Which of the following is the appropriate qualification for appointment as a judge of a High Court? He/she must

has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India

has been an I.A.S. officer, familiar with legal knowledge for ten years

has been a law minister for at least ten years

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Any institution or body can be a 'State' if it is created under the Constitution or a statute; or if it is substantially financed by the Government; or the Government holds its share capital. FACTUAL SITUATION: K approached the High Court by filing a writ petition against the Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI). The argument advanced was BCCI is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The question is whether the argument is acceptable? DECISION:

Yes, because the Board has monopoly on cricket in India.

No, because the monopoly on cricket is neither State conferred nor State protected.

No, because the control of BCCI, if any, is only regulatory.

No, because neither the Board is created under a statute nor any part of share capital of the Board is held by the government and no financial assistance is given by the government to the Board.

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: The State shall make special laws for the upliftment of citizens of the country, and these laws can be made for the benefit of any specific caste, class or sex of people living in the society. FACTUAL SITUATION: The State of Hindu Pradesh comes out with a law, which provided for reservation to Muslims in all government and government aided institutions. This law is challenged in the High Court of Hindu Pradesh, as being arbitrary and contrary to the established laws. Can the challenge be successful? DECISION:

Yes, since people from other religions would also start making such demands, which would jeopardize the unity and integrity of the country.

No, since the State has the right to make special laws for the upliftment of the citizens of the country.

Yes, since the State has not been mandated to make reservation, based on a person's religion.

No, since the Government cannot neglect the minorities.

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. But at the same time, Article 19(5) empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of movement on the ground of interest of general public. FACTUAL SITUATION: Wearing of helmet is made compulsory for all two-wheeler riders by a law enacted by the State. The constitutionality of the law is questioned before the High Court on the ground that it violates Article 19(1)(d) of the petitioner. Will the petitioner succeed? DECISION:

Yes, because the restriction is not reasonable and no interest of general public is protected by this law.

No, because the restriction is reasonable as it intends to protect interest of general public by preventing loss of lives of citizen of India.

Yes, because freedom of movement is a fundamental right of every citizen of India and the State cannot take it away by way of legislation but has to amend the Constitution to take away the fundamental rights.

No, because the freedom of movement will not be violated by the impugned legislation.

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law and Civil Courts have coercive powers to compel attendance of witness only within its local territory. FACTUAL SITUATION: Puchu, a resident of Faridabad was summoned by the Delhi High Court as a witness in a civil case regarding wrongful possession of immovable property filed by Amu against Kichu. He refused to appear before the Court due to his office job. He was prosecuted by the Court. Is he liable? DECISION:

He is not liable because he is not the resident of Delhi.

He is not liable because he has fundamental right under Article 21 of personal liberty.

He is liable because he is called as a witness in a civil trial and it is a procedure established by law.

He is not liable because he has no interest in the suit property.

The power of judicial review in India is enjoyed by

the Supreme Court as well as High Court

An Electricity Board terminated the Services of certain employees arbitrarily without giving notice. Which one of the following alternative remedies can be best adopted by the concerned employees?

The employees can move the High Court by a writ as Electricity Board is included within the definition of State.

The employees can make an appeal to the State Government.

The employees can move the High Court after getting the permission of Electricity Board only.

The employees can directly approach the Supreme Court for violation of a fundamental right

'Public Interest Litigation' (PIL) can be filed in:

Central Administrative Tribunal

📖 Constitution of India•🎯 48 Practice MCQs

Part VI: High Courts & Subordinate Courts (Articles 214–237)

Chapter-wise objective questions with statutory bare act articles, landmark Supreme Court case laws, and past judicial service citations.

high-courtjudge-qualificationsarticle-217article-12bccizee-telefilmsarticle-15religious-reservationarticle-19-1-darticle-19-5helmet-lawarticle-21

Loading 48 Statutory MCQs...

Part VI: High Courts & Subordinate Courts (Articles 214–237) • 48 Questions

📚 Chapter Practice Coverage

This practice module for Part VI: High Courts & Subordinate Courts (Articles 214–237) contains 48 Multiple Choice Questions tailored for State Judicial Service Preliminary Examinations (including UP PCS-J, Delhi Judicial Service, Bihar Judiciary, MP Judiciary, Rajasthan Judicial Service), CLAT LL.M, All India Bar Examination (AIBE), and UGC-NET Law.

← All Constitution Chapters•Custom Practice Sets →