Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 63

The appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of India is governed primarily by Article 124 of the Constitution of India. According to Article 124(2), every judge of the Supreme Court is appointed by the President of India. While making such appointments, the President consults judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as considered necessary. However, through a series of decisions known as the First Judges Case (1981), Second Judges Case (1993), and Third Judges Case (1998), the Supreme Court established the Collegium System. Under this system, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court recommend names for appointment. The President generally acts on these recommendations.

A person is qualified to be appointed as a Supreme Court judge if they are a citizen of India and have either served as a High Court judge for at least five years, practised as an advocate in a High Court for at least ten years, or are considered a distinguished jurist by the President. Supreme Court judges hold office until the age of 65 years. Their removal is possible only through a rigorous process of impeachment by Parliament on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, ensuring judicial independence.

Question 1

Rohan, a distinguished constitutional scholar who has never practised as an advocate and has never served as a judge, is recommended by the President for appointment as a Supreme Court judge because of his exceptional contributions to legal scholarship. Some citizens challenge the appointment, arguing that only advocates and judges can be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Which of the following is the most appropriate legal position?

A. The appointment can be valid because a distinguished jurist may be appointed as a Supreme Court judge.
B. The appointment is invalid because only High Court judges can become Supreme Court judges.
C. The appointment is invalid because at least ten years of advocacy experience is mandatory.
D. The appointment is invalid because Parliament must first approve the appointment.

Question 2

Meera has practised as an advocate in various High Courts for eight years. The Collegium recommends her name for appointment as a Supreme Court judge, citing her exceptional legal skills. A public interest group challenges the recommendation.

Which of the following is the correct legal conclusion?

A. The appointment is valid because the Collegium’s recommendation is final.
B. The appointment is valid because the President may appoint any advocate.
C. The appointment is invalid because she does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of ten years’ practice as an advocate.
D. The appointment is invalid because advocates can never be appointed directly to the Supreme Court.

Question 3

The President decides to appoint a Supreme Court judge without considering any recommendation from the Collegium. The appointment is defended on the ground that Article 124 gives the President the power to appoint judges.

Based on the principles governing judicial appointments, which statement is most accurate?

A. The appointment is valid because the President has absolute discretion.
B. The appointment is likely invalid because the Collegium System requires judicial recommendations to play the primary role in appointments.
C. The appointment is valid if Parliament approves it later.
D. The appointment is valid because consultation with judges is optional.

Question 4

Justice Arvind, a Supreme Court judge aged 64 years and 10 months, wishes to continue serving for another three years due to his excellent performance. The government also supports the extension.

Which of the following best reflects the constitutional position?

A. He may continue if the President grants an extension.
B. He may continue if Parliament passes a special resolution.
C. He must retire upon attaining the age of 65 years, regardless of performance or government support.
D. He may continue if the Chief Justice of India approves.

Question 5

A parliamentary committee concludes that a sitting Supreme Court judge has committed serious misconduct. Some members suggest that the President should immediately remove the judge through an executive order.

What is the correct legal position?

A. The President may remove the judge through an executive order.
B. The Chief Justice of India may remove the judge after an inquiry.
C. The judge may be removed only by a majority vote of the Supreme Court judges.
D. The judge can be removed only through the constitutional process of impeachment by Parliament on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

Answers With Explanations

1. Answer: A

Explanation: Article 124 provides that a person may be appointed as a Supreme Court judge if they are a citizen of India and satisfy one of the prescribed qualifications. One such qualification is being a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President. Therefore, Rohan’s appointment can be valid despite not having served as a judge or advocate.

2. Answer: C

Explanation: The Constitution requires that an advocate must have practised in a High Court for at least ten years to qualify for appointment as a Supreme Court judge. Since Meera has practised for only eight years, she does not fulfil the constitutional eligibility criteria.

3. Answer: B

Explanation: Although Article 124 formally vests the power of appointment in the President, the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Second and Third Judges Cases established the Collegium System, under which judicial recommendations have primacy. Ignoring the Collegium’s role would be contrary to the prevailing constitutional framework.

4. Answer: C

Explanation: Supreme Court judges hold office until they attain the age of 65 years. Neither the President, Parliament, nor the Chief Justice of India has the power to extend this age limit. Therefore, Justice Arvind must retire upon reaching 65 years.

5. Answer: D

Explanation: Judicial independence is protected by a stringent removal process. A Supreme Court judge cannot be removed by executive action. Removal is possible only through impeachment by Parliament on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, following the constitutional procedure.