Question

The above excerpt has been taken from which of the following judgments, where the Supreme Court of India sought to activate a dormant provision of the Constitution of India for the appointment of ad hoc Judges to deal with the unprecedented backlog of cases pending before the High Courts?

• A. Devendra Kumar Saxena v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 330.
• B. M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 326.
• C. Lok Prahari through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla, IAS (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 333.
• D. Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 310.
• A. Article 224A
• B. Article 217
• C. Article 224
• D. Article 217A
• A. 3:2
• B. 4:1
• C. 6:1
• D. 4:3
• A. Ashok Tanwar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2005) 2 SCC 104.
• B. Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1.
• C. Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth, (1977) 4 SCC 193.
• D. Krishan Gopal v. Shri Prakash Chandra, (1974) 1 SCC 128.
• A. One Hundred Eighty Eighth Report on proposals for Constitution of Hi-Tech Fast-Track Commercial Divisions in High Courts (2003).
• B. Fourteenth Report on Reforms in Judicial Administration (1958).
• C. One Twentieth Report on Manpower Planning in Judiciary: A Blueprint (1987).
• D. One Hundred Eighteenth Report on Method of Appointments to Subordinate Courts/ Subordinate Judiciary (1986).
• A. Article 124A of the Constitution of India provides for the establishment of the collegium system.
• B. The Judicial Appointments (Collegium System) Act, 1999 provides for the establishment of the collegium system.
• C. The Constitution of India does not provide for the establishment of the collegium system.
• D. The National Judicial Appointments Commission supplements the collegium system for appointment of judges.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the context.
The excerpt addresses the need to appoint ad hoc Judges to tackle huge backlogs in certain High Courts, citing specific pendency statistics from the National Judicial Data Grid.
Step 2: Linking with the judgment.
This discussion took place in the Supreme Court decision in Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021), which invoked a dormant constitutional provision for this purpose.
Step 3: Eliminating options.
Other cases listed relate to unrelated legal issues (CBI investigation, wildlife matters, service disputes, etc.). Only option (C) matches the fact pattern described.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 2

The excerpt describes activating a dormant constitutional provision to appoint ad hoc Judges against a specific backdrop of High Court pendency figures drawn from the National Judicial Data Grid, which anchors the passage to a particular Supreme Court proceeding.

1. Devendra Kumar Saxena v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 330: this matter concerns a CBI investigation dispute, unconnected to ad hoc judicial appointments or High Court backlog data.
2. M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 326: this case relates to conservation of an endangered species and does not deal with judicial vacancies or ad hoc appointments.
3. Lok Prahari through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla, IAS (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 333: this is the proceeding in which the Supreme Court examined the alarming pendency in High Courts, referenced NJDG figures, and revived the dormant provision for appointing ad hoc Judges to reduce backlog, exactly matching the excerpt's content.
4. Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 310: this case involves a service-related grievance of a retired judge and does not concern the systemic backlog-driven revival of ad hoc appointments described here.

The subject matter, dormant provision, ad hoc Judges and NJDG pendency statistics, is specific to the Lok Prahari proceeding.

Hence, the correct answer is Lok Prahari through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla, IAS (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 333.

Answer 3

Step 1: Identifying the relevant constitutional provision.
Article 224A of the Indian Constitution allows for the appointment of retired High Court Judges as ad hoc Judges with their consent to clear backlogs.
Step 2: Historical context.
The provision had remained dormant for decades until the Supreme Court revived it in Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021).
Step 3: Eliminating options.
- Article 217 deals with appointment of regular High Court Judges.
- Article 224 concerns additional Judges, not ad hoc appointments.
- Article 217A does not exist.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]

Answer 4

The question asks for the exact constitutional provision revived to allow ad hoc Judges to be appointed to High Courts, so each article should be checked against what it actually governs.

1. Article 224A: this provision empowers the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the previous consent of the President, to request a retired Judge of that or another High Court to sit and act as a Judge of that High Court; it had remained largely unused for decades before being invoked to address backlog, matching the description of a "dormant provision" used for ad hoc appointments.
2. Article 217: this governs the appointment, conditions of office, and retirement age of regular (sitting) High Court Judges; it is not the provision for ad hoc appointment of retired Judges.
3. Article 224: this deals with the appointment of additional and acting Judges to a High Court for a temporary increase in business or arrears of work, which is a distinct mechanism from the ad hoc appointment of retired Judges under 224A.
4. Article 217A: there is no such provision in the Constitution of India, so this option can be ruled out on its face.

Only Article 224A specifically enables retired Judges to be brought back as ad hoc Judges, which is the mechanism described.

Hence, the correct answer is Article 224A.

Answer 5

Step 1: Understanding the case.
This landmark case struck down the NJAC Act, 2014, which sought to replace the collegium system for judicial appointments, on grounds of violating judicial independence under the basic structure doctrine.
Step 2: Majority count.
The decision was by a 4:1 majority, with Justice J. Chelameswar dissenting.
Step 3: Outcome.
The judgment reaffirmed the collegium system as part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]

Answer 6

The Fourth Judges Case struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 and restored the collegium system; the precise split among the five-Judge Constitution Bench needs to be matched against the options.

1. 3:2: a bare 3:2 margin would suggest a closely divided bench with two dissents, which is not the recorded outcome of this Constitution Bench decision.
2. 4:1: the five-Judge bench decided by a 4:1 majority, with Justice J. Chelameswar delivering a lone dissenting opinion while the other four Judges concurred in striking down the NJAC Act as unconstitutional; this matches the actual composition and outcome of the decision.
3. 6:1: this would require a seven-Judge bench, but the case was heard and decided by a five-Judge Constitution Bench, so a 6:1 split is not possible here.
4. 4:3: this would require a seven-Judge bench as well, which again does not correspond to the five-Judge bench that actually decided the case.

With a five-Judge bench and a single dissent from Justice Chelameswar, the majority was 4:1.

Hence, the correct answer is 4:1.

Answer 7

Step 1: Understanding the issue.
The appointment of retired Judges as ad hoc Judges under Article 224A requires their consent before they can serve again on the Bench.
Step 2: Case linkage.
In Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth, the Supreme Court held that such consent is mandatory before appointment as an ad hoc Judge, underscoring judicial independence and voluntary acceptance.
Step 3: Eliminating other options.
The other cases do not deal directly with the consent requirement for ad hoc Judges.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 8

The issue is which decision established that a retired Judge's consent is a pre-requisite before he or she can be appointed as an ad hoc Judge, so each case should be checked for its actual subject matter.

1. Ashok Tanwar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2005) 2 SCC 104: this case does not concern the ad hoc appointment of retired Judges or the consent requirement under Article 224A.
2. Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1: this is the Fourth Judges Case on the collegium system and the NJAC Act; it addresses the appointment of regular Judges through the collegium, not the consent requirement for ad hoc appointment of retired Judges.
3. Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth, (1977) 4 SCC 193: this decision engages with the independence of the judiciary in the context of judicial transfers and appointments, and is the authority relied upon for the principle that a retired Judge's own consent is essential before he or she can be pressed back into service as an ad hoc Judge, since judicial service cannot be forced on someone without their agreement.
4. Krishan Gopal v. Shri Prakash Chandra, (1974) 1 SCC 128: this case does not deal with ad hoc judicial appointments or the consent of retired Judges.

The consent requirement for ad hoc appointment traces specifically to the Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth line of reasoning on judicial independence and voluntary service.

Hence, the correct answer is Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth, (1977) 4 SCC 193.

Answer 9

Step 1: Historical reference.
The 14th Law Commission Report (1958) comprehensively addressed judicial administration, backlog reduction, and recommended using retired Judges as ad hoc appointees to meet case disposal needs.
Step 2: Eliminating other options.
- (A) Focused on commercial court reforms.
- (C) & (D) Dealt with manpower planning and subordinate court appointments, not ad hoc High Court Judges.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]

Answer 10

The question asks which Law Commission report first advocated appointing retired Judges as ad hoc Judges to clear High Court backlogs, so the subject matter of each listed report should be compared.

1. One Hundred Eighty Eighth Report on Hi-Tech Fast-Track Commercial Divisions (2003): this report proposes specialised commercial divisions within High Courts to speed up commercial litigation, a structural reform distinct from using retired Judges as ad hoc appointees.
2. Fourteenth Report on Reforms in Judicial Administration (1958): this early and comprehensive report examined the causes of judicial delay and case backlog across the country and recommended, among other reforms, drawing on retired Judges through ad hoc appointment to help clear pending cases.
3. One Twentieth Report on Manpower Planning in Judiciary (1987): this report focuses on projecting the judge-strength a growing judiciary would need, a manpower-planning exercise rather than a specific recommendation on ad hoc retired Judges.
4. One Hundred Eighteenth Report on Method of Appointments to Subordinate Courts (1986): this report concerns recruitment methods for the subordinate judiciary, not High Court ad hoc appointments.

Only the Fourteenth Report, being the foundational study on judicial administration and delay, contains the recommendation to use retired Judges as ad hoc appointees.

Hence, the correct answer is Fourteenth Report on Reforms in Judicial Administration (1958).

Answer 11

Step 1: Understanding the collegium’s origin.
The collegium system is a creation of judicial interpretation, not a constitutional or statutory provision. It evolved from Supreme Court judgments — the Second Judges Case (1993) and clarified in the Third Judges Case (1998).
Step 2: Why option (C) is correct.
The Constitution contains no express provision creating the collegium system; it was read into Articles 124 and 217 through judicial pronouncements.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (A) Article 124A was inserted for NJAC, not collegium.
- (B) No such 1999 Act exists.
- (D) NJAC was meant to replace, not supplement, the collegium.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 12

This question asks which statement correctly describes the constitutional or legal basis of the collegium system used to appoint judges to the higher judiciary in India.

1. Option A: Article 124A does exist in the Constitution, but it was inserted by the Ninety-ninth Amendment to create the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), an entirely different body meant to replace the collegium. Article 124A has nothing to do with setting up the collegium, so this statement is factually wrong.
2. Option B: No enactment called the "Judicial Appointments (Collegium System) Act" exists on the statute book. Parliament has never legislated the collegium into existence, so this option describes a law that simply does not exist.
3. Option C: The collegium is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the Constitution. It emerged purely from the Supreme Court's own interpretation of the consultation process under Articles 124 and 217 in the Second Judges Case and the Third Judges Case, which is why appointments today follow a judicially devised procedure rather than a written constitutional or statutory scheme. This accurately reflects the legal position.
4. Option D: The NJAC was designed to take over judicial appointments from the collegium, not to work alongside or "supplement" it. In fact the NJAC Act and the linked Constitutional Amendment were struck down in 2015, after which the collegium was revived as the sole operative mechanism, so this option misdescribes the relationship between the two.

Only the statement that the Constitution is silent on the collegium withstands scrutiny, since every other option invents a textual source that does not exist.

Hence, the correct answer is Option C: The Constitution of India does not provide for the establishment of the collegium system.