Daily Current Affairs Quiz: October 16, 2025

Answer: C [3 and 4 only]
Explanation:

Statement 1 is incorrect: The power of Judicial Review is vested in both the Supreme Court and the High Courts of India. Article 226 empowers High Courts to exercise judicial review within their respective jurisdictions.

Statement 2 is incorrect: The power of judicial review can be invoked on grounds other than fundamental rights violations. It can also be exercised if a law is outside the competence of the legislature or if it is repugnant to other constitutional provisions.

Statement 3 is correct: The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review extends to examining the constitutional validity of pre-constitutional laws. These laws continue to operate after the commencement of the Constitution but are subject to judicial review.

Statement 4 is correct: Judicial review includes the authority to review administrative actions of the Union and State governments. This ensures that administrative actions are consistent with the principles of natural justice, the Constitution, and the law.

Answer: D [1, 2 and 3 only]
Explanation:

1. Article 217 of the Constitution mandates Indian citizenship for High Court judges.
2. Article 217 specifies that a person must have held a judicial office for at least ten years in the territory of India to be eligible for appointment as a High Court judge.
3. Article 217 provides that practicing as an advocate of a High Court (or High Courts in succession) for ten years is a qualifying criterion.
4. The Constitution allows for the appointment of distinguished jurists directly to the Supreme Court (Article 124(3)(c)), but not to High Courts.

Answer: A [Article 13]
Explanation:

• Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution states:
• “All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part III (Fundamental Rights), shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.”
• Article 13(2) further states that the State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges the Fundamental Rights.
• Other options:
  • Article 12: Defines the term “State” for Fundamental Rights enforcement.
  • Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on certain grounds.
  • Article 22: Provides protection in respect of arrest and detention.
• Hence, Article 13 is the provision that makes any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights null and void.

Answer: B [Judicial review, fundamental rights, and the removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.]
Explanation:

Option (a) is incorrect: Parliamentary form of government and Directive Principles of State Policy are borrowed from the United Kingdom and Ireland respectively, not the USA.

Option (b) is correct: Judicial review (power of courts to strike down unconstitutional laws), Fundamental Rights, and provisions regarding removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are inspired by the American Constitution.

Option (c) is incorrect: Federal system of government and single citizenship are borrowed from Canada, not the USA.

Option (d) is incorrect: Written Constitution is inspired by the USA, but Rule of Law comes from the UK. This combination makes the statement partially correct but not entirely accurate.

Answer: A [They are established by the Parliament under Article 323-A of the Constitution for the adjudication of disputes related to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.]
Explanation:

Option (a) is correct: Administrative Tribunals are established under Article 323-A (added by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976) for adjudicating service-related disputes of government employees (recruitment, promotion, conditions of service). They are legislative tribunals set up by Parliament, not part of the traditional judiciary.

Option (b) is incorrect: Tribunals are not part of the judiciary. They function as quasi-judicial bodies and are independent of Supreme Court supervision, although their orders can be challenged in High Courts under certain conditions.

Option (c) is incorrect: Administrative Tribunals cannot adjudicate constitutional amendments. Their jurisdiction is limited to service matters of central and state government employees.

Option (d) is incorrect: Administrative Tribunals are established by Parliament, not State Legislatures. State employees can be covered under separate State Administrative Tribunals, if established under the same Act.