Consider the following statements : 1. Only the Supreme Court of India is vested with the power to punish for contempt of itself. 2. Both the Supreme Court of India and High Courts have advisory jurisdiction. Select the answer using the codes given below :

Correct — D, (d) Neither 1 nor 2. Each statement takes a power that belongs to a court and misdescribes who holds it — one by making it exclusive when it is shared, the other by sharing it when it is exclusive.

Statement 1 — INCORRECT because of the word 'Only'. Article 129 makes the Supreme Court a court of record with all the powers of such a court, 'including the power to punish for contempt of itself'. Article 215 says exactly the same of every High Court: each is a court of record and has the power to punish for contempt of itself. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 works alongside those Articles and also lets the High Court act for contempt of courts subordinate to it. So the power is not the Supreme Court's alone, and a statement that says it is fails.

Statement 2 — INCORRECT because advisory jurisdiction is not shared. Article 143 allows the PRESIDENT to refer to the SUPREME COURT a question of law or fact of public importance that has arisen or is likely to arise, and the Court may report its opinion; under Article 143(2) a reference about a pre-Constitution treaty or agreement of the kind described there must be answered. No corresponding provision exists for a High Court. A Governor cannot make a reference to a High Court, and a High Court gives no advisory opinion.

Both statements fail, so the answer is Neither 1 nor 2. Note the pattern the pair makes: it is the same distinction asked twice from opposite directions, and a candidate who knows that the Supreme Court and the High Courts are both courts of record while only the Supreme Court advises the President can dispose of the item without hesitating over either sentence.

Why the others are wrong

• (a)1 only — Accepts the exclusivity claim in statement 1, usually because contempt is associated in the news with the Supreme Court. Article 215 gives every High Court the same power over contempt of itself, and High Courts exercise it far more often than the Supreme Court does — including for contempt of the district courts below them.
• (b)2 only — Treats advisory jurisdiction as a general judicial function. It is a specific, exceptional power created by Article 143 and given to the Supreme Court alone, and even there the Court's opinion is advisory: it is not a judgment and does not bind as one, though it carries great weight. High Courts decide cases; they do not advise the executive.
• (c)Both 1 and 2 — Requires both errors at once, and would leave the High Courts unable to punish contempt of themselves while giving them an advisory role they do not have. It is the choice of a candidate who reads both sentences as familiar textbook phrases without testing which court each Article names.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is usually taught under five heads. ORIGINAL, in disputes between the Union and States or between States under Article 131, and for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. APPELLATE, in constitutional, civil and criminal matters under Articles 132 to 134, plus the discretionary special leave to appeal under Article 136. ADVISORY, under Article 143, on a reference by the President. As a COURT OF RECORD under Article 129, with the power to punish for its own contempt. And its power to review its own judgments under Article 137. The High Courts have their own writ jurisdiction under Article 226, which is wider than Article 32 because it extends beyond fundamental rights, and they are courts of record under Article 215 — but they have no advisory jurisdiction at all.

Key facts

• Article 129: the Supreme Court is a court of record with all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
• Article 215: every High Court is a court of record with the same power to punish for contempt of itself.
• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 classifies contempt as civil or criminal and enables a High Court to punish contempt of subordinate courts.
• Article 143(1): the President may refer to the Supreme Court a question of law or fact of public importance; the Court MAY report its opinion.
• Article 143(2): on a reference about disputes arising out of pre-Constitution treaties and agreements of the kind described, the Court SHALL report its opinion.
• An opinion under Article 143 is advisory and is not binding as a judgment, though it is treated as authoritative.
• There is no advisory jurisdiction for the High Courts.
• Article 226 gives the High Courts writ jurisdiction wider in subject matter than the Supreme Court's Article 32 jurisdiction.

Common traps

• Missing a limiting word — 'only', 'exclusively', 'all', 'both' — which is what decides most statement items.
• Assuming that a power of the Supreme Court is exclusive to it merely because it is prominent there.
• Treating an advisory opinion under Article 143 as a binding judgment.
• Forgetting that High Courts may punish contempt of subordinate courts as well as of themselves.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Under the Constitution of India, the power to punish for contempt of itself is vested in which one among the following ?

  • (a)The Supreme Court alone
  • (b)The High Courts alone
  • (c)Both the Supreme Court and the High Courts
  • (d)All courts including subordinate courts

  Answer(c) Both the Supreme Court and the High Courts

• practice — not a real PYQ

  A reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India can be made by which one among the following ?

  • (a)The Prime Minister to the Supreme Court
  • (b)The President to the Supreme Court
  • (c)The Governor to the High Court
  • (d)Parliament to the Supreme Court

  Answer(b) The President to the Supreme Court