Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Enforcement Officer / Accounts Officer (APFC and EO/AO) 2025 recruitment test. Transcribed from the Commission's own booklet (series A, PENA-A-PTS); answer worked out by our faculty — UPSC has published no answer key for this sitting. This question is in Part B. Answer last reviewed 25 August 2026.

Consider the following statements : 1. The Supreme Court of India and High Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction in disputes amongst two or more States. 2. Only the Supreme Court of India, High Courts and District Courts have the power to issue Writs. 3. Chief Minister of a State has absolutely no role in the entire appointment process of a High Court Judge. 4. Local customs and conventions which do not contradict a Statute or the Constitution are recognised and taken into account by Courts while administering justice in certain spheres. How many of the above statements is/are correct ?

(a)One
(b)Two
(c)Three
(d)Four

Answer

Why

Correct — A, (a) One.

This item asks how many of the four statements are correct, so the option set gives no help at all: each statement has to be decided on its merits and the correct ones counted. Exactly one survives.

Statement 1 is incorrect. Article 131 confers original jurisdiction in disputes between the Government of India and one or more States, or between two or more States, on the Supreme Court alone, and that jurisdiction is exclusive - no other court may entertain such a dispute. The statement adds the High Courts to it, which is precisely what Article 131 excludes. A High Court's original jurisdiction is a different thing altogether and does not extend to inter-State disputes.

Statement 2 is incorrect. The power to issue writs belongs to the Supreme Court under Article 32 and to the High Courts under Article 226; District Courts have no writ jurisdiction. Article 32(3) does allow Parliament to empower any other court to exercise the writ powers of the Supreme Court within its jurisdiction, but that provision has not been used, and it would not in any case make the statement's list correct as it stands. The statement's error is the addition of District Courts, and the word 'Only' does not save it, because the list it restricts the power to is itself too wide.

Statement 3 is incorrect. Under Article 217(1) a Judge of a High Court is appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and - for a Judge other than the Chief Justice - the Chief Justice of that High Court. The Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, so the constitutional consultation with the Governor is in substance a consultation with the State Government; and the Memorandum of Procedure provides for the Chief Minister to forward the recommendation to the Union Minister of Law and Justice. The Chief Minister's role is not decisive, since the collegium's recommendation carries the weight, but 'absolutely no role in the entire appointment process' is not the position.

Statement 4 is correct. Custom is a recognised source of Indian law. Article 13(3)(a) defines 'law' to include custom or usage having the force of law in the territory of India, and the courts give effect to local customs in defined spheres - personal law, marriage, succession, religious usage - provided the custom is ancient, certain and reasonable and is not opposed to a statute, to the Constitution or to public policy. The statement is carefully qualified in exactly that way, since it speaks of customs that do not contradict a statute or the Constitution and of recognition in certain spheres.

One correct statement out of four gives option (a).

Why the others are wrong

(b)Two — Two correct statements would require one of the first three to survive alongside statement 4. None does. Statement 1 shares an exclusive jurisdiction with the High Courts that Article 131 gives to the Supreme Court alone; statement 2 adds District Courts to a writ power that Articles 32 and 226 confine to the Supreme Court and the High Courts; and statement 3 denies the Chief Minister any role at all in an appointment process in which the Governor is a constitutional consultee and acts on ministerial advice. The most likely route to this option is accepting statement 3 on the strength of the collegium's dominance, which is a fact about who decides rather than about who participates.
(c)Three — Three correct statements would require two of the first three to be sound, and the two most often accepted are the first and the third. Both fail on specific text. Article 131 says the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in inter-State disputes is exclusive of any other court, which is the opposite of sharing it with the High Courts; and Article 217(1) names the Governor among the authorities to be consulted on a High Court appointment, with the Governor acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister. An option at this level of the count is worth testing against the two statements a candidate feels least sure about rather than against the one that seems obviously right.
(d)Four — All four correct would require District Courts to have writ jurisdiction, which no provision confers. The writ powers are those of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Courts under Article 226, and Article 32(3) merely leaves it open to Parliament to extend the Supreme Court's writ powers to another court - a power that has not been exercised. This option is the counting item's equivalent of accepting every statement in a combination set, and it is worth remembering that a counting stem makes such an answer no more likely than any other: the four numbers are simply the four possible counts, and nothing about the format favours the largest.

Concept

Four separate points of constitutional law are gathered here, and each is worth holding on its own.

Original jurisdiction under Article 131. The Supreme Court alone may decide a dispute between the Government of India and one or more States, or between two or more States, where the dispute involves a question on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. The jurisdiction is exclusive, so no High Court or subordinate court may take such a case. Inter-State water disputes are the notable carve-out: Article 262 allows Parliament to bar the courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating them, and the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does so.

Writ jurisdiction. Article 32 gives the Supreme Court the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and makes the right to move the Court for that purpose itself a fundamental right. Article 226 gives the High Courts a wider power - writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and 'for any other purpose', which is why most writ litigation begins in a High Court. District Courts have no writ jurisdiction at all.

Appointment of High Court Judges. Article 217(1) requires consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and the Chief Justice of the High Court for a puisne Judge. The collegium system, built by the Supreme Court's judgments of 1993 and 1998, made the judiciary's view determinative, and the Memorandum of Procedure sets out the steps - including the Chief Minister's forwarding of the proposal to the Union Law Minister.

Custom as a source of law. Article 13(3)(a) includes custom or usage having the force of law within the definition of 'law', and courts enforce a custom that is ancient, certain, reasonable, and not contrary to statute, the Constitution or public policy.

This is the only question on the paper that asks how many of the statements are correct rather than which, and the difference is worth taking seriously. In a combination item the options themselves are evidence: a statement that appears in three of four options is probably correct, and a candidate who is sure of two statements can often reach the answer without deciding the rest. A counting item withdraws all of that. The four options are simply the four possible counts, and there is no way to reach the answer except by adjudicating every statement.

The practical consequence is that a counting item should be answered in writing rather than by feel - mark each statement correct or incorrect as it is decided, then count. Candidates who work through such items in their heads tend to lose track of which statement they have settled, and a single unresolved statement makes the count impossible.

The statements themselves are drawn from four different corners of the constitutional syllabus, which is characteristic: the format allows an examiner to test breadth in one question, since nothing in it depends on the statements being related. Three of the four carry a negation or a restriction - 'exclusive', 'Only', 'absolutely no role', 'which do not contradict' - and that concentration of qualifying words is where the item's difficulty lies.

Key facts

Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction in disputes between the Government of India and one or more States, or between two or more States; no High Court shares it.
Writs may be issued by the Supreme Court under Article 32 and by the High Courts under Article 226, whose power is wider because it extends to any purpose and not only to fundamental rights; District Courts have no writ jurisdiction.
Article 32(3) permits Parliament to empower any other court to exercise the Supreme Court's writ powers, but that provision has not been used.
Article 217(1) requires the President to consult the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State and the Chief Justice of the High Court before appointing a High Court Judge; the Governor acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister.
Article 13(3)(a) includes custom or usage having the force of law within the definition of 'law', and courts enforce a custom that is ancient, certain and reasonable and not opposed to a statute, the Constitution or public policy.

Study next

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: original under Article 131, writ under Article 32, appellate under Articles 132 to 134, special leave under Article 136, and advisory under Article 143.Article 226 and the width of High Court writ jurisdiction, including its territorial reach after the Fifteenth Amendment.The appointment of judges: Articles 124 and 217, the collegium judgments, the Memorandum of Procedure, and the striking down of the National Judicial Appointments Commission.Sources of Indian law: legislation, precedent, custom and equity, and the tests a custom must satisfy to be enforced.Article 262 and the exclusion of the courts from inter-State river water disputes.

Common traps

Treating a counting item like a combination item and trying to reason from the options; the four number words carry no information about which statements are correct.
Adding the High Courts to the Supreme Court's exclusive original jurisdiction under Article 131, which is exclusive precisely of them.
Accepting a list of courts with writ jurisdiction because it begins with 'Only'; the restriction does not cure a list that is itself too wide.
Reading the collegium's primacy as meaning that the State executive has no part at all in a High Court appointment, when the Governor is a constitutional consultee acting on ministerial advice.
Rejecting the statement on custom because custom sounds informal; it is a recognised source of law and is expressly within the definition of 'law' in Article 13(3)(a).

The counting stem - how many of the above statements are correct - is used sparingly on these papers and is the most demanding statement format they employ, because it removes every shortcut the option list would otherwise provide. Where it appears, expect the statements to be drawn from different parts of the syllabus rather than from one topic, and expect most of them to carry a restrictive or negative word, since it is easier to build a false statement by over-restricting a true one than by inventing a fact. The working method is fixed: decide each statement in writing, note the qualifier that decides it, and count at the end.

Related PYQs

EPFO_APFC_2023_Q57

Which of the following statements about curative petition is/are correct? 1. It can be entertained by the Supreme Court of India only. 2. It can be entertained by the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts of India. 3. Certification by a Senior Advocate is necessary to file a curative petition. Select the correct answer using the code given below.

(a) 1 only
(b) 3 only
(c) 2 and 3
(d) 1 and 3

Answer(d) 1 and 3

On the curative petition and whether the High Courts may entertain one - the same distinction between what belongs to the Supreme Court alone and what is shared.

EPFO_APFC_2016_Q38

Under the Constitution of India, which of the following statements are correct ? 1. The Constitution is supreme. 2. There is a clear division of powers between the Union and the State Governments. 3. Amendments to the Constitution have to follow the prescribed procedure. 4. The Union Parliament and the State Legislatures are sovereign. 5. The Preamble to the Constitution cannot be invoked to determine the ambit of Fundamental Rights. Select the correct answer using the codes given below :

(a) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
(b) 2, 3 and 4 only
(c) 1, 4 and 5 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3 only

Answer(d) 1, 2 and 3 only

A five-statement item on the Constitution, including the division of powers between the Union and the States and the amendment procedure, adjudicated statement by statement.

EPFO_APFC_2016_Q54

The Parliament can make any law for whole or any part of India for implementing international treaties

(a) With the consent of all the States
(b) With the consent of majority of the States
(c) With the consent of the States concerned
(d) Without the consent of any State

Answer(d) Without the consent of any State

On Parliament's power to legislate for implementing international treaties without the consent of any State, another item testing the exact extent of a constitutional power.

Practice

practice — not a real PYQ
The power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights is conferred on :
- (a)The Supreme Court alone
- (b)The Supreme Court and the High Courts
- (c)The Supreme Court, the High Courts and the District Courts
- (d)All courts subordinate to a High Court
Answer(b) The Supreme Court and the High Courts - under Articles 32 and 226 respectively, the High Court's power being the wider because it extends to any purpose and not only to fundamental rights. Article 32(3) allows Parliament to extend the power to another court, but it has not been used.
practice — not a real PYQ
Consider the following statements : 1. A dispute between two States over a legal right may be brought before the Supreme Court under Article 131. 2. Inter-State river water disputes may be excluded from the jurisdiction of the courts by law made under Article 262. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?
- (a)1 only
- (b)2 only
- (c)Both 1 and 2
- (d)Neither 1 nor 2
Answer(c) Both 1 and 2 - Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over such disputes, and Article 262 permits Parliament to bar the courts from adjudicating river water disputes, which the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does.

Why