High Court Appointments MCQ — 52 Practice Questions with Answers

Explanation

The correct matching is Supreme Court and other High Courts as permitted exceptions, while courts other than those forums and authorities in India are barred for pleading or acting. Pairing the Supreme Court or other High Courts with the bar reverses the constitutional exception, and pairing other Indian courts or authorities with permission ignores Article 220's prohibition outside the two named exceptions.

Explanation

The Assertion is true because a reiterated High Court appointment recommendation by the Supreme Court Collegium is to be accepted by the Government. The Reason is also true and directly explains the Assertion because this requirement is stated as being according to the Memorandum of Procedure. Claims that the Reason is false or that it does not explain the Assertion miss the cited procedural rule; treating the Assertion as false reverses the rule.

Explanation

The Department of Justice states that the Appointment Division deals with the appointment, transfer and removal of Chief Justices and Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Access to Justice, Administration and E-Courts are adjacent institutional labels, but the cited function belongs to the Appointment Division.

Explanation

Annual Confidential Reports, disciplinary proceedings and disposal record are all listed assessment inputs for Judicial Officers, along with the Judgment Evaluation Committee report and general reputation. An interview by the Union Law Minister is not part of the specified assessment set in the cited fact, so any matching that treats it as listed is wrong.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct because Article 217(2) first requires the appointee to be a citizen of India. Statement 2 is correct because Article 217(2)(a) recognises at least ten years of judicial office in India as a qualifying route. Statement 3 is wrong because the clause says judicial office in India, not only in the particular State of that High Court.