The first Indian woman judge of the Supreme Court of India was:

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.