Consider the following statements about the appointment of the Chief Justice of India and identify the correct ones. 1. The Constitution expressly provides that the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed Chief Justice of India. 2. The convention of appointing the senior-most judge was set aside in 1973 and again in 1977. 3. The outgoing Chief Justice of India recommends the name of his successor.

The correct answer is B, Article 124. Article 124(1) establishes the Supreme Court, and Article 124(2) provides that every judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as the President may deem necessary; its proviso makes consultation with the Chief Justice of India compulsory for the appointment of any judge other than the Chief Justice himself. Option A, Article 122, is wrong because it bars courts from inquiring into the proceedings of Parliament. Option C, Article 127, is wrong because it deals with the appointment of ad hoc judges to the Supreme Court by the Chief Justice of India, not with regular appointments. Option D, Article 217, is wrong because it governs the appointment of judges of a High Court, which is a different provision altogether.

The correct answer is A, S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), known as the First Judges Case. The Court there read "consultation" literally, holding that the Chief Justice of India's opinion was not binding on the government, which therefore kept the final say in appointments. Option B, the Second Judges Case of 1993, is wrong because it reversed this very position, holding that consultation means concurrence and giving primacy to the Chief Justice of India, and in doing so created the collegium. Option C, the Third Judges Case of 1998, is wrong because it only expanded the collegium to the Chief Justice of India and his four senior-most colleagues on a Presidential reference. Option D is wrong because Kesavananda Bharati laid down the basic structure doctrine and did not deal with judicial appointments.

The correct answer is C, four senior-most judges. The Second Judges Case of 1993 required the Chief Justice of India to form his opinion in consultation with his two senior-most colleagues, so the first collegium had three members. In 1998 the President made a reference under Article 143, and in the Third Judges Case the Court enlarged the collegium for Supreme Court appointments to the Chief Justice of India plus his four senior-most colleagues, and directed that the opinions be recorded in writing. Option A is wrong because two colleagues is the 1993 position, which still applies to High Court appointments. Option B and option D are wrong because the numbers three and five were never prescribed for this purpose; the figure of four is the one the 1998 opinion fixed and the Memorandum of Procedure follows.

The correct answer is B, the Ninety-ninth Amendment Act, passed in 2014, which inserted Articles 124A, 124B and 124C to create the National Judicial Appointments Commission and to let Parliament regulate the procedure for appointments by law. It was brought into force in April 2015 along with the NJAC Act, 2014, and struck down by a Constitution Bench the same year. Option A is wrong because the Ninety-seventh Amendment dealt with co-operative societies and added Part IXB. Option C is wrong because the One Hundred and First Amendment introduced the Goods and Services Tax. Option D is wrong because the Forty-second Amendment of 1976 was the wide-ranging "mini constitution" amendment that added words to the Preamble and the Fundamental Duties, and had nothing to do with judicial appointments.

The correct answer is C, the Attorney General of India, who was never a member of the Commission. Article 124A gave the National Judicial Appointments Commission six members: the Chief Justice of India as ex officio chairperson, the two next senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, and two eminent persons nominated by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. Options A, B and D therefore name genuine members and are wrong answers to a question asking for the exception. One of the two eminent persons had to belong to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, minorities or women, and both held office for three years and could not be renominated.