Consider the following statements: I. Originally the Constitution provided for the CJI and 7 Judges. II. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act 1956 was enacted to increase the number of Judges to 10 excluding CJI. III. The Act has been amended five times in the past to increase the strength of the Judges. IV. The maximum increase in strength of Judges was by the Amendment Act, 2008. How many of the above statement(s) is/are correct?
Analyzing Supreme Court Judge Strength Statements
The question requires identifying the correct statements among the four provided options concerning the strength of Supreme Court judges in India.
Statement I: Original Constitutional Strength
The original Constitution of India mandated the Supreme Court's strength to include the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and a maximum of seven other judges. This statement is correct.
Statement II: Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, was enacted with the purpose of increasing the judge strength. This Act specified the number of judges to be 10, excluding the CJI, thus setting the total strength at CJI + 10 judges. This statement is correct.
Statement III: Amendments to the Judges Act
The strength of Supreme Court judges has been increased legislatively over the years. The primary legislative actions are:
- The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, set the strength at CJI + 10 judges.
- The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1960, increased it to CJI + 13 judges.
- The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1977, increased it to CJI + 17 judges.
- The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986, increased it to CJI + 25 judges.
- The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2008, increased it to CJI + 30 judges.
Considering the 1956 Act as the first legislative step and the subsequent four amendments, there have been five key legislative increases to the judges' strength. Therefore, the statement that the Act has been amended five times is considered correct based on this interpretation of legislative milestones.
Statement IV: Maximum Increase by 2008 Amendment
We examine the increase in judge numbers at each legislative step:
- 1956 Act: From 7 to 10 judges ($+3$).
- 1960 Act: From 10 to 13 judges ($+3$).
- 1977 Act: From 13 to 17 judges ($+4$).
- 1986 Act: From 17 to 25 judges ($+8$).
- 2008 Act: From 25 to 30 judges ($+5$).
The largest increase in strength was 8 judges, enacted by the 1986 Amendment Act. The 2008 Amendment Act increased the strength by 5 judges. Thus, the statement claiming the maximum increase occurred in 2008 is incorrect.
Determining the Number of Correct Statements
Statements I, II, and III have been determined to be correct.
Statement IV is incorrect.
Consequently, there are exactly 3 correct statements.
Important Questions from Judiciary-Supreme Court & High Courts
With reference to India, consider the following statements :
1. Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates.
2. Bar Councils have the power to lay down the rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?
Which one of the following statements is not correct?
(a) The Supreme Court of India is a Court of Record.
(b) High Courts in India are Courts of Record.
(c) Subordinate Courts in India are Courts of Record.
(d) All Courts in India are not Courts of Record.Consider the following pairs :
1. Enlargement of Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: Article 138A of Constitution of India.
2. Conferment on the Supreme Court of powers to issue certain writs : Article 139A of Constitution of India.
3. Civil and judicial authority to act in aid of the Supreme Court : Article 144A of the Constitution of India.
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?
- Which one of the following judgements is associated with the primacy of the Chief Justice of India and the Collegium of Judges in the appointment and transfer of the higher judiciary?
- The locus standi rule to move the court was liberalized by the case of:
