the special leave to appeal from any court or tribunal. Article 138 allows Parliament to enlarge the Court's jurisdiction. The sequence 136, 137 is worth fixing in memory: special leave to appeal, then review of its own judgments.

The correct answer is All courts within the territory of India. Article 141 says the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. This is what gives its judgments the force of precedent: every High Court, district court and tribunal must follow the legal principles the Supreme Court lays down. The Supreme Court itself, however, is not bound by its own earlier decisions and can overrule them, usually through a larger bench.

The other options misread the Article. It is not limited to the High Courts, and it does not exclude civil courts or apply only to some tribunals. As for State governments, their duty comes from a different Article: under Article 144, all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. So remember the pair: Article 141 binds the courts to the Court's law, and Article 144 obliges every authority, including governments, to help enforce its decisions.

The correct answer is Article 142. It allows the Supreme Court, in exercising its jurisdiction, to pass any decree or make any order necessary for doing "complete justice" in any case or matter pending before it. It is a unique power that lets the Court fill gaps where the law is silent. In 2022, in Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal, the Court used it to issue directions recognising sex work as a profession and ordering the police not to harass consenting adult sex workers. It also relied on Article 142 in the Ayodhya judgment of 2019 to direct that five acres of land be given for a mosque.

The other options are the Articles around it. Article 140 lets Parliament confer supplementary powers on the Court. Article 141 makes the law declared by the Court binding on all courts. Article 143 is the President's power to seek the Court's advice. Because Article 142 is so broad, critics say the Court should use it sparingly, but for exams remember it with two words: "complete justice".

The correct answer is Harilal Kania. Justice Harilal Jekisundas Kania, who had been the last Chief Justice of the Federal Court, became the first Chief Justice of India when the Supreme Court began on 26 January 1950, and presided over its inauguration on 28 January. He died in office in November 1951 and was succeeded by M. Patanjali Sastri.

The other options are also Chief Justices, which is exactly why they appear. B.K. Mukherjea and A.K. Sarkar became Chief Justice later, in the 1950s and 1960s. Y.V. Chandrachud is the longest-serving Chief Justice, from 1978 to 1985, and a favourite answer to a different question. To keep the Supreme Court firsts together: first Chief Justice H.J. Kania; first woman judge M. Fathima Beevi (1989); longest-serving Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud. The present Chief Justice, Justice Surya Kant, is the 53rd, and took office in November 2025.

The correct answer is Fatima Beevi. Justice M. Fathima Beevi, from Kerala, became the first woman judge of the Supreme Court of India in 1989, nearly forty years after the Court was set up. She was also the first Muslim woman to sit on the Court and, according to many accounts, the first woman appointed to the highest court of any Asian country. After retiring she served as the Governor of Tamil Nadu from 1997 to 2001.

The other options are women judges who came later, which is why they are chosen to confuse. Justice R. Banumathi was appointed in 2014. Justices Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra were both appointed in 2018; Indu Malhotra was the first woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court directly from the Bar, without first serving as a High Court judge. India has not yet had a woman Chief Justice. Keep "first woman judge" and "first woman appointed directly from the Bar" apart, since both are asked.

The correct answer is Calcutta High Court. It was established on 1 July 1862 under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861, which makes it the oldest High Court in India. The Bombay and Madras High Courts followed in August of the same year, so all three "chartered" High Courts date from 1862, but Calcutta came first.

The other options were all set up later. The Allahabad High Court was established in 1866, first at Agra, and moved to Allahabad (now Prayagraj) in 1869. The Karnataka High Court began as the Chief Court of Mysore in 1884. The Delhi High Court was set up in 1966. Today there are 25 High Courts, the newest being the Andhra Pradesh High Court, set up in 2019. A related question asks which High Court has the largest number of judges, and the answer there is Allahabad, so do not mix up "oldest" with "largest".

The correct answer is The State Governor. Under Article 217(1), every judge of a High Court is appointed by the President by warrant under his or her hand and seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State and, for any judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of that High Court. In practice, since the Judges cases, recommendations come through the collegium system, but the Governor remains one of the constitutional consultees.

The other options have no role in the process. District magistrates are executive officers of the State government. Members of the State Legislature do not take part in judicial appointments, which keeps the judiciary independent of legislative politics. The Union Cabinet advises the President in general, but the Constitution does not name it as a consultee for judicial appointments. The State connection continues after appointment too: the Governor, or a person appointed by the Governor, administers the oath to a High Court judge under Article 219.

The correct answer is 62. Under Article 217(1), a judge of a High Court holds office until he or she attains the age of 62 years. The original Constitution set the age at 60; the 15th Amendment Act, 1963 raised it to 62. If a question arises about a judge's age, the President decides it after consulting the Chief Justice of India, and that decision is final.

The other options come from elsewhere. Sixty-five is the retirement age of Supreme Court judges, which makes it the most tempting wrong answer. Sixty was the retirement age for High Court judges before 1963. Fifty-six has no connection with judges at all. A judge of a High Court can also leave earlier by resigning to the President, being appointed to the Supreme Court, being transferred to another High Court, or being removed by the same process as a Supreme Court judge. The pair to remember remains Supreme Court 65, High Court 62.

The correct answer is Article 226. It empowers every High Court to issue directions, orders or writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, to any person or authority within its territory, for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights "and for any other purpose". Those last words make the High Courts' writ power wider than the Supreme Court's under Article 32, which covers only Fundamental Rights. On the other hand, Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right, while Article 226 is not, so the Supreme Court cannot refuse to hear a genuine Fundamental Rights petition merely because a High Court remedy exists.

The other options are nearby Articles about High Court judges. Article 220 restricts a retired permanent judge from practising law before the same courts. Article 222 lets the President transfer a judge from one High Court to another. Article 224 provides for additional and acting judges. Pair the two writ Articles in your mind: 32 for the Supreme Court and 226 for the High Courts.

The correct answer is Chandigarh. The Punjab and Haryana High Court sits at Chandigarh and serves the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. It is a common High Court, of the kind Article 231 allows Parliament to set up for two or more States, or for States and a Union Territory. Chandigarh itself is a Union Territory that serves as the capital of both Punjab and Haryana, which is why their shared court is located there.

Firozpur is in Punjab, and Karnal and Faridabad are in Haryana, so the options play on real towns in the two States. Other common High Courts are also asked: the Bombay High Court serves Maharashtra, Goa and the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu; the Gauhati High Court serves Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh; and the Calcutta High Court's jurisdiction extends to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. In all there are 25 High Courts.