Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

  1. Judge of High Court for at least 10 years in succession
  2. Advocate of Supreme Court for at least 5 years in succession
  3. A distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President.
  4. Advocate of High Court for 5 years in succession
4 views

1 Answers

Option 3 : A distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President.

The correct answer is A distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President.

  • Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President under Article 124(2) of the Constitution.
  • A judge of the Supreme Court submits his resignation to the President of India.
  • A person to be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court should have the following qualifications under Article 124 (3):
    • Should be a citizen of India.
    • Should have been a judge of a High Court (or High courts in succession) for at least five years.
    • Should have been an advocate of a High Court (or High courts in succession) for at least ten years.
    • Should be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President.
  • The Constitution has not prescribed minimum age for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court.
4 views

Related Questions

The question given below consists of a statement, followed by three arguments numbered I, II and III. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are ‘strong' arguments and which is/are ‘weak' arguments and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question. Statement:  The central government has told the Supreme Court that anti-adultery laws were required to protect the ‘sanctity of marriage and the institution of family', and any attempt to do away with these laws would hurt ‘Indian ethos'. The government was responding to a court notice on a public interest litigation which wanted the law struck down as it was not gender neutral and the provisions were tilted against men. Which among the following arguments support the above statement regarding the ‘revision of such laws' in the best possible manner Arguments: I. It seemed to suggest that women were chattel owned by men and could be guided and misguided. II. This would erode the sanctity of marriage as an institution and the societal fabric. The issue of making the provision gender neutral was already pending before the government. III. Any step towards decriminalising the offence in the interim would be detrimental to Indian ethos which gives paramount importance to the institution and sanctity of marriage.?
1 Answers 4 Views