RAS EXAM 2026

(c) Subordinate Courts in India are Courts of Record. • (a) The Supreme Court of India is a Court of Record: This statement is factually correct. Under Article 129 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is officially designated as a court of record. This means its judgments, proceedings, and acts are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony, and it has the power to punish for contempt of itself. • (b) High Courts in India are Courts of Record: This statement is also correct. Article 215 grants the exact same "court of record" status and contempt powers to the High Courts in their respective states. • (c) Subordinate Courts in India are Courts of Record: This statement is incorrect. The Constitution does not grant "court of record" status to lower judiciary bodies like District or Sessions Courts. • (d) All Courts in India are not Courts of Record: This statement is correct. Since subordinate courts are not courts of record, it is a true statement of fact that not all courts in the country hold this specific legal status.

(C) 1 and 3 only Statement 1: Expansion of the judicial review over the administration Correct: Judicial activism naturally involves expanding judicial review into executive and administrative domains to ensure rights are protected, executive overreach is checked, and good governance is maintained. Statement 2: Indiscriminate exercise of contempt power Incorrect: The "indiscriminate" or excessive use of contempt powers is considered a misuse or abuse of judicial authority, often associated with judicial overreach or authoritarian tendencies, rather than a healthy manifestation of judicial activism. Judicial activism aims to expand justice and enforce fundamental rights, not suppress critique through contempt. Statement 3: Expansion of rights of hearing in the administrative process Correct: A key feature of judicial activism in public law is enforcing and broadening principles of natural justice—specifically Audi Alteram Partem (the right to a fair hearing)—within executive and administrative procedures to prevent arbitrariness.

(A) 1, 2 and 3 only Statement 1: Correct PIL relaxed the traditional requirement of locus standi (standing), enabling higher courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) to take suo motu (on its own motion) cognizance of issues affecting the general public, marginal communities, or public interest, even based on simple letters or postcard petitions (Epistolary Jurisdiction). Statement 2: Correct One of the core objectives behind introducing PIL (pioneered by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati in the late 1970s and early 1980s) was to democratize access to justice. It ensured that economically weaker, underprivileged, or marginalized sections—who lack resources to approach the court—could receive judicial protection and legal representation through public-spirited citizens or organizations. Statement 3: Correct Under PIL rules, any public-spirited individual, activist, or NGO can file a petition on behalf of victims or affected communities who cannot approach the court themselves due to poverty, ignorance, or social disability. Statement 4: Incorrect PIL expands judicial intervention and review rather than restricting it. Far from restricting judicial power, PIL has often been criticized for leading to "judicial activism" or "judicial overreach" where courts intervene in administrative or policy domains to uphold fundamental rights and public interest.

​Special Offer Fee: Only ₹699 ⚠️ LIMITED SEATS AVAILABLE – Secure Your Spot Today!