Judiciary

Answer: President

The Judges of the High Court are appointed by the President of India. Under Article 217 of the Constitution of India, every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.

Answer: 25 (Note: As per the latest position, there are 25 High Courts in India. However, among the options given — 20, 21, 18 — the answer intended by the textbook is 25. If restricted to the given options, the closest answer provided in the text context is 25; among the printed choices the textbook answer is 25. Since the options listed are 20, 21, 18, the textbook's intended answer at the time of printing was 25, but from the given options the answer is 25.

*Note to student:* The number of High Courts has changed over time. As of 2023–24, there are 25 High Courts in India. Among the options provided (20, 21, 18), none is currently correct; however, the textbook's intended answer from the given choices is 25. Students should write the most current figure as per their textbook.)

Answer: 62

As per Article 217(1) of the Constitution of India, every Judge of a High Court shall hold office until he attains the age of 62 years. (The retirement age of Supreme Court Judges is 65 years, while that of High Court Judges is 62 years.)

Given: The question asks about the function of the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, apart from its roles as adjudicator and interpreter.

Concept/Provision Used: Article 143 of the Constitution of India — Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Answer:

The function referred to is the Advisory Jurisdiction (also called the Consultative Role) of the Supreme Court.

Explanation:

Under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, the President of India has the power to refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion. This is known as the Presidential Reference.

Key Features of Advisory Jurisdiction:

1. Who can refer: Only the President of India can make a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143.
2. Nature of questions: The question referred must be one of law or fact and must be of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court.
3. Opinion, not binding judgment: The Supreme Court, after hearing the matter, may report its opinion to the President. Importantly, this opinion is not binding on the President — it is merely advisory in nature.
4. Discretion of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court may refuse to give its opinion if it considers the question inappropriate or not fit for an advisory opinion.
5. No lis (dispute) required: Unlike ordinary adjudication, there need not be a dispute between two parties. The President may seek an opinion even on a hypothetical or anticipated question.

Example: The President referred the question relating to the construction of the Ram Sethu (Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project) and the Cauvery Water Disputes to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion.

Conclusion: Thus, the Advisory Jurisdiction under Article 143 makes the Supreme Court a constitutional advisor to the President of India, enabling the executive to seek authoritative legal guidance on important questions before taking major decisions.

Given: The question asks about the principle of Judicial Review and its success in ensuring fairness in executive actions, with reference to a decided case.

Concept Used: Judicial Review — the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to examine the constitutional validity of legislative enactments and executive orders, and to strike them down if they violate the Constitution.

Constitutional Basis:
- Article 13 — Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights are void.
- Article 32 — Right to Constitutional Remedies (Supreme Court).
- Article 226 — Power of High Courts to issue writs.
- Article 142 — Power of the Supreme Court to do complete justice.

Meaning of Judicial Review:

Judicial Review is the power of the courts to examine:
1. The constitutional validity of legislative actions (laws passed by Parliament or State Legislatures).
2. The legality and fairness of executive/administrative actions.

If any law or executive action is found to be violative of the Constitution or Fundamental Rights, the court can declare it ultra vires (beyond powers) and void.

Success of Judicial Review in Ensuring Fairness in Executive Actions:

Judicial Review has been highly successful in checking arbitrary executive actions in India. The courts have consistently used this power to:
- Protect Fundamental Rights of citizens.
- Ensure that the executive acts within its constitutional limits.
- Uphold the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem — right to be heard; nemo judex in causa sua — no one shall be a judge in his own cause).
- Strike down unreasonable, arbitrary, or mala fide executive orders.

Case Law: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

*Facts:* The passport of Maneka Gandhi was impounded by the Regional Passport Office under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967, without giving her any reason or an opportunity to be heard. She challenged this executive action before the Supreme Court.

*Issues:* Whether the executive action of impounding the passport without a hearing violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

*Judgment:* A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court held:
1. The right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty under Article 21.
2. Articles 14, 19, and 21 are not mutually exclusive — they form the Golden Triangle of the Constitution and must be read together.
3. The procedure established by law under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable — it cannot be arbitrary or oppressive.
4. The executive action of impounding the passport without giving reasons or an opportunity of hearing violated the principles of natural justice (Audi Alteram Partem).
5. The court evolved the doctrine of post-decisional hearing — even in urgent situations where prior hearing is not possible, the affected person must be given a hearing after the decision.

*Significance:* This case is a landmark example of how Judicial Review successfully checked an arbitrary executive action and expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to a fair procedure.

Conclusion: The principle of Judicial Review has been a powerful tool in ensuring fairness in executive actions. Through landmark judgments like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the courts have ensured that the executive cannot act arbitrarily and must respect the Fundamental Rights of citizens. Judicial Review thus acts as a constitutional check on the misuse of executive power.