Supreme Court

Statement 1 is incorrect: The Supreme Court ruled that Aadhaar metadata cannot be stored for more than six months, which invalidated the provision in the Aadhaar Act that allowed the storage of such data for up to five years.

Statement 2 is correct: The Supreme Court struck down Section 57 which allowed private corporations to verify Aadhaar data. The Court held this provision unconstitutional, as it was seen to violate privacy rights.

Statement 3 is incorrect: The 2018 Supreme Court judgment declared that making Aadhaar mandatory for services beyond welfare schemes, including financial services like insurance or for preventing money laundering, was unconstitutional. In response to this ruling, the IRDAI issued an advisory in 2019, clarifying that Aadhaar is not mandatory for obtaining insurance. It also withdrew its earlier 2017 policy that had made Aadhaar compulsory for insurance in the context of anti-money laundering measures.

Statement 4 is correct: In the Aadhaar verdict, the Supreme Court upheld Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, which allows the Central or State Governments to make Aadhaar authentication mandatory for receiving subsidies, benefits, or services funded by the Consolidated Fund of India. The Court defined welfare schemes as those funded by the Consolidated Fund of India, thus validating the use of Aadhaar for such schemes.

Therefore, the correct answer is B. 2 and 4 only.

Statement 1 is incorrect: The term "basic structure" is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution. It was first propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).

The Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, there are certain features of the Constitution that form its basic structure and cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by Parliament.

Although the basic structure doctrine includes elements such as federalism, secularism, democracy, and fundamental rights, these features are not explicitly listed as the 'basic structure' in the Constitution itself.

Statement 2 is incorrect: The Constitution of India does not explicitly mention the power of judicial review. Instead, this power is derived from various provisions, particularly Articles 13, 32, 131-136, 143, 226, and 246. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court and High Courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, ensuring they do not violate fundamental rights or other constitutional provisions. This power is essential in maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution and protecting citizens' rights.

Hence, neither of the statements is correct.

Writ of Prohibition:

* It is a judicial order issued by a higher court (Supreme Court or High Court) to a lower court or tribunal.

* It prevents the lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to law.

* Purpose: To stop ongoing proceedings in a case where the lower court lacks jurisdiction or violates legal procedures.

* Nature: It is preventive, ensuring the lower court does not act unlawfully rather than correcting a wrong decision after it has occurred.

* Example: If a tribunal starts hearing a case that legally falls under the jurisdiction of a civil court, the Writ of Prohibition can halt such proceedings.

* Comparison with Certiorari: Prohibition is issued before judgment to stop proceedings, whereas Certiorari is issued after judgment to quash orders passed unlawfully.

Statement 1 is correct: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted based on the recommendations of the H.N. Sanyal Committee, which examined the law relating to contempt of courts.

Statement 2 is correct: Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution empower the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to punish for contempt of themselves.

Statement 3 is incorrect: The Constitution does not define civil contempt and criminal contempt; these are defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Statement 4 is correct: Parliament has the power to make laws on contempt of court, as evidenced by the enactment of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Statement 1 is Correct: Under Article 128, the Chief Justice of India may, at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a duly qualified retired Judge of a High Court to sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court.

Statement 2 is Incorrect: The Supreme Court derives its explicit power of review from Article 137 of the Constitution. High Courts have no equivalent explicit constitutional provision granting them review powers. While High Courts, being Courts of Record under Article 215, possess certain inherent powers, their power of review is neither equivalent in source nor in scope to the Supreme Court's review power under Article 137. This distinction was the basis of the official UPSC Answer Key for Prelims 2021, which confirmed Option (A) as correct.

Article 142 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the plenary power to pass any decree or order necessary for doing 'complete justice' in any cause or matter pending before it. This power is unique because it is not subject to limitations or prohibitions contained in ordinary laws (statutes) enacted by Parliament. The Supreme Court has held (e.g., in the *Union Carbide* case) that while this power cannot be used to bypass express constitutional provisions, it is not restricted by statutory provisions.

Why other options are incorrect: - Option A: Article 329 places certain restrictions on court interference in electoral matters (like delimitation), but it does not grant the Election Commission absolute immunity from judicial review, nor does it relate to Article 142. - Option C: Under Article 74, the President must act on the 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers. This requirement applies to the declaration of a Financial Emergency under Article 360; the President cannot act independently. - Option D: This describes the federal distribution of legislative powers under Articles 245 to 254 and the Seventh Schedule, which governs the relationship between the Union and State legislatures, not the judicial powers of the Supreme Court.

Statement 1 is incorrect: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, explicitly gives the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha) the discretion to either admit or refuse to admit a motion for the removal of a judge. If the motion is not in order or is deemed frivolous, the Speaker can reject it at the initial stage itself. This power was notably exercised by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha in 2018 when he rejected an impeachment motion against the then Chief Justice of India.

Statement 2 is incorrect: The terms "incapacity" and "proven misbehaviour", which are grounds for the removal of a judge under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, are not explicitly defined in the Constitution. Their interpretation has evolved through judicial pronouncements and parliamentary discussions.

Statement 3 is correct: The constitutional provisions related to the removal of judges are found in Articles 124(4), 124(5), 217, and 218. Additionally, the process is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which outlines the procedural framework for investigating misconduct and incapacity.

Statement 4 is correct: As per Article 124(4) of the Constitution, for a motion seeking the removal of a Supreme Court or High Court judge to proceed, it must be passed by: - A majority of the total membership of the House, and - A majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.

A custodian is a person entrusted with the custody or care of something.

- Whenever Fundamental Rights are denied or restricted, it can be challenged in the Supreme Court under Article 32; - The dispute between Centre and State can be settled in the Supreme Court under Article 131; - the Law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the courts in India under Article 141; - For the enforcement of decrees - Article 142; - President of India consulting Supreme Court under Article 143; - After all, under Article 13, all laws that are inconsistent with or in derogation of any of the fundamental rights shall be void ( Doctrine of Judicial Review). - Supreme Court judgments are the law of the land;

Based on the above facts, the Supreme Court takes care of the Constitution. So, simply the Supreme Court is the Custodian of the Constitution.

Article 131 of the Constitution of India provides for the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to settle the disputes between the different units of the Indian Federation such as between the Centre and one or more states and, between the states.

According to article 124(1), There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than thirty-three other Judges. Thus, the Constitution vests the authority to increase the number of Judges in the Parliament.