With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements : 1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India. 2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1. Supreme Court: Composition and Judges (basic)

Welcome to your first step in mastering the Supreme Court of India. Think of the Supreme Court not just as a building, but as the 'Guardian of the Constitution.' To maintain its integrity, the Constitution sets very specific criteria for who can sit on its bench. Under Article 124, a person must be a citizen of India and meet one of three professional milestones: serving as a judge of a High Court for at least five years, practicing as an advocate in a High Court for ten years, or being a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.286.

An interesting nuance is that while the Constitution specifies a retirement age of 65, it does not prescribe a minimum age for appointment. This allows for brilliant legal minds to be elevated based on merit and experience rather than just biological age. Furthermore, the role of a 'distinguished jurist' is a unique path available only for the Supreme Court; this provision does not exist for appointments to High Courts Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, High Court, p.354.

Sometimes, the court needs extra hands to handle its workload. Under Article 128, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) can invite a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court (who is qualified for the SC) to sit and act as a judge for a temporary period. However, this isn't a unilateral decision. The CJI must obtain the prior consent of the President and, importantly, the consent of the person being invited to serve. While acting as a judge, they enjoy the jurisdiction and powers of an SC judge, though they aren't technically deemed to be a permanent judge of that court.

Feature	Supreme Court Judge	High Court Judge
Minimum Age	None prescribed	None prescribed
Distinguished Jurist Path	Available	Not Available
Advocate Experience	10 Years	10 Years

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.286; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, High Court, p.354

2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (basic)

To understand the Supreme Court (SC), we must look at its jurisdiction — the legal boundary and authority within which it operates. Think of the SC not just as a court of appeal, but as the final arbiter of the Constitution and the umpire of our federal system. Its powers are broadly classified into four major categories, each serving a unique purpose in the Indian democracy.

First is the Original Jurisdiction (Article 131). This is the SC’s role as a federal court. It handles disputes between the ‘units’ of the Indian federation: the Center vs. one or more States, or State vs. State. This jurisdiction is exclusive, meaning no other court in India can hear these cases D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, The Supreme Court, p.346. However, we must distinguish this from Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32). While Article 32 is also ‘original’ (you can go directly to the SC without an appeal), it is not exclusive because High Courts share this power under Article 226. Article 32 is specifically for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights for individuals, whereas Article 131 is for disputes between governments D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, The Supreme Court, p.348.

Beyond these, the SC acts as the highest Appellate Court in the land. It hears appeals against judgments of High Courts in constitutional, civil, and criminal matters (Articles 132-134). It also possesses a unique Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143), where the President can seek its opinion on matters of public importance or law. Finally, the SC has the specific power of Review (Article 137), allowing it to reconsider its own previous judgments to correct any errors. To maintain its efficiency during heavy workloads, Article 128 even allows the Chief Justice of India, with the President’s consent, to request retired judges to sit and act as judges of the Supreme Court temporarily M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Judicial Review, p.298.

Type of Jurisdiction	Article	Key Feature
Original	131	Federal disputes (Center vs. States); Exclusive to the SC.
Writ	32	Enforcement of Fundamental Rights; Shared with High Courts.
Appellate	132-136	Final court for Constitutional, Civil, and Criminal appeals.
Advisory	143	President seeks legal opinion; Opinion is not binding.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), The Supreme Court, p.346; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), The Supreme Court, p.348; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Judicial Review, p.298

3. High Courts: Constitutional Status (basic)

In the judicial hierarchy of India, the High Court occupies the highest position at the state level. While the Supreme Court is the apex body for the entire country, the High Court stands at the head of a state's judicial administration D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE HIGH COURT, p.359. According to Article 214, there shall be a High Court for each state; however, the Constitution provides flexibility through Article 231, which empowers Parliament to establish a common High Court for two or more states or for two or more states and a Union Territory.

One of the most significant aspects of its constitutional status is being a Court of Record under Article 215. This means two things: first, its decisions and proceedings are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony, serving as authoritative precedents; second, it has the power to punish for contempt of itself. Unlike the Supreme Court, which has a specific provision (Article 137) for the review of its own judgments, the High Court does not have a dedicated "Article of Review." Instead, it exercises an inherent power to review its decisions to prevent a miscarriage of justice, often derived from its status as a Court of Record M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.357.

The internal composition of a High Court is also unique compared to the Supreme Court. While the number of Supreme Court judges is specified by Parliament, Article 216 states that every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint. This allows the size of each High Court to vary based on its specific workload, ensuring that the judiciary can adapt to the needs of different states M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.362.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE HIGH COURT, p.359; Indian Polity, High Court, p.357; Indian Polity, High Court, p.362

4. Extraordinary Judicial Appointments (intermediate)

In our study of the Supreme Court, we usually focus on the permanent judges appointed by the President. However, the Constitution provides for Extraordinary Judicial Appointments to handle specific administrative or judicial exigencies. Think of these as "contingency plans" to ensure the wheels of justice do not grind to a halt due to temporary absences or a lack of judges.

The first category is the Acting Chief Justice (Article 126). If the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) becomes vacant, or if the CJI is temporarily absent or unable to perform their duties, the President appoints a judge of the Supreme Court to perform those duties Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.288. Note that the power of appointment here rests directly with the President.

The second category involves Ad hoc Judges (Article 127). This is a specific solution for a lack of quorum—when there aren't enough permanent judges available to hold or continue a session of the Court. In this case, the CJI (not the President) can appoint a High Court judge to serve as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court for a temporary period. However, the CJI must first obtain the previous consent of the President and consult with the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned Basu, D. D. Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p.339. The judge chosen must be duly qualified for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court.

Finally, there is the Attendance of Retired Judges (Article 128). The CJI may, at any time, request a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a retired judge of a High Court (who is qualified for the SC) to sit and act as a judge for a temporary period. This is not a standard appointment but a request to "sit and act." Crucially, this requires the prior consent of the President and, importantly, the consent of the person to be appointed Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.296.

Type of Appointment	Primary Authority	Triggering Condition	Consent Required
Acting CJI	President	Vacancy/Absence of CJI	N/A (Direct Appointment)
Ad hoc Judge	CJI	Lack of Quorum	President & HC Chief Justice
Retired Judge	CJI	Temporary need	President & The Appointee

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.288; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, THE SUPREME COURT, p.339; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.296

5. Courts of Record and Inherent Powers (intermediate)

In our constitutional scheme, both the Supreme Court (Article 129) and the High Courts (Article 215) are designated as 'Courts of Record'. This status is not just a title; it carries two profound legal implications that ensure the judiciary's authority and the stability of the legal system. First, the judgments, proceedings, and acts of these courts are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony. These records are admitted to have evidentiary value and cannot be questioned when produced before any subordinate court; they serve as legal precedents for the future. Second, being a Court of Record grants these institutions the power to punish for contempt of court—which includes both civil and criminal contempt—to protect their dignity and authority Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.360.

While both levels of the judiciary share the status of being Courts of Record, there is a subtle but critical distinction regarding their power of review. The Supreme Court is explicitly granted the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it under Article 137 of the Constitution. In contrast, there is no specific Article in the Constitution that grants a similar 'power of review' to the High Courts. However, as a Court of Record under Article 215, a High Court exercises an inherent power to review and correct its own decisions to prevent a miscarriage of justice Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.360. This distinction is a favorite for examiners because it tests whether you understand the difference between explicit constitutional grants and inherent powers.

Additionally, to manage the workload and ensure the availability of expertise, Article 128 provides for the attendance of retired judges at sittings of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) can request a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a retired judge of a High Court (who is qualified for appointment as an SC judge) to sit and act as a judge for a temporary period. However, this is not a unilateral power; it requires the prior consent of the President and the consent of the person to be appointed Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.296.

Feature	Supreme Court	High Court
Court of Record	Article 129	Article 215
Specific Power of Review	Explicitly granted (Art. 137)	Inherent power (No specific article)
Contempt Power	Punish for itself	Punish for itself and subordinate courts

Sources: Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.296; Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.360

6. Article 128: Retired Judges in Supreme Court (exam-level)

At times, the Supreme Court may face an overwhelming backlog of cases or a temporary shortage of judges. To address this, Article 128 provides a flexible mechanism to recall retired judicial expertise. Under this provision, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) can request a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a retired judge of a High Court (provided they are duly qualified for appointment as a Supreme Court judge) to sit and act as a judge of the Supreme Court for a temporary period Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Supreme Court, p.288. This is an exceptional measure, distinct from the regular appointment process, designed to ensure that the highest court's functioning remains uninterrupted.

The process for invoking Article 128 is governed by strict procedural safeguards. It is not a unilateral power of the CJI; it requires the previous consent of the President of India and, crucially, the consent of the person to be appointed. Unlike permanent judges who have a fixed tenure until the age of 65 and are entitled to constitutional salaries Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT, Judiciary, p.126, a retired judge acting under Article 128 receives such allowances as the President may determine. While they are not technically deemed to be a "judge of that Court" for certain administrative purposes, they enjoy all the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a regular Supreme Court judge while sitting on the bench.

It is important to distinguish this from the High Court's structure. While the 7th Amendment of 1956 introduced "Additional Judges" for High Courts to handle arrears, the Supreme Court relies on Article 128 for temporary assistance from retirees Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Outstanding Features, p.42. Furthermore, even though retired permanent High Court judges are generally prohibited from practicing in any court other than the Supreme Court or other High Courts Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, High Court, p.357, Article 128 allows them to return to the bench itself in a temporary judicial capacity rather than as an advocate.

Feature	Permanent SC Judge	Retired Judge (Art. 128)
Appointment	President (after consultation)	CJI Request (with President's consent)
Tenure	Until age 65	Temporary period
Consent	Assumed upon oath	Mandatory personal consent
Remuneration	Salary (Constitutional)	Allowances (Determined by President)

Sources: Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.288; Indian Constitution at Work, Judiciary, p.126; Introduction to the Constitution of India, Outstanding Features, p.42; Indian Polity, High Court, p.357

7. Review Power: Article 137 vs High Court Powers (exam-level)

In the legal world, the finality of a judgment is a virtue, but justice is a higher virtue. Therefore, the power to review a judgment—to look at it again to correct a patent error or a miscarriage of justice—is essential. While both the Supreme Court and the High Courts possess this power, the constitutional source of this authority differs significantly between them.

For the Supreme Court, the power is explicit. Under Article 137, the Constitution specifically confers the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it NCERT Indian Constitution at Work, Judiciary, p.133. This power is subject to any law made by Parliament or rules made under Article 145. It ensures that the highest court in the land can rectify its own mistakes, as its decisions become the law of the land and cannot be corrected by any other authority.

The High Courts, however, do not have a specific article equivalent to Article 137. Instead, their power to review is inherent. As a 'Court of Record' under Article 215, a High Court has the power to maintain and correct its own records. Legal tradition and various judicial precedents have established that this 'Court of Record' status naturally includes the power to review and correct its own decisions to prevent injustice, even though the Constitution doesn't use the word 'review' specifically for High Courts Laxmikanth, High Court, p.360.

Feature	Supreme Court	High Court
Specific Review Article	Yes (Article 137)	No
Source of Power	Explicit Constitutional Grant	Inherent power (as a Court of Record under Art. 215)

Sources: Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.), Judiciary, p.133; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), High Court, p.360

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

This question masterfully tests your ability to synthesize the constitutional provisions of the judiciary with the functional nuances of the Supreme Court and High Courts. To arrive at the correct answer, you must apply the building blocks of Article 128 (regarding the attendance of retired judges) and the concept of Courts of Record (Articles 129 and 215). The question demands that you move beyond general knowledge and focus on the specific constitutional source of judicial authority.

Walking through the reasoning, Statement 1 is a direct factual application of the Constitution of India. Under Article 128, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) can indeed request a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court to act as an SC judge, provided they have the prior permission of the President and the consent of the judge in question. This makes Statement 1 objectively correct. However, Statement 2 is a sophisticated trap. While the Supreme Court is explicitly granted the power of review under Article 137, there is no identical, express constitutional article for the High Courts. Although High Courts do review their own judgments to prevent a miscarriage of justice, they do so as an inherent power derived from being a Court of Record under Article 215, rather than through a specific "power of review" clause equivalent to the Supreme Court’s. Therefore, the statement is technically incorrect in a constitutional context, leading us to Option (A).

The common trap here is logical over-extension, which leads many students to wrongly choose Option (C). UPSC often tests whether you can distinguish between a power that exists in practice (High Court review) and a power that is expressly mandated by the Constitution. In your preparation, always look for phrases like "as the Supreme Court does"; this is a signal to verify if the legal basis is identical, not just the outcome. Mastering this distinction between statutory/inherent powers and explicit constitutional provisions is key to cracking the Judiciary section of the UPSC Civil Services Examination.