Skip to content
Exercises · Q1

Q.What are the different ways in which the independence of the judiciary is ensured? Choose the odd ones out.
i. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is consulted in the appointment of other judges of Supreme Court.
ii. Judges are generally not removed before the age of retirement.
iii. Judge of a High Court cannot be transferred to another High Court.
iv. Parliament has no say in the appointment of judges.

CBSENCERTSubjectiveImportance★★★★★est
6% · 1/16 Questions
✓ Free question

Statement (iii) is the odd one out — High Court judges can, in fact, be transferred to another High Court; that is not something the Constitution forbids, so it cannot be listed as a way independence is "ensured."

Look at each statement against what actually keeps the Indian judiciary independent, as this chapter describes it.

Statement (i) — the Chief Justice of India being consulted on appointing other Supreme Court judges — is a genuine, textbook example of how independence is protected: it is exactly the "collegiality" principle the Supreme Court itself evolved between 1982 and 1998, so that appointments are not left entirely to the executive.

Statement (ii) — judges generally not being removed before retirement age — is also a real safeguard: security of tenure is one of the core mechanisms the Constitution uses to let judges rule without fear of losing their job.

Statement (iv) — Parliament having no say in the appointment of judges — matches the chapter's own explanation directly: the legislature is deliberately kept out of the appointment process, precisely so that party politics and political loyalty are not the test for who becomes a judge.

Statement (iii), by contrast, does not belong on this list at all, because it isn't even true. A High Court judge can be transferred to another High Court — this is a real power the system uses, and if anything it has occasionally been criticised as a possible way to pressure a judge (by moving them away from their home court), rather than as a safeguard that protects independence. Since (iii) is factually wrong and also does not describe a genuine independence-protecting mechanism, it is the odd one out.

✓Final answer

(iii) is the odd one out. High Court judges CAN be transferred to another High Court — this is not a safeguard of judicial independence, and the statement is factually incorrect, unlike (i), (ii), and (iv), which are all genuine, constitutionally real ways independence is ensured (CJI's role in appointments, security of tenure, and the legislature's exclusion from appointments).

Unlock everything free for 14 days

  • Full step-by-step solutions
  • Concept-first explanations
  • Methods, shortcuts & mistakes
  • PYQ mapping + timed mock tests

Full access for 14 days. No credit card required.