StudyOSStudyOS CBSE Study Material, Class 5–12

Judiciary

NCERT Class 11 · Political Science Based on NCERT Class 11 Political Science textbook · Free CBSE study kit

Everything you need to ace this chapter, in one place.
Notes · Mind Map · Quiz · Assertion-Reason · Case Studies · Question Bank · Past Papers

Get Full Study Kit →
Studying with friends? Send them this chapter.

Chapter Notes

Overview
This chapter explains the role, structure, and powers of the Indian judiciary, emphasizing its independence and its function as the protector of the Constitution and fundamental rights. It covers the meaning of judicial independence, the appointment and removal of judges, the hierarchical structure of courts, and the various jurisdictions of the Supreme Court. The one big idea a student must walk away with is that the judiciary is a powerful, independent organ of the state that acts as an umpire in federal disputes, a guardian of rights, and an interpreter of the Constitution, but its relationship with the Parliament and executive is based on a delicate balance of powers.
Key Concepts (13)
Rule of Law
The principle that all individuals, regardless of their status, are subjected to the same law and no one is above the law.
e.g. A rich industrialist and a poor daily-wage labourer are both equally liable for the same criminal offence under the law.
Independence of Judiciary
The principle that the other organs of the government (executive and legislature) must not restrain the functioning of the judiciary, interfere with its decisions, and that judges must be able to perform their functions without fear or favour.
e.g. The Parliament cannot discuss the conduct of a judge except during a removal proceeding, ensuring judges can decide cases without fear of political criticism.
Single Integrated Judicial System
The Constitution of India provides for a single unified system of courts that administers both central and state laws, with the Supreme Court at the apex, unlike some federal countries that have separate state courts.
e.g. A case from a village in Kerala can ultimately be appealed up to the Supreme Court in Delhi, following the same hierarchy of courts.
Original Jurisdiction
The power of the Supreme Court to hear certain cases directly, without them first being heard in a lower court. This primarily includes disputes between the Union and States or among States.
e.g. A dispute between the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Karnataka over the sharing of Cauvery river water can be directly filed in the Supreme Court.
Appellate Jurisdiction
The power of a higher court to review and revise the decision of a lower court. The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in India.
e.g. A person convicted of murder by a High Court can appeal to the Supreme Court against the conviction.
Advisory Jurisdiction
The power of the Supreme Court to give its opinion on any matter of public importance or on any question of law referred to it by the President of India.
e.g. The President may seek the Supreme Court's advice on the constitutional validity of a proposed law regarding the citizenship status of residents in a disputed territory.
Writ Jurisdiction
The power of the Supreme Court (under Article 32) and High Courts (under Article 226) to issue special orders called writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
e.g. If a person is illegally detained, they can file a writ of Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court or High Court to secure their release.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
A legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have a pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
e.g. A social activist filing a petition in the Supreme Court against pollution caused by a thermal power plant, on behalf of the farmers whose crops are being destroyed.
Judicial Activism
A proactive role by the judiciary in protecting the rights of citizens and in directing the executive and legislature to perform their duties, often through instruments like PIL.
e.g. The Supreme Court issuing directions to the government to convert all public transport in Delhi to CNG to reduce air pollution.
Judicial Review
The power of the Supreme Court (and High Courts) to examine the constitutionality of any law passed by the legislature or action taken by the executive. If a law is found to be inconsistent with the Constitution, it is declared unconstitutional and inapplicable.
e.g. The Supreme Court striking down a law that imposes unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech, as it violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Basic Structure Doctrine
The principle established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) that the Parliament cannot amend the basic or essential features of the Constitution, such as its supremacy, rule of law, and secularism.
e.g. The Parliament cannot pass an amendment that abolishes the power of judicial review, as it is considered a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Collegiality
The principle established by the Supreme Court for the appointment of judges, whereby the Chief Justice of India recommends names in consultation with the four senior-most judges of the Court, and this collective opinion carries greater weight.
e.g. The appointment of a new Supreme Court judge is now decided by a collegium of the CJI and four senior judges, rather than solely by the executive.
Contempt of Court
The power of the court to penalise those who are found guilty of disobeying or disrespecting the court, which protects judges from unfair criticism and ensures the authority of the judiciary.
e.g. A newspaper publishing a scandalous article that brings the judiciary into disrepute can be held guilty of contempt of court.
How It Works
Appointment of Supreme Court and High Court Judges
  1. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is appointed by the President. A convention of appointing the senior-most Supreme Court judge as CJI was established, though it was broken in 1973 and 1975.
  2. For other judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, the President appoints them after 'consulting' the CJI.
  3. The Supreme Court, through its rulings (1982-1998), established the principle of collegiality: the CJI must recommend names in consultation with the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
  4. The final decision in matters of appointment now carries greater weight from this collegium of senior judges, though the Council of Ministers also plays a role.
💡 Students often forget that the 'consultation' with the CJI is not just a formality; the Supreme Court has ruled that the opinion of the collegium (CJI + 4 senior judges) is binding in effect, not merely advisory.
Removal of a Supreme Court or High Court Judge
  1. A judge can be removed only on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity.
  2. A motion containing the charges against the judge must be introduced in Parliament.
  3. The motion must be approved by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament (a majority of the total membership of the House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting).
  4. If the motion fails to get the required majority, the judge is not removed.
💡 The removal process is deliberately made very difficult to ensure the security of tenure for judges. The case of Justice V. Ramaswami is a key example: despite a guilty finding, the motion failed because it did not get the support of a majority of the total strength of the House.
Filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
  1. A public-spirited citizen, social organisation, or lawyer identifies a matter of public interest (e.g., violation of rights of prisoners, environmental pollution).
  2. The petitioner files a petition in the Supreme Court or High Court, not necessarily on behalf of an aggrieved individual but on behalf of the public or a class of people.
  3. The court may take cognizance of the case even based on a newspaper report or a letter (though this practice has been largely abandoned).
  4. The court hears the case, often relaxing traditional rules of procedure, and can issue directions to the executive or legislature to remedy the situation.
💡 The key difference from a normal case is that the petitioner does not need to be personally aggrieved. The court expanded the idea of rights to include collective rights like clean air and water.
Process of Judicial Review
  1. A law passed by the Parliament or a State Legislature is challenged in the Supreme Court or a High Court on the grounds that it violates the Constitution.
  2. The court examines the law to see if it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Fundamental Rights or the federal distribution of powers.
  3. If the court finds the law to be unconstitutional, it declares the law as void and inapplicable.
  4. The court's decision is binding on all other courts and authorities in India.
💡 The term 'judicial review' is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but it is implied from the fact that India has a written constitution and the Supreme Court can strike down laws that violate Fundamental Rights (Article 13).
The Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973)
  1. The Parliament attempted to amend the Constitution, including curtailing Fundamental Rights.
  2. The Supreme Court, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, ruled that the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited.
  3. The Court held that there is a 'basic structure' of the Constitution (e.g., supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, secularism, judicial review) that cannot be destroyed or damaged even by a constitutional amendment.
  4. The Court reserved for itself the right to decide whether a particular amendment violates the basic structure.
  5. This ruling established the judiciary as the final interpreter of the Constitution's essential features.
💡 This case is the most important example of the conflict between the Parliament and the judiciary. It resolved the earlier controversy about whether Fundamental Rights could be abridged by an amendment.
Exam Traps — Don't Make These Mistakes
⚠ Confusing 'Independence' with 'Arbitrariness'
✗ Independence of the judiciary means that judges can do whatever they want and are not accountable to anyone.
→ Independence does not imply arbitrariness or absence of accountability. The judiciary is accountable to the Constitution, democratic traditions, and the people of the country.
✓ Independence of the judiciary means that judges can perform their functions without fear or favour, free from interference by the executive and legislature, but they are still accountable to the Constitution and the law.
⚠ Mixing up Original and Appellate Jurisdiction
✗ The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction means it hears appeals from lower courts.
→ Original jurisdiction is the power to hear a case for the first time, not on appeal. Appellate jurisdiction is the power to hear appeals from lower courts.
✓ Original jurisdiction allows the Supreme Court to hear cases directly, such as disputes between the Union and States. Appellate jurisdiction allows it to hear appeals against decisions of lower courts.
⚠ Thinking the President Must Accept the Supreme Court's Advisory Opinion
✗ The President is bound to accept the advice given by the Supreme Court under its advisory jurisdiction.
→ The advisory jurisdiction is optional for both parties. The Supreme Court is not bound to give advice, and the President is not bound to accept it.
✓ Under its advisory jurisdiction, the President can refer a matter to the Supreme Court for its opinion, but the Court is not bound to give it, and the President is not bound to accept it.
⚠ Confusing 'Judicial Review' with 'Writ Jurisdiction'
✗ Judicial review is the power of the court to issue writs like Habeas Corpus.
→ Writ jurisdiction is a specific power to issue orders for enforcing Fundamental Rights. Judicial review is a broader power to examine the constitutionality of any law or executive action.
✓ Judicial review is the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Writ jurisdiction is the power to issue specific orders (writs) to remedy the violation of Fundamental Rights.
⚠ Forgetting the Role of the Legislature in Removal of Judges
✗ The executive (President) can remove a judge on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India.
→ The removal of a judge is a very difficult process that requires a special majority in both Houses of Parliament. The executive does not have the sole power of removal.
✓ A judge can be removed only by an order of the President, but only after a motion for removal is passed by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament.
Compare & Contrast
The stage at which the court hears the case
Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
Original jurisdiction involves cases that are brought directly to the Supreme Court for the first time (e.g., Union-State disputes), while appellate jurisdiction involves cases that have already been decided by a lower court and are being appealed.
Purpose and scope of the power
Judicial Review
Writ Jurisdiction
Judicial review is the power to examine the constitutionality of any law and declare it void if it violates the Constitution. Writ jurisdiction is a specific power to issue writs (like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus) to enforce Fundamental Rights of an individual.
Who can file the case and whose interest is being served
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Ordinary Litigation
In ordinary litigation, only a person whose own rights have been violated can file a case. In PIL, a public-spirited citizen or organisation can file a case on behalf of others or for a public cause, even if they are not personally aggrieved.
Exam Focus
Marks pattern: Typically, this chapter appears with 2-3 MCQs (1 mark each), 1-2 Short Answer questions (3 marks each) on jurisdictions or independence, and 1 Long Answer question (5-6 marks) on a topic like PIL, judicial activism, or the Parliament-Judiciary conflict.
Most asked: Independence of Judiciary and its provisions · Jurisdictions of the Supreme Court (Original, Appellate, Advisory, Writ) · Judicial Review and its significance · Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Judicial Activism · The Kesavananda Bharati case and the Basic Structure Doctrine · Appointment and removal of judges
Don't skip: Explain the concept of 'Independence of Judiciary' and discuss the various provisions in the Indian Constitution that ensure it.; What is 'Judicial Review'? Why is it considered an important power of the Supreme Court?; Discuss the role of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in making the judiciary more accessible to the common man.; Explain the significance of the Kesavananda Bharati case in defining the relationship between the Parliament and the Judiciary.
One-Line Revision (read aloud before the exam)
  1. The principal role of the judiciary is to protect the rule of law and ensure the supremacy of law.
  2. Independence of the judiciary means judges can function without fear or favour, free from interference by the executive and legislature.
  3. The Indian Constitution ensures judicial independence through security of tenure, a difficult removal process, and financial independence of judges.
  4. The Supreme Court of India has Original, Appellate, Advisory, and Writ jurisdictions.
  5. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court settles disputes between the Union and States and amongst States.
  6. Appellate jurisdiction allows the Supreme Court to hear appeals from lower courts in civil, criminal, and constitutional cases.
  7. Advisory jurisdiction allows the President to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on matters of public importance.
  8. Writ jurisdiction (Article 32) empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for enforcing Fundamental Rights.
  9. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) allows public-spirited citizens to approach the court on behalf of the poor and deprived.
  10. Judicial activism refers to the proactive role of the judiciary in protecting rights and directing the executive.
  11. Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional if it violates the Constitution.
  12. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
  13. A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed only by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity.
  14. The collegium system for judicial appointments involves the CJI and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
  15. The single integrated judicial system in India has the Supreme Court at the top, High Courts below, and district and subordinate courts at the bottom.

MCQs — 10 Questions with Answers

Q1. What is the primary meaning of independence of judiciary in the Indian democratic system?

  • A. Judges can make any decision without following laws or constitutional provisions
  • B. The judiciary must function free from political pressure and interference by executive and legislature ✓
  • C. Judges are free from all forms of accountability to any authority
  • D. The judiciary can override decisions of Parliament and the President whenever it wishes

Answer: B — Independence means freedom from political pressure while remaining accountable to the Constitution—not absolute freedom or absence of legal constraints.

Q2. Which of the following is NOT a constitutional measure to ensure judicial independence in India?

  • A. Security of tenure with a difficult removal procedure requiring special majority
  • B. Judges' salaries and allowances not subject to legislative approval
  • C. Direct appointment of judges by the Prime Minister without any consultation ✓
  • D. Parliament cannot discuss judge conduct except during removal proceedings

Answer: C — The Constitution specifically requires the Chief Justice to be consulted in appointment; direct appointment by PM alone contradicts the design for independence.

Q3. What does rule of law mean according to the chapter?

  • A. Laws are made only by the executive for maintaining order
  • B. All individuals—rich or poor, men or women, any caste—are equally subject to the same law ✓
  • C. Judges can interpret laws differently for different social groups
  • D. The judiciary has power above all other organs of government

Answer: B — Rule of law ensures equal application of law to all citizens regardless of social status, which is central to the judiciary's role in protecting this principle.

Q4. Why did the convention of appointing the senior-most judge as Chief Justice of India break in 1973?

  • A. There was no senior judge available in the Supreme Court
  • B. A.N. Ray was appointed CJI superseding three senior judges ✓
  • C. The Constitution was amended to change the appointment rule
  • D. The senior judge refused to take the position of CJI

Answer: B — A.N. Ray's appointment in 1973 and M.H. Beg's in 1975 both violated the seniority convention, showing how political considerations influenced appointments.

Q5. What is the Collegium system in the context of judicial appointments?

  • A. A college where judges receive their training
  • B. A system where Chief Justice recommends judges in consultation with four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court ✓
  • C. A group of politicians who appoint judges to the Supreme Court
  • D. An assembly where all judges discuss and decide national policies

Answer: B — The Supreme Court established the Collegium system to ensure collective decision-making in judge recommendations, moving from individual authority to group consultation.

Q6. A judge fears that if she gives a decision against the government, she may lose her salary or be transferred to a far-off court. Which safeguard is being violated in this scenario?

  • A. Rule of law principle
  • B. Security of tenure and financial independence of judiciary ✓
  • C. Contempt of court authority
  • D. Collegium appointment system

Answer: B — The scenario violates both security of tenure (threat of transfer) and financial independence (threat to salary), which are key constitutional safeguards for judicial independence.

Q7. Read the statement: 'The judiciary is independent from political interference but also accountable to the Constitution and democratic traditions.' Which of the following correctly explains this relationship?

  • A. Independence and accountability are contradictory, so judges cannot have both
  • B. Judges are accountable only to the President and Prime Minister, not to Constitution
  • C. Independence means freedom from political pressure while accountability means judges must follow constitutional limits and legal procedures ✓
  • D. Judges are completely free from all constraints and accountable to no one

Answer: C — This captures the balance: judges have independence from political actors but are bound by constitutional framework and democratic procedures—accountability doesn't mean subservience.

Q8. Which procedural requirement makes the removal of a Supreme Court judge extremely difficult and protects judicial independence?

  • A. Removal by simple majority in Lok Sabha only
  • B. Removal by the President on advice of Council of Ministers
  • C. Removal by special majority (2/3 of members present and voting) in both Houses of Parliament on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity ✓
  • D. Removal by the Chief Justice of India alone if conduct is improper

Answer: C — The high threshold of special majority in both Houses ensures removal is nearly impossible without broad consensus, providing judges security of office to decide cases impartially.

Q9. The Supreme Court has held that contempt of court power is necessary for the judiciary because it: (i) allows judges to punish unfair criticism (ii) protects judges from personal attacks that could undermine authority (iii) prevents all public discussion about the judiciary (iv) gives judges absolute immunity from all accountability

  • A. (i) and (ii) are correct ✓
  • B. (ii) and (iii) are correct
  • C. (iii) and (iv) are correct
  • D. (i), (ii), and (iii) are all correct

Answer: A — Contempt of court protects judges from unfair personal attacks but doesn't prevent legitimate public discussion or give absolute immunity—statements (iii) and (iv) are incorrect.

Q10. Consider this case: Justice H.R. Khanna, who wrote a strong judgment protecting fundamental rights, was not appointed as Chief Justice in 1975, though he was senior. Justice M.H. Beg was appointed instead. What does this incident reveal about judicial independence at that time?

  • A. Seniority should not matter in appointing CJI because experience is not important
  • B. Political considerations influenced appointments, risking judicial independence because judges might fear decisions displeasing those in power ✓
  • C. The collegium system was working perfectly and judges were completely free
  • D. Fundamental rights are more important than judicial independence in a democracy

Answer: B — The superseding of Khanna based on his rights-protective judgments shows how political pressure can influence appointments; without secure seniority norms, judges may self-censor to protect careers.

Flashcards

What does independence of judiciary mean in the Indian Constitution?

Judiciary must function free from political pressure or interference from executive and legislature, with judges performing duties without fear or favour.

Name the procedure required to remove a judge of the Supreme Court.

A motion with charges must be passed by special majority (2/3 of members present and voting) in both Houses of Parliament on grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity.

What is the Collegium system in judicial appointments?

The Chief Justice of India recommends names of judges in consultation with four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, ensuring a collective decision rather than individual authority.

Why is security of tenure important for judges?

It ensures judges can deliver impartial decisions without fear of removal by political authorities, thereby protecting the independence of the judiciary.

What is the rule of law principle?

All individuals—rich or poor, men or women, any caste—are equally subjected to the same law administered by independent courts.

Which two occasions did the convention of appointing the senior-most judge as CJI get broken?

In 1973 when A.N. Ray was appointed CJI superseding three senior judges, and in 1975 when M.H. Beg was appointed superseding Justice H.R. Khanna.

How does financial independence protect judicial independence?

Judges' salaries and allowances are not subject to legislative approval, preventing the executive or legislature from using financial pressure to influence judicial decisions.

What does contempt of court mean in the context of judicial independence?

The power of courts to penalise unfair or abusive criticism of judges, protecting them from personal attacks that could undermine their authority.

What is the relationship between judicial independence and accountability?

Judges are independent from political pressure but remain accountable to the Constitution, democratic traditions, and the people through proper legal procedures.

Why does the Constitution make judge removal difficult?

A difficult removal procedure ensures judges have security of office and can deliver justice impartially without fear of removal by political actors.

Important Board Questions

Define independence of judiciary and state two constitutional measures that ensure it in India. [2 marks]

Define independence as freedom from executive/legislature interference while performing duties without fear. Provide two safeguards: e.g., security of tenure (difficult removal via special majority) and financial independence (salaries not subject to legislative approval).

Explain the rule of law principle and explain how the independent judiciary protects it. Give one example from Indian context. [5 marks]

Define rule of law: all citizens equally subject to same law regardless of status. Explain: independent judiciary applies laws impartially, settles disputes fairly, protects citizens against arbitrary power. Example: Supreme Court striking down laws violating fundamental rights of weaker sections or testing executive actions against constitutional values.

The appointment of judges has been a contentious issue in India. Analyse the evolution of the appointment process from the seniority convention to the present Collegium system. Why was this change necessary to protect judicial independence? [6 marks]

Evolution: 1950s–1973 seniority convention (senior-most becomes CJI); 1973 broken by A.N. Ray's superseding; 1975 broken again by M.H. Beg's appointment (showing political influence); 1982–1998 Supreme Court intervened; now Collegium system (CJI + 4 senior judges recommend collectively). Necessity: individual discretion allowed political pressure; collective decision reduces single authority's political leverage; seniority erosion showed judges could be pressured to stay silent on rights if they feared career damage. Collegium distributes power, making it harder for political actors to influence outcomes based on judges' ideologies or past judgments.

Assertion-Reason Questions for Judiciary

Q1. Assertion (A):

The Indian Constitution ensures that judges cannot be removed easily through a special majority procedure in both Houses of Parliament.

Reason (R):

This difficult removal procedure ensures judicial independence and prevents judges from being removed due to temporary political pressure or unpopular decisions.

Answer: A — Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A — Both assertion and reason are true, and the reason correctly explains why the difficult procedure exists. Judicial independence requires protection from removal for unpopular decisions.

Q2. Assertion (A):

The legislature is not involved in the appointment of judges in India.

Reason (R):

The salaries and allowances of judges are not subjected to the approval of the legislature.

Answer: B — Both A and R are true, but R is NOT the correct explanation of A — The assertion is true—legislature doesn't appoint judges. The reason is also true but doesn't explain why legislature isn't involved in appointments; it explains financial independence. These are separate protective measures.

Q3. Assertion (A):

Independence of judiciary means judges can make arbitrary decisions without following any law or constitutional procedure.

Reason (R):

The judiciary is accountable to the Constitution and to democratic traditions of the country.

Answer: D — A is false but R is true — The assertion is false because judicial independence is not absolute arbitrariness. While the reason is true, judicial independence means freedom from external pressure while remaining bound by law.

Unlock more Assertion-Reason questions in Premium — unlock →

Case-Based Questions (CBQ) for Judiciary

Case Study:

In 2019, when the Supreme Court appointed judges through the collegial system, several Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) criticized the lack of transparency in the selection process. They argued that while the system protected judicial independence from executive pressure, it lacked public accountability regarding how judges were selected. The Supreme Court responded that complete transparency might expose judges to political pressure and media influence during the selection process, compromising the independence achieved through the consultative mechanism. This created a tension between the values of transparency and judicial independence.

Q1. Why did CSOs criticize the collegial appointment system despite its role in protecting judicial independence?

  • A. They wanted the legislature to appoint judges instead
  • B. They believed transparency in the process would improve public accountability even if it meant some political pressure ✓
  • C. They thought judges should be elected by the people
  • D. They opposed all senior judges being consulted

Answer: B

Q2. What was the Supreme Court's concern about making the collegial appointment process completely transparent?

  • A. It would reduce the number of qualified judges available
  • B. It might expose judges to political pressure and media influence, potentially compromising judicial independence ✓
  • C. It would give too much power to the legislature
  • D. It would make the appointment process slower

Answer: B

Q3. This case illustrates a tension between which two principles of democratic governance?

  • A. Rule of law and equality before law
  • B. Separation of powers and parliamentary sovereignty
  • C. Judicial independence and democratic accountability/transparency ✓
  • D. Federalism and national unity

Answer: C

Q4. According to the study material, how would making the appointment process completely transparent potentially undermine the benefits of the collegial system?

  • A. It would give the executive direct control over appointments
  • B. It would replace the merit-based system with political selection
  • C. It might expose judges to public and media pressure that could be used to influence their appointment and future decisions ✓
  • D. It would reduce the authority of the Chief Justice

Answer: C

Unlock more case studies in Premium — unlock →

Next chapterFederalism →
Found this useful? Share it with your class group.

You've seen the free preview. Open the full interactive study kit — mind map, instant-graded quiz, progress tracking — free, no sign-in required.

Open Full Study Kit — Free →

Premium unlocks the full Question Bank, Daily Practice Papers, Chapter Quiz and Full Mock Papers for every chapter.