UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — Can jurists be appointed as Supreme Court judges?

Q1. Consider the following statements regarding the qualifications for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India under Article 124(3): 1. The minimum period prescribed for the High Court judge route is five years, while for the practising-advocate route it is ten years. 2. Unlike the first two routes, which prescribe a fixed minimum period of experience, the third route prescribes no such period and rests on an opinion formed under the Constitution. 3. For the advocate route, the qualifying period of practice must have been as an advocate of the Supreme Court. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. The minimum period prescribed for the High Court judge route is five years, while for the practising-advocate route it is ten years.
  2. Unlike the first two routes, which prescribe a fixed minimum period of experience, the third route prescribes no such period and rests on an opinion formed under the Constitution.
  3. For the advocate route, the qualifying period of practice must have been as an advocate of the Supreme Court.
  • A. 1 only
  • B. 1 and 2 only
  • C. 2 and 3 only
  • D. 1, 2 and 3

Q2. Which one of the following correctly describes the authority and manner in which the 'distinguished jurist' qualification for a Supreme Court judgeship operates?

  • A. Parliament must, by law, declare a person to be a distinguished jurist before any such appointment can be made.
  • B. The Chief Justice of India certifies the person, and a minimum of ten years of legal teaching is prescribed for this route.
  • C. The President forms the opinion, and the Constitution leaves the expression itself undefined.
  • D. The Union Law Ministry alone frames the criteria, which are exhaustively listed in a Schedule to the Constitution.

Q3. With reference to the 'distinguished jurist' clause of Article 124(3), consider the following statements: 1. The Constitution prescribes no minimum period of experience for a person to be regarded as a distinguished jurist. 2. Each of the three routes to a Supreme Court judgeship under Article 124(3) has been used at least once since the Constitution came into force. 3. The clause entered the Constitution through the Constituent Assembly's own deliberations and was retained in the Constitution as adopted. 4. The clause may be resorted to only when no High Court judge or advocate of the requisite standing is available for appointment. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. The Constitution prescribes no minimum period of experience for a person to be regarded as a distinguished jurist.
  2. Each of the three routes to a Supreme Court judgeship under Article 124(3) has been used at least once since the Constitution came into force.
  3. The clause entered the Constitution through the Constituent Assembly's own deliberations and was retained in the Constitution as adopted.
  4. The clause may be resorted to only when no High Court judge or advocate of the requisite standing is available for appointment.
  • A. 1 and 3
  • B. 2 and 4
  • C. 1, 3 and 4
  • D. 2 only

Q4. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, the three-member committee that includes a 'distinguished jurist' among its members is constituted by which one of the following?

  • A. The President of India, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers
  • B. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, on admitting the motion
  • C. The Chief Justice of India, from among the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court
  • D. The Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, on a reference from Parliament

Q5. In the Constituent Assembly, the category added to the qualifications for a Supreme Court judgeship in 1949 was intended to cover which one of the following?

  • A. Advocates who had practised exclusively before the Federal Court for not less than ten years
  • B. Persons of outstanding legal and juristic learning, not confined to judges or advocates
  • C. All law officers of the Union, who were to become automatically eligible for elevation
  • D. Retired judges of the Federal Court, who alone were to be treated as jurists

Q6. After the jurist category was accepted in the Constituent Assembly, the choice between the words 'eminent' and 'distinguished' was left to be settled by which one of the following?

  • A. The Union Constitution Committee, which framed the scheme of the Union judiciary
  • B. The Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights and Minorities
  • C. The Committee on the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly
  • D. The Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly

Q7. The clause flagged by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in 2026 as having remained unused for over 76 years makes eligibility as a 'distinguished jurist' turn upon the opinion of which one of the following?

  • A. The President of India
  • B. The Chief Justice of India
  • C. The Supreme Court collegium
  • D. The Union Minister of Law and Justice

Q8. Consider the following statements regarding the 2026 remarks of Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on the 'distinguished jurist' provision: 1. He noted that no legal academic has so far been elevated to the Supreme Court through this route. 2. He raised the question in relation to a provision that has remained unused for more than seven decades. 3. He made the remarks while addressing the convocation of the postgraduate law programme of National Law University, Delhi. 4. He noted that the Union Government had by then notified statutory criteria defining the expression 'distinguished jurist'. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. He noted that no legal academic has so far been elevated to the Supreme Court through this route.
  2. He raised the question in relation to a provision that has remained unused for more than seven decades.
  3. He made the remarks while addressing the convocation of the postgraduate law programme of National Law University, Delhi.
  4. He noted that the Union Government had by then notified statutory criteria defining the expression 'distinguished jurist'.
  • A. 1, 2 and 3
  • B. 2 and 4
  • C. 1 and 4
  • D. 3 only

Q9. Consider the following statements comparing the qualifications for appointment as a Judge of a High Court with those for a Judge of the Supreme Court: 1. Article 217 expressly provides a 'distinguished jurist' route for appointment as a High Court judge, corresponding to the third route under Article 124(3). 2. Article 217 makes a person who has held judicial office in the territory of India for at least ten years eligible, whereas Article 124(3) contains no corresponding judicial-office route. 3. Both Articles prescribe ten years' standing as an advocate of a High Court, or of two or more such courts in succession, as one of the qualifying routes. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. Article 217 expressly provides a 'distinguished jurist' route for appointment as a High Court judge, corresponding to the third route under Article 124(3).
  2. Article 217 makes a person who has held judicial office in the territory of India for at least ten years eligible, whereas Article 124(3) contains no corresponding judicial-office route.
  3. Both Articles prescribe ten years' standing as an advocate of a High Court, or of two or more such courts in succession, as one of the qualifying routes.
  • A. 1 and 2 only
  • B. 1 and 3 only
  • C. 2 and 3 only
  • D. 1, 2 and 3

Q10. Which one of the following is the nodal department of the Union Government for processing appointments of Judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts?

  • A. The Legislative Department in the Ministry of Law and Justice
  • B. The Department of Legal Affairs in the Ministry of Law and Justice
  • C. The Department of Justice in the Ministry of Law and Justice
  • D. The Ministry of Home Affairs, which alone issues every warrant of appointment of judges

Q11. Consider the following statements about offices and bodies in which legal expertise outside the serving judiciary is expressly recognised: 1. Attorney General of India — the holder must be a person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court. 2. National Judicial Appointments Commission, as enacted in 2014 — two eminent persons to be nominated by a committee of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. 3. Inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 — a distinguished jurist is one of its three members, alongside a Supreme Court judge and a High Court Chief Justice. 4. Solicitor General of India — the Constitution requires the holder to be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President. Which of the above is/are correctly identified?

  1. Attorney General of India — the holder must be a person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
  2. National Judicial Appointments Commission, as enacted in 2014 — two eminent persons to be nominated by a committee of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
  3. Inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 — a distinguished jurist is one of its three members, alongside a Supreme Court judge and a High Court Chief Justice.
  4. Solicitor General of India — the Constitution requires the holder to be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President.
  • A. 1 and 4
  • B. 2, 3 and 4
  • C. 1, 2 and 3
  • D. 3 only

Q12. Consider the following statements about the procedure for appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court: 1. Under Article 124(2), consultation with the Chief Justice of India is required for the appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, while the President may consult such other Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts as he considers necessary. 2. The constitutional amendment and the statute that sought to replace the collegium with a commission were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015. 3. The collegium for Supreme Court appointments comprises the Chief Justice of India and all other Judges of the Supreme Court, and its recommendation is binding on the President in every case at the first instance. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. Under Article 124(2), consultation with the Chief Justice of India is required for the appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, while the President may consult such other Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts as he considers necessary.
  2. The constitutional amendment and the statute that sought to replace the collegium with a commission were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.
  3. The collegium for Supreme Court appointments comprises the Chief Justice of India and all other Judges of the Supreme Court, and its recommendation is binding on the President in every case at the first instance.
  • A. 1 only
  • B. 1 and 2 only
  • C. 2 and 3 only
  • D. 1, 2 and 3