Which of the following cases CANNOT be taken up by a Lok Adalat?

The correct answer is D, Privy Council in London. Till 1949 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, sitting in London, was the highest court of appeal for cases arising in British India. Appeals went up from the provincial high courts, and later from the Federal Court, to these judges in England. The Government of India Act, 1935 set up the Federal Court of India at Delhi in 1937, but even its decisions could be carried further to the Privy Council. The Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949 cut that link, and the Supreme Court of India began work on 28 January 1950. Option A is wrong because the Federal Court stood below the Privy Council and worked only from 1937 to 1950. Option B is wrong because the House of Commons is a law-making chamber of the British Parliament, not a court. Option C is wrong because the Supreme Court set up at Calcutta in 1774 under the Regulating Act served only that Presidency town. Exam tip: Federal Court 1937 → Privy Council appeals ended 1949 → Supreme Court of India 28 January 1950.

The correct answer is D, Sindhi. Sindhi was added to the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution by the 21st Constitutional Amendment Act of 1967.

The Eighth Schedule is the list of languages the Constitution recognises, and a candidate may take the civil services examination in any of them. It began in 1950 with 14 languages. Sindhi came in as the fifteenth in 1967, after Partition brought a large Sindhi-speaking population into India without a state of its own. Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali were added together by the 71st Amendment in 1992, and Bodo, Dogri, Maithili and Santhali by the 92nd Amendment in 2003, which took the list to 22 languages.

Option A is wrong because Manipuri was added in 1992. Option B is wrong because Nepali also came in 1992. Option C is wrong because Konkani was part of the same 1992 group.

Exam tip: 21st Amendment 1967 gave Sindhi; 71st in 1992 gave Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali; 92nd in 2003 gave Bodo, Dogri, Maithili and Santhali.

The correct answer is B, Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala. In this case of 1973 a bench of thirteen judges, the largest the Supreme Court has ever assembled, held by seven votes to six that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution but may not damage or destroy its basic structure. Features such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the republican and democratic form of government, secularism, the separation of powers, judicial review and free and fair elections have since been treated as part of that basic structure. Option A is wrong because Golaknath (1967) took a different line altogether, holding that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights at all, and that ruling was itself overturned in Kesavananda. Option C is wrong because Minerva Mills (1980) only applied the doctrine that already existed and used it to strike down parts of the 42nd Amendment. Option D is wrong because a single case laid the doctrine down. Exam tip: Golaknath 1967, Kesavananda 1973, Minerva Mills 1980.

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.

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.