EPFO EO/AO 2023 General Ability Test · Question 56 of 120

Correct — A, (a) 1 and 4. This is a question about the exact words of a single article, and it is set so that three of the four statements are near-misses of the same text. The article reads, so far as it matters here, that notwithstanding anything in the chapter the Chief Justice of India may at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request any person who has held the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of the Federal Court, or who has held the office of a Judge of a High Court and is duly qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court, to sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court. A proviso adds that no such person may be required to sit unless he consents to do so. Statement 1 is correct. Article 128 carries the marginal heading 'Attendance of retired Judges at sittings of the Supreme Court', and permitting exactly that is what it does. Statement 4 is correct, and it is the statement that reproduces the article's Supreme Court limb faithfully: the request is made by the Chief Justice of India, at any time, with the previous consent of the President, to a person who has held the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court. For a former Judge of that Court the article imposes no further qualification, so nothing has been left out. Statement 2 is incorrect because it drops the condition that matters most. It has the Chief Justice of India requesting a former judge 'at any time', with no mention of the previous consent of the President — and that consent is the constitutional check on the power, the point at which the executive is brought into a decision the judiciary would otherwise take alone. The same statement also treats a former High Court judge as eligible without more, which is the defect statement 3 shares. Statement 3 is incorrect for that second reason. It gets the President's previous consent right, but it describes the eligible person as one who has held the office of Chief Justice of a High Court, which is not the article's category and is not the article's test. What the article requires of anyone coming from the High Court side is that he has held the office of a Judge of a High Court AND is duly qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Dropping that qualification clause changes who may be asked, and the key treats the omission as fatal — which is the reading a strict text question demands. Read statements 3 and 4 side by side and the design of the item is plain: they are deliberately parallel, and they differ only in whether the class of persons has been stated completely.

• (b)1 and 3 — Statement 1 is right, but statement 3 misstates the class of persons who may be invited. Article 128 does not speak of a Chief Justice of a High Court at all; it speaks of a person who has held the office of a Judge of a High Court and is duly qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court, that qualification being the one set out in Article 124(3). A statement that names a narrower office while dropping the express condition attached to it does not reproduce the provision, and this option asks the candidate to accept it because the presidential consent in its opening words is correct.
• (c)2 and 4 — Statement 4 is right, and it is paired here with the statement that omits the previous consent of the President. That omission is not a matter of drafting neatness: without it the statement asserts that the Chief Justice of India may bring a retired judge on to the Court on his own authority, which is a different constitutional arrangement from the one the article creates. This option is aimed at a candidate who has registered that the power belongs to the Chief Justice of India and has not registered the condition on it.
• (d)4 only — It correctly identifies statement 4 and then discards a statement that is true on its face. Statement 1 does no more than name the article that governs the subject, and Article 128 is indeed the provision on the attendance of retired judges at sittings of the Supreme Court. Discarding a true statement because it seems too plain is a recurring way of losing a mark on this format; every statement should be judged on its own before the code options are consulted.

The Constitution provides three distinct ways of putting a judge on a bench other than by regular appointment, and questions in this area usually turn on keeping them apart. Article 127 allows AD HOC judges: where there is no quorum of Judges of the Supreme Court available to hold or continue a session, the Chief Justice of India may, with the previous consent of the President and after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned, request a serving Judge of a High Court, duly qualified for appointment to the Supreme Court, to attend the sittings of the Supreme Court. Article 128 allows RETIRED judges to be requested to sit and act as Judges of the Supreme Court, on the terms set out above; while so sitting such a person has all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a Judge of that Court, but is not otherwise deemed to be a Judge of it, and receives such allowances as the President may determine. Article 224A is the parallel provision for the High Courts, under which the Chief Justice of a High Court may, with the previous consent of the President, request a retired judge of that or any other High Court to sit and act as a Judge of that High Court. Two features run through all three: the President's previous consent, and the requirement that the person invited must himself consent, since a retired judge cannot be conscripted.

Polity questions on this paper are textual rather than analytical — the Commission puts four statements of an article in front of the candidate and asks which of them the article actually contains. That rewards a particular kind of reading: knowing not merely what a provision is about but which conditions it attaches and to whom. The habit worth building is to reduce every such article to its elements — who may act, with whose consent, in respect of which class of persons, subject to what qualification — and then to check each statement against that skeleton rather than against a general memory of the subject.

• Article 128 governs the attendance of retired judges at sittings of the Supreme Court.
• The request is made by the Chief Justice of India, at any time, with the previous consent of the President.
• Eligible persons: one who has held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court or of the Federal Court, or as a Judge of a High Court who is duly qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
• No person may be required to sit and act unless he himself consents to do so.
• While sitting, such a person has all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a Judge of the Supreme Court, but is not otherwise deemed to be a Judge of that Court.
• His allowances are such as the President may by order determine.
• Article 127 is the different power to appoint ad hoc judges from among SERVING High Court judges when there is no quorum.
• Article 224A is the parallel provision allowing a retired judge to sit and act as a Judge of a High Court.

• Overlooking the previous consent of the President, which is the condition every statement in this family is built around.
• Substituting 'Chief Justice of a High Court' for the article's 'Judge of a High Court who is duly qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court'.
• Confusing Article 127 with Article 128 — the first invites a serving High Court judge, the second a retired one.
• Rejecting a statement that merely names the correct article because it looks too simple to be part of the answer.

Constitutional provisions in EO/AO papers are asked as multi-statement items where the wrong statements are the right provision with one element altered — the authority who acts, the consent required, or the class of persons covered. Learning the article number alongside its skeleton is what makes these quick, and the articles around the Supreme Court and the High Courts are among the most frequently visited in the whole polity section.

No directly related past PYQ was found.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Under which article of the Constitution may the Chief Justice of India, with the previous consent of the President, request a serving Judge of a High Court to attend sittings of the Supreme Court as an ad hoc Judge when there is no quorum ?

  • (a)Article 124
  • (b)Article 127
  • (c)Article 128
  • (d)Article 224A

  Answer(b) Article 127

• practice — not a real PYQ

  A retired judge sitting and acting as a Judge of the Supreme Court under Article 128 :

  • (a)Is deemed to be a Judge of the Supreme Court for all purposes
  • (b)Has all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a Judge of that Court but is not otherwise deemed to be a Judge of it
  • (c)May be required to sit whether or not he consents
  • (d)Draws the full salary of a sitting Judge as of right under the Constitution

  Answer(b) Has all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a Judge of that Court but is not otherwise deemed to be a Judge of it