LLexfolio
Free mock test
CLAT PGCLAT UGAIBEUGC NETBailRent agreementLegal noticeBNS

Author: Lexfolio Team

  • Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty Explained

    Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty Explained

    Read this in Hindi: हिंदी में पढ़ें

    Article 21 of the Constitution of India says that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” It is the most expansively interpreted fundamental right in India: since Maneka Gandhi (1978), the procedure must be fair, just and reasonable, and “life” now means a life with dignity, covering privacy, livelihood, a clean environment, speedy trial and much more.

    The text and who can claim it

    Article 21 sits in Part III of the Constitution. It is a short provision of one sentence, but it carries two separate protections: protection of life, and protection of personal liberty. Both can be taken away only according to procedure established by law.

    The word used is “person”, not “citizen”. So Article 21 protects everyone on Indian soil, including foreign nationals. This is different from rights such as Article 19, which are limited to citizens.

    From Gopalan to Maneka: how the meaning changed

    A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

    In the first major case on Article 21, the Supreme Court gave “procedure established by law” a narrow meaning. Any procedure laid down by a validly enacted law was enough. The Court also treated each fundamental right as a separate compartment, so a preventive detention law did not have to satisfy Article 19.

    ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)

    During the Emergency, a 4:1 majority held that once the President had suspended enforcement of Article 21 under Article 359, no person could approach a court for its protection, even against illegal detention. Justice H.R. Khanna dissented, holding that the right to life does not depend on the Constitution’s text alone. The majority view was later disowned: in Puttaswamy (2017), the Supreme Court said ADM Jabalpur was seriously flawed. Parliament also acted through the 44th Amendment (1978), which amended Article 359 so that enforcement of Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during an Emergency.

    Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

    A seven-judge bench changed Article 21 for good. It held that the procedure must be “fair, just and reasonable”, not arbitrary or oppressive. It also held that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not watertight compartments, so a law affecting personal liberty must also pass the tests of Articles 14 and 19. In practical terms, Maneka Gandhi read a form of due process into Article 21.

    Key expansions of Article 21

    After 1978, the Supreme Court read many rights into the words “life” and “personal liberty”. The most important are:

    Right recognisedLeading caseYear
    Right to travel abroadManeka Gandhi v. Union of India1978
    Speedy trial and free legal aid for undertrialsHussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar1979
    Rights of prisonersSunil Batra v. Delhi Administration1979
    Right to live with human dignityFrancis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, UT of Delhi1981
    Right to livelihoodOlga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation1985
    Right to education (leading to Article 21A in 2002)Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh1993
    Protection against involuntary narco-analysis, polygraph and brain mappingSelvi v. State of Karnataka2010
    Right to privacy as a fundamental rightJustice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India2017
    Right to die with dignity and advance medical directivesCommon Cause v. Union of India2018
    Sexual autonomy and decriminalisation of consensual same-sex relationsNavtej Singh Johar v. Union of India2018

    Life means more than survival

    In Francis Coralie Mullin, the Court explained that life includes the bare necessities of a dignified existence: adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and the ability to read, write and express oneself. This “dignity” reading is the foundation for most later expansions.

    Livelihood

    In Olga Tellis, pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay challenged their eviction. The Court accepted that the right to life includes the right to livelihood, because no one can live without the means of living. The eviction was not struck down outright, but the Court insisted on a fair procedure.

    Privacy

    On 24 August 2017, a nine-judge bench in Puttaswamy unanimously held that privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and Part III as a whole. It overruled M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) to the extent they held otherwise. Privacy has since been applied to reproductive autonomy, informational privacy and the choice of a life partner.

    Dignity in death

    On 9 March 2018, a five-judge bench in Common Cause recognised the right to die with dignity as part of Article 21 and gave legal force to advance medical directives (living wills). In January 2023, the Court simplified the procedure laid down in 2018.

    Article 21 and Article 21A

    Article 21A was inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002. It makes free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 a fundamental right, in the manner the State determines by law. It grew directly out of the judicial reading of education into Article 21 in Unni Krishnan.

    Limits of Article 21

    Article 21 is not absolute. The State can deprive a person of life or liberty, for example through a death sentence or imprisonment, provided it follows a procedure established by law that is fair, just and reasonable. Rights such as privacy can be restricted if the restriction has a legal basis, serves a legitimate aim and is proportionate, as the Puttaswamy bench explained.

    Exam angle

    • Text-based questions: CLAT and AIBE often ask whether Article 21 is available to foreigners. Yes, because it uses “person”.
    • Case-year matching: Expect matching questions such as Olga Tellis with livelihood, Puttaswamy with privacy, Common Cause with living wills, and Hussainara Khatoon with speedy trial.
    • Emergency: After the 44th Amendment, Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended under Article 359. This is a favourite one-liner in judiciary prelims and UGC NET.
    • Doctrinal shift: Judiciary mains often asks you to trace the move from Gopalan’s narrow reading to Maneka Gandhi’s “fair, just and reasonable” test.
    • Article 21A: Remember the 86th Amendment, 2002, and the age group 6 to 14.

    Quick quiz

    Q1. Which case held that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21?

    1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
    2. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
    3. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.
    4. Common Cause v. Union of India
    Show answer

    Answer: B. In Olga Tellis (1985), the Court held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood, since one cannot live without the means of living.

    Q2. The right to privacy was declared a fundamental right by a nine-judge bench in:

    1. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)
    2. PUCL v. Union of India (1996)
    3. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
    4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
    Show answer

    Answer: D. On 24 August 2017, a unanimous nine-judge bench in Puttaswamy recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 and Part III.

    Q3. After the 44th Amendment, the enforcement of which Articles cannot be suspended during a national Emergency?

    1. Articles 20 and 21
    2. Articles 14 and 21
    3. Articles 19 and 21
    4. Articles 21 and 32
    Show answer

    Answer: A. The 44th Amendment (1978) amended Article 359 so that the right to move courts for enforcing Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended.

    Q4. Article 21A, which makes elementary education a fundamental right, was inserted by:

    1. The 42nd Amendment, 1976
    2. The 44th Amendment, 1978
    3. The 86th Amendment, 2002
    4. The 93rd Amendment, 2005
    Show answer

    Answer: C. The Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 inserted Article 21A for children aged 6 to 14.

    Q5. Who dissented in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)?

    1. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud
    2. Justice H.R. Khanna
    3. Justice P.N. Bhagwati
    4. Chief Justice A.N. Ray
    Show answer

    Answer: B. Justice H.R. Khanna was the lone dissenter, holding that the right to life could not be wiped out by suspending its enforcement.

    Practise more

    Constitutional law carries the largest share of CLAT PG and judiciary papers. Try the free CLAT PG 2027 mock, read 30 important Supreme Court judgments of 2026, and register for the All India CLAT Open Mock on 15 November.

    Get one law MCQ a day, free, on Telegram

    A daily question for CLAT, AIBE, NET and judiciary with the answer, plus alerts when exam dates, admit cards and new free mocks are released. No spam.

    Join @lexfolio_in on Telegram

    Sources

    • Constitution of India: Articles 21, 21A and 359 (Legislative Department, Government of India)
    • Supreme Court of India: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
    • Supreme Court of India: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), nine-judge bench
    • Supreme Court of India: Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), five-judge bench
    • Supreme Court Observer: Article 21 judgments timeline
  • अनुच्छेद 21: जीवन और व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता का अधिकार

    अनुच्छेद 21: जीवन और व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता का अधिकार

    English में पढ़ें: Read in English

    भारतीय संविधान का अनुच्छेद 21 कहता है कि किसी व्यक्ति को उसके प्राण या दैहिक स्वतंत्रता से विधि द्वारा स्थापित प्रक्रिया के अनुसार ही वंचित किया जाएगा, अन्यथा नहीं। मेनका गांधी मामले (1978) के बाद यह प्रक्रिया उचित, न्यायसंगत और युक्तियुक्त होनी चाहिए, और “जीवन” का अर्थ अब गरिमापूर्ण जीवन है, जिसमें निजता, आजीविका, शीघ्र विचारण और स्वच्छ पर्यावरण जैसे अनेक अधिकार शामिल हैं।

    अनुच्छेद 21 का पाठ और इसका लाभ किसे मिलता है

    अनुच्छेद 21 संविधान के भाग III में मौलिक अधिकारों के अंतर्गत आता है। मूल अंग्रेज़ी पाठ है: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” यह एक ही वाक्य है, पर इसमें दो अलग संरक्षण हैं: जीवन का संरक्षण और व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता का संरक्षण।

    यहाँ “व्यक्ति” (Person) शब्द प्रयुक्त है, “नागरिक” नहीं। इसलिए यह अधिकार भारत में मौजूद हर व्यक्ति को प्राप्त है, विदेशी नागरिकों को भी। अनुच्छेद 19 जैसे अधिकार केवल नागरिकों के लिए हैं, यही दोनों में मुख्य अंतर है।

    गोपालन से मेनका तक: अर्थ कैसे बदला

    ए.के. गोपालन बनाम मद्रास राज्य (1950)

    अनुच्छेद 21 के पहले बड़े मामले में सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने “विधि द्वारा स्थापित प्रक्रिया” का संकीर्ण अर्थ लिया। वैध रूप से बनाए गए किसी भी कानून में दी गई प्रक्रिया पर्याप्त मानी गई। न्यायालय ने हर मौलिक अधिकार को अलग खाना माना, इसलिए निवारक निरोध (Preventive Detention) कानून को अनुच्छेद 19 की कसौटी पर परखना आवश्यक नहीं समझा गया।

    ए.डी.एम. जबलपुर बनाम शिवकांत शुक्ला (1976)

    आपातकाल के दौरान 4:1 के बहुमत ने कहा कि जब राष्ट्रपति ने अनुच्छेद 359 के तहत अनुच्छेद 21 के प्रवर्तन को निलंबित कर दिया हो, तब कोई भी व्यक्ति अवैध निरोध के विरुद्ध भी न्यायालय नहीं जा सकता। न्यायमूर्ति एच.आर. खन्ना ने असहमति (Dissent) जताई और कहा कि जीवन का अधिकार केवल संविधान के शब्दों पर निर्भर नहीं है। बाद में पुट्टस्वामी (2017) में सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने ए.डी.एम. जबलपुर के बहुमत मत को गंभीर रूप से त्रुटिपूर्ण कहा। संसद ने भी 44वें संशोधन (1978) द्वारा अनुच्छेद 359 में बदलाव किया, जिससे आपातकाल में भी अनुच्छेद 20 और 21 का प्रवर्तन निलंबित नहीं किया जा सकता।

    मेनका गांधी बनाम भारत संघ (1978)

    सात न्यायाधीशों की पीठ ने अनुच्छेद 21 की दिशा ही बदल दी। न्यायालय ने कहा कि प्रक्रिया “उचित, न्यायसंगत और युक्तियुक्त” (Fair, Just and Reasonable) होनी चाहिए, मनमानी या दमनकारी नहीं। साथ ही अनुच्छेद 14, 19 और 21 को अलग-अलग खाने नहीं माना गया। व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता को प्रभावित करने वाले कानून को अनुच्छेद 14 और 19 की कसौटी भी पार करनी होगी। व्यवहार में इससे अनुच्छेद 21 में सम्यक प्रक्रिया (Due Process) का तत्व आ गया।

    अनुच्छेद 21 का विस्तार: प्रमुख अधिकार

    1978 के बाद सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने “जीवन” और “व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता” शब्दों में अनेक अधिकार पढ़े। प्रमुख इस प्रकार हैं:

    मान्य अधिकारप्रमुख निर्णयवर्ष
    विदेश यात्रा का अधिकारमेनका गांधी बनाम भारत संघ1978
    शीघ्र विचारण और विचाराधीन बंदियों को निःशुल्क विधिक सहायताहुसैनारा खातून बनाम गृह सचिव, बिहार राज्य1979
    कैदियों के अधिकारसुनील बत्रा बनाम दिल्ली प्रशासन1979
    मानवीय गरिमा के साथ जीने का अधिकारफ्रांसिस कोराली मुलिन बनाम प्रशासक, दिल्ली1981
    आजीविका का अधिकारओल्गा टेलिस बनाम बॉम्बे म्युनिसिपल कॉर्पोरेशन1985
    शिक्षा का अधिकार (जिससे 2002 में अनुच्छेद 21A आया)उन्नीकृष्णन बनाम आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य1993
    जबरन नार्को-विश्लेषण, पॉलीग्राफ और ब्रेन मैपिंग से संरक्षणसेल्वी बनाम कर्नाटक राज्य2010
    निजता मौलिक अधिकारन्यायमूर्ति के.एस. पुट्टस्वामी बनाम भारत संघ2017
    गरिमा के साथ मृत्यु और अग्रिम चिकित्सा निर्देशकॉमन कॉज़ बनाम भारत संघ2018
    यौन स्वायत्तता, सहमति से समलैंगिक संबंध अपराध नहींनवतेज सिंह जौहर बनाम भारत संघ2018

    जीवन का अर्थ केवल जीवित रहना नहीं

    फ्रांसिस कोराली मुलिन में न्यायालय ने समझाया कि जीवन में गरिमापूर्ण अस्तित्व की न्यूनतम आवश्यकताएँ शामिल हैं: पर्याप्त पोषण, वस्त्र, आश्रय, और पढ़ने, लिखने तथा स्वयं को अभिव्यक्त करने की सुविधा। गरिमा की यही व्याख्या आगे के अधिकांश विस्तार की नींव बनी।

    आजीविका

    ओल्गा टेलिस में बॉम्बे के फुटपाथ और झुग्गी निवासियों ने बेदखली को चुनौती दी। न्यायालय ने माना कि जीवन के अधिकार में आजीविका का अधिकार शामिल है, क्योंकि जीविका के साधनों के बिना कोई जी नहीं सकता। बेदखली पूरी तरह रद्द नहीं हुई, पर न्यायालय ने उचित प्रक्रिया पर ज़ोर दिया।

    निजता

    24 अगस्त 2017 को नौ न्यायाधीशों की पीठ ने पुट्टस्वामी में सर्वसम्मति से कहा कि निजता (Privacy) अनुच्छेद 21 और पूरे भाग III के अंतर्गत संरक्षित मौलिक अधिकार है। एम.पी. शर्मा (1954) और खड़क सिंह (1962) को उस सीमा तक उलट दिया गया जहाँ तक वे इसके विपरीत थे।

    गरिमापूर्ण मृत्यु

    9 मार्च 2018 को पाँच न्यायाधीशों की पीठ ने कॉमन कॉज़ में गरिमा के साथ मरने के अधिकार को अनुच्छेद 21 का भाग माना और अग्रिम चिकित्सा निर्देश (Living Will) को कानूनी मान्यता दी। जनवरी 2023 में न्यायालय ने 2018 की प्रक्रिया को सरल किया।

    अनुच्छेद 21 और अनुच्छेद 21A

    अनुच्छेद 21A संविधान (86वाँ संशोधन) अधिनियम, 2002 द्वारा जोड़ा गया। यह 6 से 14 वर्ष के बच्चों को निःशुल्क और अनिवार्य शिक्षा को मौलिक अधिकार बनाता है, उस रीति से जैसा राज्य कानून द्वारा निर्धारित करे। यह सीधे उन्नीकृष्णन मामले की व्याख्या से निकला।

    अनुच्छेद 21 की सीमाएँ

    अनुच्छेद 21 निरपेक्ष (Absolute) नहीं है। राज्य मृत्युदंड या कारावास द्वारा जीवन या स्वतंत्रता से वंचित कर सकता है, बशर्ते वह विधि द्वारा स्थापित, उचित, न्यायसंगत और युक्तियुक्त प्रक्रिया का पालन करे। निजता जैसे अधिकारों पर भी प्रतिबंध लग सकता है, यदि उसका विधिक आधार हो, उद्देश्य वैध हो और प्रतिबंध आनुपातिक (Proportionate) हो, जैसा पुट्टस्वामी में समझाया गया।

    परीक्षा की दृष्टि से

    • पाठ आधारित प्रश्न: CLAT और AIBE में पूछा जाता है कि क्या अनुच्छेद 21 विदेशियों को उपलब्ध है। हाँ, क्योंकि इसमें “व्यक्ति” शब्द है।
    • मामला-वर्ष मिलान: ओल्गा टेलिस से आजीविका, पुट्टस्वामी से निजता, कॉमन कॉज़ से लिविंग विल, हुसैनारा खातून से शीघ्र विचारण।
    • आपातकाल: 44वें संशोधन के बाद अनुच्छेद 359 के तहत अनुच्छेद 20 और 21 निलंबित नहीं हो सकते। न्यायिक सेवा प्रारंभिक और UGC NET का प्रिय प्रश्न।
    • सैद्धांतिक बदलाव: न्यायिक सेवा मुख्य परीक्षा में गोपालन की संकीर्ण व्याख्या से मेनका गांधी की “उचित, न्यायसंगत और युक्तियुक्त” कसौटी तक की यात्रा पर प्रश्न आते हैं।
    • अनुच्छेद 21A: 86वाँ संशोधन, 2002, और आयु वर्ग 6 से 14 वर्ष याद रखें।

    त्वरित प्रश्नोत्तरी

    Q1. किस मामले में कहा गया कि आजीविका का अधिकार अनुच्छेद 21 के जीवन के अधिकार का भाग है?

    1. ए.के. गोपालन बनाम मद्रास राज्य
    2. खड़क सिंह बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य
    3. ओल्गा टेलिस बनाम बॉम्बे म्युनिसिपल कॉर्पोरेशन
    4. कॉमन कॉज़ बनाम भारत संघ
    उत्तर देखें

    उत्तर: C. ओल्गा टेलिस (1985) में न्यायालय ने कहा कि जीविका के साधनों के बिना जीवन संभव नहीं, इसलिए आजीविका जीवन के अधिकार का अंग है।

    Q2. निजता को मौलिक अधिकार घोषित करने वाला नौ न्यायाधीशों का निर्णय कौन सा है?

    1. न्यायमूर्ति के.एस. पुट्टस्वामी बनाम भारत संघ (2017)
    2. आर. राजगोपाल बनाम तमिलनाडु राज्य (1994)
    3. PUCL बनाम भारत संघ (1996)
    4. सेल्वी बनाम कर्नाटक राज्य (2010)
    उत्तर देखें

    उत्तर: A. 24 अगस्त 2017 को नौ न्यायाधीशों की पीठ ने सर्वसम्मति से निजता को अनुच्छेद 21 और भाग III के अंतर्गत मौलिक अधिकार माना।

    Q3. 44वें संशोधन के बाद राष्ट्रीय आपातकाल में किन अनुच्छेदों का प्रवर्तन निलंबित नहीं किया जा सकता?

    1. अनुच्छेद 14 और 21
    2. अनुच्छेद 19 और 21
    3. अनुच्छेद 21 और 32
    4. अनुच्छेद 20 और 21
    उत्तर देखें

    उत्तर: D. 44वें संशोधन (1978) ने अनुच्छेद 359 में बदलाव कर अनुच्छेद 20 और 21 के प्रवर्तन हेतु न्यायालय जाने के अधिकार को निलंबन से बाहर कर दिया।

    Q4. अनुच्छेद 21A किस संशोधन द्वारा जोड़ा गया?

    1. 42वाँ संशोधन, 1976
    2. 86वाँ संशोधन, 2002
    3. 44वाँ संशोधन, 1978
    4. 93वाँ संशोधन, 2005
    उत्तर देखें

    उत्तर: B. संविधान (86वाँ संशोधन) अधिनियम, 2002 ने 6 से 14 वर्ष के बच्चों के लिए अनुच्छेद 21A जोड़ा।

    Q5. ए.डी.एम. जबलपुर (1976) में असहमति किसने जताई थी?

    1. न्यायमूर्ति वाई.वी. चंद्रचूड़
    2. न्यायमूर्ति पी.एन. भगवती
    3. न्यायमूर्ति एच.आर. खन्ना
    4. मुख्य न्यायाधीश ए.एन. रे
    उत्तर देखें

    उत्तर: C. न्यायमूर्ति एच.आर. खन्ना अकेले असहमत न्यायाधीश थे, जिन्होंने कहा कि प्रवर्तन निलंबित करके जीवन के अधिकार को मिटाया नहीं जा सकता।

    और अभ्यास करें

    CLAT PG और न्यायिक सेवा परीक्षाओं में संवैधानिक कानून का हिस्सा सबसे बड़ा होता है। CLAT PG 2027 का मुफ़्त मॉक टेस्ट दें और 15 नवंबर के ऑल इंडिया CLAT ओपन मॉक के लिए मुफ़्त पंजीकरण करें।

    रोज़ एक कानूनी MCQ, मुफ़्त, Telegram पर

    CLAT, AIBE, NET और न्यायिक सेवा के लिए रोज़ एक प्रश्न उत्तर सहित, साथ में परीक्षा तिथियों, एडमिट कार्ड और नए मुफ़्त मॉक की सूचना।

    Telegram पर @lexfolio_in से जुड़ें

    Sources

    • भारत का संविधान: अनुच्छेद 21, 21A और 359 (विधायी विभाग, भारत सरकार)
    • सर्वोच्च न्यायालय: मेनका गांधी बनाम भारत संघ, (1978) 1 SCC 248
    • सर्वोच्च न्यायालय: न्यायमूर्ति के.एस. पुट्टस्वामी बनाम भारत संघ (2017), नौ न्यायाधीशों की पीठ
    • सर्वोच्च न्यायालय: कॉमन कॉज़ बनाम भारत संघ (2018), पाँच न्यायाधीशों की पीठ
    • Supreme Court Observer: अनुच्छेद 21 से संबंधित निर्णयों की समय-रेखा
  • Article 14: Equality Before Law, Classification and Arbitrariness

    Article 14: Equality Before Law, Classification and Arbitrariness

    Read this in Hindi: हिंदी में पढ़ें

    Article 14 of the Constitution of India bars the State from denying to any person “equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” Courts test State action under Article 14 in two ways: the reasonable classification test (intelligible differentia plus rational nexus) and the arbitrariness doctrine, which strikes down action or law that is arbitrary, and since Shayara Bano (2017) legislation that is manifestly arbitrary.

    What Article 14 says

    Article 14 opens the group of equality rights in Part III (Articles 14 to 18). It contains two phrases that are usually read together but have different roots:

    • Equality before the law: drawn from the English idea of the rule of law associated with A.V. Dicey. It is a negative concept: no person is above the law, and no one enjoys special privileges before the ordinary courts.
    • Equal protection of the laws: drawn from the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. It is a positive concept: people in similar circumstances must be treated alike, both in the privileges given and the liabilities imposed.

    Like Article 21, Article 14 uses the word “person”. It therefore protects citizens and non-citizens, and natural persons as well as legal persons such as companies.

    Equality does not mean identical treatment

    Treating unequals equally can itself be unjust. A tax law that charged a daily wage earner and a large corporation at the same rate would be formally equal but unfair. So Article 14 forbids class legislation (picking out a person or group for favour or hostility without reason) but permits reasonable classification for legitimate purposes.

    The reasonable classification test

    The classic formulation comes from Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar (1958). A classification is valid only if it satisfies two conditions:

    1. Intelligible differentia: the classification must rest on a clear, understandable difference that separates the persons or things grouped together from those left out.
    2. Rational nexus: that difference must have a reasonable connection with the object the law seeks to achieve.

    A simple example: a law giving extra time in exams to candidates with visual disability separates them by a clear difference (visual disability), and the difference is directly linked to the object (a fair chance to write the paper). Both conditions are met.

    Anwar Ali Sarkar: classification without guidance fails

    In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the West Bengal Special Courts Act allowed the State government to send any “cases” or “offences” to special courts with a procedure less favourable to the accused. The law laid down no policy or standard for choosing which cases would go there. The Supreme Court held this violated Article 14, because it left room for picking and choosing at the government’s pleasure.

    The arbitrariness doctrine

    The classification test looks at how a law groups people. But some State action is unfair even when no group is involved, for example an arbitrary transfer of one officer. To deal with this, the Supreme Court developed a second, broader test.

    E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)

    Justice P.N. Bhagwati, writing for himself and two other judges, described equality as a dynamic concept that cannot be confined within traditional limits. He reasoned that an arbitrary act is by its nature unequal, so arbitrariness itself violates Article 14. This became known as the “new doctrine” of equality.

    Maneka Gandhi and later cases

    In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court linked Articles 14, 19 and 21 and held that a procedure depriving a person of liberty must be fair and not arbitrary. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981), the Court applied the arbitrariness test to State action by “authorities” under Article 12, holding that arbitrary action by any wing of the State negates equality.

    Manifest arbitrariness and legislation

    For a long time, it was debated whether a statute passed by a legislature could be struck down only because it was arbitrary. In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court by a 3:2 majority set aside instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat). Justice R.F. Nariman’s opinion held that the practice was manifestly arbitrary, and that manifest arbitrariness is a valid ground to test plenary legislation under Article 14, not only executive or subordinate action. In February 2024, a five-judge bench in the electoral bonds case (Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India) reaffirmed that the doctrine can be used to strike down laws, while noting that plenary and subordinate legislation are tested differently.

    Classification test vs arbitrariness doctrine

    PointReasonable classification testArbitrariness doctrine
    Leading caseRam Krishna Dalmia (1958)E.P. Royappa (1974)
    FocusWhether the grouping of persons is justifiedWhether the action is fair, reasoned and non-arbitrary
    Question askedIs there intelligible differentia with rational nexus to the object?Is the action capricious, irrational or without adequate determining principle?
    Best suited forLaws that create classesIndividual executive acts, and (when manifest) legislation

    The two tests are not rivals. Courts frequently apply both in the same case.

    Other landmark applications

    • Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981): service rules ending an air hostess’s service on her first pregnancy were struck down as unreasonable and arbitrary.
    • Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Section 377 IPC was read down to exclude consensual sexual acts between adults, with equality among the grounds.
    • Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018): Section 497 IPC (adultery) was struck down as violating Articles 14, 15 and 21.

    Exam angle

    • Origin questions: CLAT and UGC NET often ask which phrase comes from Britain (equality before the law) and which from the USA (equal protection of the laws).
    • Twin test: Memorise intelligible differentia and rational nexus. Judiciary prelims may give you a fact pattern and ask which limb fails.
    • Case-doctrine pairs: Dalmia with classification, Royappa with arbitrariness, Shayara Bano with manifest arbitrariness against legislation.
    • “Person” vs “citizen”: Article 14 is available to foreigners and companies. AIBE uses this as a direct question.
    • Mains writing: In answers, show how the “new doctrine” widened Article 14 from a formal equality rule into a guarantee against unfair State action.

    Quick quiz

    Q1. The twin test of intelligible differentia and rational nexus was classically laid down in:

    1. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
    2. Shayara Bano v. Union of India
    3. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar
    4. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi
    Show answer

    Answer: C. Ram Krishna Dalmia (1958) is the standard authority for the two conditions of a valid classification.

    Q2. The phrase “equal protection of the laws” in Article 14 is drawn from:

    1. The US Constitution
    2. The British constitutional tradition
    3. The Irish Constitution
    4. The Government of India Act, 1935
    Show answer

    Answer: A. It comes from the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution; “equality before the law” reflects the English rule of law idea.

    Q3. The “new doctrine” that arbitrariness itself violates Article 14 was introduced in:

    1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
    2. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
    3. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)
    4. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
    Show answer

    Answer: B. In Royappa, Justice P.N. Bhagwati reasoned that an arbitrary act is inherently unequal and so offends Article 14.

    Q4. Article 14 is available to:

    1. Citizens only
    2. Citizens and companies registered in India only
    3. Natural persons only
    4. Any person, including foreigners and legal persons
    Show answer

    Answer: D. Article 14 uses the word “person”, so it extends beyond citizens and covers legal persons as well.

    Q5. In Shayara Bano (2017), the opinion holding instant triple talaq manifestly arbitrary was authored by:

    1. Justice J.S. Khehar
    2. Justice R.F. Nariman
    3. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
    4. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
    Show answer

    Answer: B. Justice R.F. Nariman held that manifest arbitrariness can invalidate legislation under Article 14 and applied it to triple talaq.

    Practise more

    Constitutional law carries the largest share of CLAT PG and judiciary papers. Try the free CLAT PG 2027 mock, read 30 important Supreme Court judgments of 2026, and register for the All India CLAT Open Mock on 15 November.

    Get one law MCQ a day, free, on Telegram

    A daily question for CLAT, AIBE, NET and judiciary with the answer, plus alerts when exam dates, admit cards and new free mocks are released. No spam.

    Join @lexfolio_in on Telegram

    Sources

    • Constitution of India: Articles 12, 14 to 16 and 361 (Legislative Department, Government of India)
    • Supreme Court of India: Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar (1958)
    • Supreme Court of India: E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3
    • Supreme Court of India: Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1
    • Supreme Court of India: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 113
  • अनुच्छेद 14: विधि के समक्ष समता, वर्गीकरण और मनमानी

    अनुच्छेद 14: विधि के समक्ष समता, वर्गीकरण और मनमानी

    English में पढ़ें: Read in English

    भारतीय संविधान का अनुच्छेद 14 राज्य को भारत के राज्यक्षेत्र में किसी भी व्यक्ति को विधि के समक्ष समता (Equality before Law) या विधियों के समान संरक्षण (Equal Protection of Laws) से वंचित करने से रोकता है। न्यायालय इसे दो कसौटियों पर परखते हैं: युक्तियुक्त वर्गीकरण की कसौटी (बोधगम्य अंतर और तर्कसंगत संबंध) और मनमानी का सिद्धांत, जिसके तहत 2017 के शायरा बानो निर्णय के बाद स्पष्ट रूप से मनमाना कानून भी रद्द हो सकता है।

    अनुच्छेद 14 क्या कहता है

    अनुच्छेद 14 भाग III में समता के अधिकारों (अनुच्छेद 14 से 18) की शुरुआत करता है। इसमें दो वाक्यांश हैं, जिन्हें साथ पढ़ा जाता है पर दोनों का स्रोत अलग है:

    • विधि के समक्ष समता: यह ब्रिटेन की विधि के शासन (Rule of Law) की अवधारणा से आया है, जो ए.वी. डाइसी से जुड़ी है। यह नकारात्मक अवधारणा है: कोई भी कानून से ऊपर नहीं, और साधारण न्यायालयों के सामने किसी को विशेषाधिकार नहीं।
    • विधियों का समान संरक्षण: यह अमेरिकी संविधान के चौदहवें संशोधन से लिया गया है। यह सकारात्मक अवधारणा है: समान परिस्थिति वाले लोगों के साथ विशेषाधिकारों और दायित्वों, दोनों में समान व्यवहार हो।

    अनुच्छेद 21 की तरह अनुच्छेद 14 में भी “व्यक्ति” शब्द है। अतः यह नागरिकों और विदेशियों, दोनों को, तथा प्राकृतिक व्यक्तियों के साथ कंपनियों जैसे विधिक व्यक्तियों को भी संरक्षण देता है।

    समता का अर्थ एक जैसा व्यवहार नहीं

    असमान लोगों के साथ एक जैसा व्यवहार करना स्वयं अन्याय हो सकता है। यदि दिहाड़ी मज़दूर और बड़ी कंपनी पर एक ही दर से कर लगे, तो वह औपचारिक रूप से समान होगा पर न्यायपूर्ण नहीं। इसलिए अनुच्छेद 14 वर्ग विधान (Class Legislation), यानी बिना कारण किसी व्यक्ति या समूह को अलग से लाभ या हानि देना, निषिद्ध करता है, पर वैध उद्देश्य के लिए युक्तियुक्त वर्गीकरण (Reasonable Classification) की अनुमति देता है।

    युक्तियुक्त वर्गीकरण की कसौटी

    इसका शास्त्रीय रूप राम कृष्ण डालमिया बनाम न्यायमूर्ति एस.आर. तेंदुलकर (1958) में मिलता है। वर्गीकरण तभी वैध है जब दो शर्तें पूरी हों:

    1. बोधगम्य अंतर (Intelligible Differentia): वर्गीकरण किसी स्पष्ट, समझ में आने वाले अंतर पर आधारित हो, जो समूह में रखे गए लोगों को बाहर छोड़े गए लोगों से अलग करे।
    2. तर्कसंगत संबंध (Rational Nexus): उस अंतर का कानून के उद्देश्य से तर्कसंगत संबंध हो।

    सरल उदाहरण: दृष्टिबाधित परीक्षार्थियों को परीक्षा में अतिरिक्त समय देने वाला नियम एक स्पष्ट अंतर (दृष्टिबाधिता) पर आधारित है, और यह अंतर सीधे उद्देश्य (प्रश्नपत्र हल करने का न्यायपूर्ण अवसर) से जुड़ा है। दोनों शर्तें पूरी होती हैं।

    अनवर अली सरकार: बिना मार्गदर्शन का वर्गीकरण असफल

    पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य बनाम अनवर अली सरकार (1952) में पश्चिम बंगाल विशेष न्यायालय अधिनियम राज्य सरकार को यह शक्ति देता था कि वह किसी भी “मामले” या “अपराध” को विशेष न्यायालय भेज दे, जहाँ अभियुक्त के लिए कम अनुकूल प्रक्रिया थी। कानून में यह तय करने की कोई नीति या मानक नहीं था कि कौन से मामले भेजे जाएँ। सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने इसे अनुच्छेद 14 का उल्लंघन माना, क्योंकि इससे सरकार की इच्छा पर चुनने की छूट मिल जाती थी।

    मनमानी का सिद्धांत (Doctrine of Arbitrariness)

    वर्गीकरण की कसौटी यह देखती है कि कानून लोगों को कैसे समूहों में बाँटता है। पर कुछ राज्य कार्य किसी समूह के बिना भी अनुचित होते हैं, जैसे किसी एक अधिकारी का मनमाना स्थानांतरण। ऐसे मामलों के लिए न्यायालय ने एक दूसरी, व्यापक कसौटी विकसित की।

    ई.पी. रोयप्पा बनाम तमिलनाडु राज्य (1974)

    न्यायमूर्ति पी.एन. भगवती ने (अपने और दो अन्य न्यायाधीशों की ओर से) कहा कि समता एक गतिशील अवधारणा है जिसे पारंपरिक सीमाओं में नहीं बाँधा जा सकता। उनका तर्क था कि मनमाना कार्य अपने स्वभाव से ही असमान होता है, इसलिए मनमानी स्वयं अनुच्छेद 14 का उल्लंघन है। इसे समता का “नया सिद्धांत” कहा गया।

    मेनका गांधी और बाद के निर्णय

    मेनका गांधी बनाम भारत संघ (1978) में न्यायालय ने अनुच्छेद 14, 19 और 21 को जोड़ा और कहा कि स्वतंत्रता छीनने वाली प्रक्रिया उचित और गैर-मनमानी होनी चाहिए। अजय हसिया बनाम खालिद मुजीब सहरावर्दी (1981) में यह कसौटी अनुच्छेद 12 के अंतर्गत “प्राधिकरणों” पर लागू की गई और कहा गया कि राज्य के किसी भी अंग का मनमाना कार्य समता का निषेध है।

    स्पष्ट मनमानी और विधान

    लंबे समय तक यह बहस रही कि क्या विधायिका द्वारा पारित कानून केवल मनमाना होने के आधार पर रद्द हो सकता है। शायरा बानो बनाम भारत संघ (2017) में सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने 3:2 के बहुमत से तत्काल तीन तलाक (तलाक-ए-बिद्दत) को निरस्त किया। न्यायमूर्ति आर.एफ. नरीमन के मत में कहा गया कि यह प्रथा स्पष्ट रूप से मनमानी (Manifestly Arbitrary) है, और यह आधार अनुच्छेद 14 के तहत पूर्ण विधान (Plenary Legislation) को परखने के लिए भी वैध है, केवल कार्यपालिका या अधीनस्थ विधान के लिए नहीं। फरवरी 2024 में चुनावी बॉन्ड मामले (एसोसिएशन फॉर डेमोक्रेटिक रिफॉर्म्स बनाम भारत संघ) में पाँच न्यायाधीशों की पीठ ने दोहराया कि इस सिद्धांत से कानून रद्द किए जा सकते हैं, साथ ही यह भी कहा कि पूर्ण और अधीनस्थ विधान की परख अलग ढंग से होती है।

    वर्गीकरण कसौटी बनाम मनमानी का सिद्धांत

    बिंदुयुक्तियुक्त वर्गीकरणमनमानी का सिद्धांत
    प्रमुख निर्णयराम कृष्ण डालमिया (1958)ई.पी. रोयप्पा (1974)
    केंद्र बिंदुक्या लोगों का वर्गीकरण उचित हैक्या कार्य निष्पक्ष, तर्कपूर्ण और गैर-मनमाना है
    मूल प्रश्नक्या बोधगम्य अंतर है और उद्देश्य से तर्कसंगत संबंध है?क्या कार्य सनकपूर्ण, अतार्किक या बिना निर्धारक सिद्धांत के है?
    किस पर अधिक उपयुक्तवर्ग बनाने वाले कानूनव्यक्तिगत कार्यपालिका कार्य, और (स्पष्ट होने पर) विधान

    दोनों कसौटियाँ एक-दूसरे की विरोधी नहीं हैं। न्यायालय प्रायः एक ही मामले में दोनों लागू करते हैं।

    अन्य महत्वपूर्ण उदाहरण

    • एयर इंडिया बनाम नरगेश मिर्ज़ा (1981): पहली गर्भावस्था पर एयर होस्टेस की सेवा समाप्त करने वाले नियम को अनुचित और मनमाना मानकर रद्द किया गया।
    • नवतेज सिंह जौहर बनाम भारत संघ (2018): IPC धारा 377 को वयस्कों के बीच सहमति से यौन संबंधों पर लागू न होने के रूप में सीमित किया गया, समता भी एक आधार थी।
    • जोसेफ शाइन बनाम भारत संघ (2018): IPC धारा 497 (जारकर्म) को अनुच्छेद 14, 15 और 21 का उल्लंघन मानकर रद्द किया गया।

    परीक्षा की दृष्टि से

    • स्रोत आधारित प्रश्न: CLAT और UGC NET में पूछा जाता है कि कौन सा वाक्यांश ब्रिटेन से (विधि के समक्ष समता) और कौन सा अमेरिका से (विधियों का समान संरक्षण) आया।
    • दोहरी कसौटी: बोधगम्य अंतर और तर्कसंगत संबंध याद रखें। न्यायिक सेवा प्रारंभिक में तथ्य देकर पूछा जाता है कि कौन सी शर्त विफल है।
    • मामला-सिद्धांत जोड़ी: डालमिया से वर्गीकरण, रोयप्पा से मनमानी, शायरा बानो से विधान के विरुद्ध स्पष्ट मनमानी।
    • “व्यक्ति” बनाम “नागरिक”: अनुच्छेद 14 विदेशियों और कंपनियों को भी उपलब्ध है। AIBE में यह सीधा प्रश्न बनता है।
    • मुख्य परीक्षा लेखन: उत्तर में दिखाएँ कि “नए सिद्धांत” ने अनुच्छेद 14 को औपचारिक समता के नियम से अनुचित राज्य कार्य के विरुद्ध गारंटी में बदल दिया।

    त्वरित प्रश्नोत्तरी

    Q1. बोधगम्य अंतर और तर्कसंगत संबंध की दोहरी कसौटी का शास्त्रीय निर्णय कौन सा है?

    1. ई.पी. रोयप्पा बनाम तमिलनाडु राज्य
    2. राम कृष्ण डालमिया बनाम न्यायमूर्ति एस.आर. तेंदुलकर
    3. शायरा बानो बनाम भारत संघ
    4. अजय हसिया बनाम खालिद मुजीब सहरावर्दी
    उत्तर देखें

    उत्तर: B. राम कृष्ण डालमिया (1958) वैध वर्गीकरण की दोनों शर्तों के लिए मानक निर्णय है।

    Q2. अनुच्छेद 14 का “विधियों का समान संरक्षण” वाक्यांश कहाँ से लिया गया है?

    1. ब्रिटिश संवैधानिक परंपरा
    2. आयरलैंड का संविधान
    3. अमेरिकी संविधान
    4. भारत शासन अधिनियम, 1935
    उत्तर देखें

    उत्तर: C. यह अमेरिकी संविधान के चौदहवें संशोधन से आया है; “विधि के समक्ष समता” ब्रिटिश विधि के शासन की अवधारणा है।

    Q3. मनमानी स्वयं अनुच्छेद 14 का उल्लंघन है, यह “नया सिद्धांत” किस मामले में आया?

    1. ई.पी. रोयप्पा बनाम तमिलनाडु राज्य (1974)
    2. ए.के. गोपालन बनाम मद्रास राज्य (1950)
    3. पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य बनाम अनवर अली सरकार (1952)
    4. इंद्रा साहनी बनाम भारत संघ (1992)
    उत्तर देखें

    उत्तर: A. रोयप्पा में न्यायमूर्ति पी.एन. भगवती ने कहा कि मनमाना कार्य स्वभावतः असमान है और अनुच्छेद 14 का उल्लंघन करता है।

    Q4. अनुच्छेद 14 किसे उपलब्ध है?

    1. केवल नागरिकों को
    2. केवल नागरिकों और भारतीय कंपनियों को
    3. केवल प्राकृतिक व्यक्तियों को
    4. किसी भी व्यक्ति को, विदेशियों और विधिक व्यक्तियों सहित
    उत्तर देखें

    उत्तर: D. अनुच्छेद 14 में “व्यक्ति” शब्द है, इसलिए यह नागरिकों से आगे विधिक व्यक्तियों तक लागू होता है।

    Q5. शायरा बानो (2017) में तत्काल तीन तलाक को स्पष्ट रूप से मनमाना बताने वाला मत किसने लिखा?

    1. न्यायमूर्ति जे.एस. खेहर
    2. न्यायमूर्ति एस. अब्दुल नज़ीर
    3. न्यायमूर्ति आर.एफ. नरीमन
    4. न्यायमूर्ति डी.वाई. चंद्रचूड़
    उत्तर देखें

    उत्तर: C. न्यायमूर्ति आर.एफ. नरीमन ने कहा कि स्पष्ट मनमानी के आधार पर अनुच्छेद 14 के तहत विधान भी रद्द हो सकता है और इसे तीन तलाक पर लागू किया।

    और अभ्यास करें

    CLAT PG और न्यायिक सेवा परीक्षाओं में संवैधानिक कानून का हिस्सा सबसे बड़ा होता है। CLAT PG 2027 का मुफ़्त मॉक टेस्ट दें और 15 नवंबर के ऑल इंडिया CLAT ओपन मॉक के लिए मुफ़्त पंजीकरण करें।

    रोज़ एक कानूनी MCQ, मुफ़्त, Telegram पर

    CLAT, AIBE, NET और न्यायिक सेवा के लिए रोज़ एक प्रश्न उत्तर सहित, साथ में परीक्षा तिथियों, एडमिट कार्ड और नए मुफ़्त मॉक की सूचना।

    Telegram पर @lexfolio_in से जुड़ें

    Sources

    • भारत का संविधान: अनुच्छेद 12, 14 से 16 और 361 (विधायी विभाग, भारत सरकार)
    • सर्वोच्च न्यायालय: राम कृष्ण डालमिया बनाम न्यायमूर्ति एस.आर. तेंदुलकर (1958)
    • सर्वोच्च न्यायालय: ई.पी. रोयप्पा बनाम तमिलनाडु राज्य, (1974) 4 SCC 3
    • सर्वोच्च न्यायालय: शायरा बानो बनाम भारत संघ, (2017) 9 SCC 1
    • सर्वोच्च न्यायालय: एसोसिएशन फॉर डेमोक्रेटिक रिफॉर्म्स बनाम भारत संघ, 2024 INSC 113
  • Punjab Civil Judge Exam (PCS Judicial Branch): Pattern, Syllabus, Eligibility and Age Limit

    Punjab Civil Judge Exam (PCS Judicial Branch): Pattern, Syllabus, Eligibility and Age Limit

    Punjab recruits Civil Judges (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrates through the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) exam, conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission with the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The last cycle, for 159 posts, ended with the final result on 12 October 2023, and no new advertisement has been issued as of October 2026. The exam has a compulsory Punjabi paper in Gurmukhi and three 200-mark law papers. Here is the structure under the PCS (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, as applicable to Punjab.

    Status

    • Last cycle: 159 posts. Prelims in January 2023, mains written result 26 July 2023, final result 12 October 2023.
    • Next cycle: no advertisement on the PPSC site as of 24 October 2026.

    Eligibility

    • Degree: an LL.B. that entitles you to enrol as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961.
    • Practice: the Punjab rules as published (updated to August 2024) contain no practice requirement. Whatever the rules say, the Supreme Court’s August 2026 judgment in Bhumika Trust will govern the next advertisement: if issued by 31 March 2027, it is open to all law graduates, and later advertisements require one year of certified practice. See the practice rule after Bhumika Trust.
    • Age: the rules fix 21 to 35 years (40 for SC, ST and BC) on the last date of application, or such age as the government fixes. Advertisements have used a higher government-fixed limit, so check the figure in the advertisement.
    • Punjabi: the Punjabi paper in Gurmukhi script is set at the matriculation standard of the Punjab School Education Board and needs at least 33 percent.

    Exam pattern

    Preliminary exam

    An objective screening test. The rules do not prescribe its pattern, so check the number of questions, marks and negative marking in the advertisement. Prelims marks do not count in the merit.

    Mains (under the rules)

    PaperMarks
    I Civil Law I200
    II Civil Law II200
    III Criminal Law200
    IV English Composition150
    V Punjabi (Gurmukhi)150
    VI Viva-voce100

    The law papers are 3 hours each, with bare Acts supplied. A paper counts only if you score at least 33 percent in it. To be called for viva you need 50 percent aggregate in the written papers (45 percent for SC, ST, BC and persons with disabilities). The final merit is written plus viva; on a tie, the older candidate ranks higher.

    Syllabus

    • Civil Law I: CPC, Punjab Courts Act, Contract, Sale of Goods, Partnership, Specific Relief and Evidence.
    • Civil Law II: Hindu law, Muslim law and customary law, and registration and limitation.
    • Criminal Law: penal law, criminal procedure and evidence.
    • English Composition: essays on general subjects.
    • Punjabi: matriculation-level Punjabi in Gurmukhi script.

    New criminal laws

    The rules still name the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act, which were replaced by the BNS, BNSS and BSA on 1 July 2024. Prepare the new laws as the main text, with the old section numbers for reference.

    Preparation priorities

    • If Punjabi is not your first language, start now: the paper is compulsory and needs 33 percent.
    • Customary law and the Punjab Courts Act are specific to this exam and to Haryana’s.
    • Bare Acts are supplied in mains, so practise structuring answers rather than memorising sections.

    Prepare with Lexfolio

    Every state paper now tests the new criminal laws alongside, or in place of, the old codes. Our New Criminal Laws Guide maps the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act to the BNS, BNSS and BSA section by section, and the judiciary packs add model answers and judgment digests for mains. Read the practice rule after Bhumika Trust to check whether you can apply in the next cycle.

    Get one law MCQ a day, free, on Telegram

    A daily question for CLAT, AIBE, NET and judiciary with the answer, plus alerts when exam dates, admit cards and new free mocks are released. No spam.

    Join @lexfolio_in on Telegram

    Sources

    • Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 (Punjab), updated to 9 August 2024 (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
    • Punjab Public Service Commission, notices for the 159-post Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate cycle (2022-23)
    • Supreme Court of India, Bhumika Trust v. Union of India, judgment of 21 August 2026

    Last checked: 24 October 2026.

  • Haryana Civil Judge Exam (HCS Judicial Branch): Pattern, Syllabus, Eligibility and Age Limit

    Haryana Civil Judge Exam (HCS Judicial Branch): Pattern, Syllabus, Eligibility and Age Limit

    Haryana recruits Civil Judges (Junior Division) through the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) exam, run by the Haryana Public Service Commission with a selection committee of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The last advertisement, No. 01/2024, offered 174 posts, and no new one has been issued as of October 2026. On 7 August 2026 Haryana amended its rules to require 3 years of practice, a rule now overtaken for the next cycle by the Supreme Court’s August 2026 judgment. Here is the exam under the rules and the 2024 advertisement.

    Status

    • Last cycle: HCS (Judicial Branch) Exam 2023-24, Advertisement 01/2024 (1 January 2024), 174 posts. Prelims result 9 April 2024, mains result 24 August 2024, final result 16 October 2024.
    • Next cycle: no advertisement on the HPSC site as of 24 October 2026.

    Eligibility

    • Degree: LL.B. from a university established by law and recognised by the Bar Council of India, plus basic computer knowledge.
    • Practice: the Haryana amendment of 7 August 2026 requires at least 3 years of practice as an advocate, counted from provisional enrolment and supported by a certificate; law clerk and law researcher experience counts. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court’s Bhumika Trust judgment of 21 August 2026 provided that advertisements issued by 31 March 2027 are open to all law graduates, with one year of certified practice required after that. The rules will need to be amended again. See the practice rule after Bhumika Trust.
    • Age: the rules fix 21 to 40 years (45 for SC, ST and BC) or such age as the government fixes. The 2024 advertisement used 21 to 42 years, with relaxations for Haryana SC and BC candidates, persons with disabilities, widows, divorced and unmarried women, and ex-servicemen.
    • Hindi: there is a compulsory Hindi paper set at the matriculation standard of the Haryana school board.

    Exam pattern

    Preliminary exam (2024 advertisement)

    • 125 objective questions in 2 hours, each with five options; option E means “not attempted”.
    • A fifth of the question’s marks is deducted for every wrong answer and every question left blank. Leaving more than 10 percent of questions unmarked leads to disqualification, so always mark an option, including E.
    • Qualifying score: 150 marks (100 for reserved categories other than EWS). Up to 10 times the posts go to mains. Prelims marks do not count in the merit.

    Mains: five papers, 3 hours each, bare Acts supplied

    PaperMarks
    I Civil Law I200
    II Civil Law II200
    III Criminal Law200
    IV English (essay 100; précis, words and phrases, comprehension and corrections 25 each)200
    V Hindi (translation, explanation and composition)100

    Viva-voce

    The rules as updated in August 2026 give the viva 200 marks. A paper counts only if you score at least 33 percent in it. To be called for viva you need 50 percent aggregate in the written papers (45 percent for SC, ST and BC), and to be appointed, 50 percent of written plus viva (45 percent for reserved categories).

    Syllabus

    • Civil Law I: CPC, Punjab Courts Act, Contract Act, Partnership Act, Sale of Goods Act, Specific Relief Act and Evidence. The 2024 advertisement also listed the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.
    • Civil Law II: Hindu law, Muslim law and customary law, and the law of registration and limitation.
    • Criminal Law: penal law, criminal procedure and evidence.

    New criminal laws

    The Haryana rules still name the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act. These were replaced by the BNS, BNSS and BSA on 1 July 2024, and the next advertisement is likely to reflect that. Prepare the new laws with the old section numbers alongside.

    Preparation priorities

    • The prelims penalises blanks as well as wrong answers. Practise deciding quickly between attempting and marking E.
    • Customary law and the Punjab Courts Act are unique to Punjab and Haryana; give them dedicated time.
    • English carries 200 marks; a strong essay can lift your rank considerably.

    Prepare with Lexfolio

    Every state paper now tests the new criminal laws alongside, or in place of, the old codes. Our New Criminal Laws Guide maps the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act to the BNS, BNSS and BSA section by section, and the judiciary packs add model answers and judgment digests for mains. Read the practice rule after Bhumika Trust to check whether you can apply in the next cycle.

    Get one law MCQ a day, free, on Telegram

    A daily question for CLAT, AIBE, NET and judiciary with the answer, plus alerts when exam dates, admit cards and new free mocks are released. No spam.

    Join @lexfolio_in on Telegram

    Sources

    • Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 as applicable to Haryana, updated to 7 August 2026 (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
    • Haryana Public Service Commission, Advertisement No. 01/2024, HCS (Judicial Branch) Examination 2023-24
    • HPSC results notices for the 2023-24 cycle
    • Supreme Court of India, Bhumika Trust v. Union of India, judgment of 21 August 2026

    Last checked: 24 October 2026.

  • Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) Exam: Pattern, Syllabus, Eligibility and Age Limit (2026 Rules)

    Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) Exam: Pattern, Syllabus, Eligibility and Age Limit (2026 Rules)

    The Delhi High Court has not advertised the Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) exam since the 2023 cycle, whose final result came out on 4 March 2025, but it substantially revised the DJS rules in February 2026. The amended rules add the new criminal laws to the syllabus, add commercial and IP laws, introduce one year of compulsory training, and wrote in a 3-year practice requirement that must now be read with the Supreme Court’s August 2026 judgment. Here is the exam as it stands under the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970, as on 9 February 2026.

    Status

    • Last cycle: DJS Examination 2023, advertised 6 November 2023 with 53 vacancies. Final result and select list: 4 March 2025.
    • Next cycle: no DJS advertisement as of 24 October 2026. (The Delhi Higher Judicial Service exam held in 2026 is a separate exam for experienced advocates.)

    Eligibility

    • Citizenship: Indian citizen.
    • Practice: the rules as amended on 6 February 2026 require at least 3 years of practice as an advocate on the last date of application, counted from provisional enrolment, with law-clerk experience counted. This must now be read with the Supreme Court’s August 2026 judgment in Bhumika Trust, under which advertisements issued by 31 March 2027 are open to all law graduates and later advertisements require one year of certified practice. See the practice rule after Bhumika Trust.
    • Age: not more than 32 years on 1 January of the year in which applications are invited. The 2023 advertisement gave up to 5 years’ relaxation for SC, ST and ex-servicemen, and 10 years (15 for SC and ST) for persons with disabilities.

    Exam pattern

    Preliminary exam (screening)

    • One objective paper of 200 marks. The 2023 exam was 2.5 hours.
    • Negative marking of 25 percent for each wrong answer.
    • Qualifying marks: 60 percent (General) and 55 percent (reserved). Up to 10 times the vacancies go to mains. Prelims marks do not count in the merit.

    Mains: 850 marks

    PaperMarks
    General Legal Knowledge and Language (GLK 100; essay, translation and précis 150)250
    Civil Law I200
    Civil Law II200
    Criminal Law200

    Viva-voce: 150 marks

    Up to three times the vacancies are called. To be called you need 40 percent in each paper and 50 percent in aggregate (35 and 45 percent for reserved categories). In the viva you need 50 percent (45 percent for reserved categories). The final merit is mains plus viva. Selected candidates now complete one year of compulsory training before presiding over a court.

    Syllabus (as substituted in February 2026)

    Prelims

    General legal knowledge and aptitude; English; the Constitution; CPC; CrPC and BNSS; IPC and BNS; Contract Act; LLP Act, 2008; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Evidence Act and BSA; Specific Relief Act; Limitation Act; POCSO Act, 2012; Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

    Civil Law I

    Contract; Sale of Goods; Transfer of Property; Specific Relief; Hindu law; Muslim law; Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; Torts; NDMC Act, 1994; DMC Act, 1957; Commercial Courts Act.

    Civil Law II

    CPC; Evidence Act and BSA; Limitation; Registration Act, 1908; Arbitration Act; Trade Marks Act, 1999; Copyright Act, 1957.

    Criminal Law

    CrPC and BNSS; IPC and BNS; Evidence Act and BSA; Domestic Violence Act, 2005; NI Act, 1881; POSH Act, 2013; Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

    Preparation priorities

    • The prelims is tough: 25 percent negative marking with a 60 percent cut-off. Accuracy matters more than attempts.
    • The new syllabus adds IP (trade marks and copyright), commercial courts and municipal laws. Few candidates have prepared these yet.
    • The language paper carries 150 marks; practise précis and translation every week.

    Prepare with Lexfolio

    Every state paper now tests the new criminal laws alongside, or in place of, the old codes. Our New Criminal Laws Guide maps the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act to the BNS, BNSS and BSA section by section, and the judiciary packs add model answers and judgment digests for mains. Read the practice rule after Bhumika Trust to check whether you can apply in the next cycle.

    Get one law MCQ a day, free, on Telegram

    A daily question for CLAT, AIBE, NET and judiciary with the answer, plus alerts when exam dates, admit cards and new free mocks are released. No spam.

    Join @lexfolio_in on Telegram

    Sources

    • Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970, as on 9 February 2026 (Delhi High Court)
    • Delhi High Court, Advertisement for Delhi Judicial Service Examination 2023 (6 November 2023)
    • Delhi High Court, final result of DJS Examination 2023 (4 March 2025)
    • Supreme Court of India, Bhumika Trust v. Union of India, judgment of 21 August 2026

    Last checked: 24 October 2026.

  • MP Civil Judge Exam: Pattern, Syllabus, Eligibility and Age Limit (Junior Division, Entry Level)

    MP Civil Judge Exam: Pattern, Syllabus, Eligibility and Age Limit (Junior Division, Entry Level)

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court recruits Civil Judges through the Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level) exam, and the last cycle, the 2022 exam advertised in November 2023, ended with 47 candidates selected on 12 November 2025. No new advertisement has been issued as of October 2026. The exam has a 150-question online prelims, four 100-mark mains papers including a full judgment-writing paper, and a 50-mark interview. This guide sets out the pattern and syllabus from the last official advertisement.

    Last cycle: Exam 2022

    EventDate
    Advertisement17 November 2023
    Online prelims14 January 2024
    Mains30 and 31 March 2024
    Interviews29 October to 1 November 2025
    Final result12 November 2025 (47 selected)

    The gap between mains and the final result was caused by litigation over the eligibility rule introduced in 2023, which went up to the Supreme Court. The post carries pay level J-1, Rs 77,840 to 1,36,520.

    Eligibility

    The practice and merit condition

    In June 2023 MP amended its rules to require either 3 years of continuous practice, or an “outstanding” LL.B. record (all exams passed at the first attempt with at least 70 percent, or 50 percent for SC and ST). The Supreme Court declined to interfere with that rule in 2024. Since then, the Supreme Court’s August 2026 judgment in Bhumika Trust has set a national position: advertisements issued by 31 March 2027 are open to all law graduates, and later ones require one year of certified practice. MP’s next advertisement will have to follow this, so check its eligibility clause closely. See the practice rule after Bhumika Trust.

    Age (2022 cycle)

    21 to 35 years as on 1 January 2024, with 3 years’ relaxation for SC, ST, OBC and persons with disabilities, and up to 38 years for government servants. A one-time relaxation of 1 year was given because no exam was advertised in 2022. Candidates from outside MP are treated as unreserved.

    Language

    Papers are set in Hindi and English. You may answer the mains in either language, but must use one language throughout.

    Service bond

    Selected candidates must execute a bond of Rs 10 lakh to serve for at least 5 years.

    Exam pattern

    Online preliminary exam (screening)

    • 150 multiple-choice questions, 150 marks, 120 minutes, bilingual.
    • No negative marking was stated in the 2022 advertisement.
    • Up to 10 times the posts are called for mains. Prelims marks do not count in the merit.

    Mains: 4 papers, 100 marks each, 3 hours each

    PaperContent
    IConstitution and civil law and procedure
    IIWriting skills: social essay 20, legal essay 20, legal précis 20, Hindi to English translation 20, English to Hindi translation 20
    IIILocal laws and criminal law and procedure
    IVJudgment writing: framing of issues 10, framing of charge 10, civil judgment 40, criminal judgment 40

    Interview: 50 marks

    Up to three times the posts are called. The final merit is out of 450 (mains 400 plus interview 50). Minimum qualifying marks in each stage are set in the advertisement; they were changed for the last cycle and may change again, so check the next advertisement.

    Prelims syllabus (2022 advertisement)

    SubjectQuestions
    Code of Civil Procedure20
    Evidence15
    Penal law15
    Criminal procedure15
    Contract Act8
    Transfer of Property Act7
    Specific Relief Act6
    Constitution; MP Accommodation Control Act; MP Land Revenue Code; NI Act5 each
    Limitation Act; IT Act4 each
    JJ Act; POCSO Act3 each
    General knowledge; computer knowledge; English10 each

    Questions may be based on Supreme Court and MP High Court Full Bench judgments.

    New criminal laws

    The 2022 advertisement was issued in November 2023, before the BNS, BNSS and BSA came into force on 1 July 2024, so it lists the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act. The next advertisement is expected to move to the new laws. Prepare the new laws as the main text, and keep the old section numbers alongside.

    Mains syllabus highlights

    • Paper I: Constitution, CPC, Transfer of Property Act, Contract Act, Specific Relief Act and Limitation Act.
    • Paper III: criminal law, criminal procedure and evidence, the NI Act (Chapters 13 and 17), the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
    • Candidates are also expected to know the MP Civil Courts Act, 1958, the MP Civil Court Rules, 1961 and the MP Rules and Orders (Criminal).

    Prepare with Lexfolio

    Every state paper now tests the new criminal laws alongside, or in place of, the old codes. Our New Criminal Laws Guide maps the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act to the BNS, BNSS and BSA section by section, and the judiciary packs add model answers and judgment digests for mains. Read the practice rule after Bhumika Trust to check whether you can apply in the next cycle.

    Get one law MCQ a day, free, on Telegram

    A daily question for CLAT, AIBE, NET and judiciary with the answer, plus alerts when exam dates, admit cards and new free mocks are released. No spam.

    Join @lexfolio_in on Telegram

    Sources

    • High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Advertisement for Civil Judge Junior Division (Entry Level) Exam 2022, dated 17 November 2023
    • High Court of Madhya Pradesh, interview schedule and final result notice for Civil Judge Exam 2022 (12 November 2025)
    • Supreme Court of India, Garima Khare v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (order of 26 April 2024), as reported by LiveLaw
    • Supreme Court of India, Bhumika Trust v. Union of India, judgment of 21 August 2026

    Last checked: 24 October 2026.

  • Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS) Civil Judge Exam: Pattern, Syllabus, Eligibility and Age Limit

    Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS) Civil Judge Exam: Pattern, Syllabus, Eligibility and Age Limit

    The Rajasthan High Court recruits Civil Judges through the Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS) Civil Judge Cadre exam, and its most recent cycle, advertised on 27 February 2025 for 44 posts, finished with the final result on 19 December 2025. No new advertisement has been issued as of October 2026. The exam has a 100-question prelims with no negative marking, a 300-mark mains and a 35-mark interview. Here is the full pattern, syllabus and eligibility, taken from the 2025 advertisement.

    The 2025 cycle at a glance

    EventDate
    Advertisement27 February 2025 (44 posts)
    Online applications1 to 30 March 2025
    Prelims27 July 2025, Jodhpur and Jaipur
    Prelims result19 August 2025
    Mains result11 November 2025
    Final result19 December 2025

    The post is Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, in the pay scale Rs 77,840 to 1,36,520. Of the 44 posts, 17 were General, 7 SC, 5 ST, 9 OBC, 4 EWS and 2 MBC.

    Eligibility

    • Degree: LL.B. (Professional) from a university established by law in India and recognised under the Advocates Act, 1961. Final-year students may apply but must hold the degree before the mains.
    • Language: a thorough knowledge of Hindi written in Devanagari script, and of Rajasthani dialects and the social customs of Rajasthan.
    • Age (2025 cycle): 21 to 40 years, counted on 1 January following the last date of application. Relaxation of 5 years for SC, ST, OBC, MBC, EWS and women, and 10 years for ex-servicemen (up to 50). Persons with benchmark disabilities get an additional 5 years. Reserved-category benefits are for Rajasthan domiciles only.
    • Other conditions: no more than two children (born after the rules came into force), no acceptance of dowry, and no finding of professional misconduct.

    Practice requirement

    The 2025 advertisement came before the Supreme Court’s May 2025 ruling and had no practice condition. For the next cycle, the Supreme Court’s August 2026 judgment in Bhumika Trust will apply: an advertisement issued by 31 March 2027 is open to all law graduates, and later advertisements will require one year of certified practice. Read the practice rule after Bhumika Trust.

    Exam pattern

    Preliminary exam (qualifying)

    • 100 objective questions, 100 marks, 2 hours, OMR answer sheet.
    • No negative marking, so answer every question.
    • 70 percent law (the Law Paper I and II syllabus) and 30 percent Hindi and English proficiency.
    • Minimum to qualify: 45 percent (40 percent for SC, ST, PwBD and ex-servicemen). Up to 15 times the vacancies go to mains. Prelims marks do not count in the merit.

    Mains: 300 marks

    PaperMarksDuration
    Law Paper I1003 hours
    Law Paper II1003 hours
    Hindi Essay502 hours
    English Essay502 hours

    To be called for interview you need 35 percent in each law paper and 40 percent in aggregate (30 and 35 percent for SC, ST, PwBD and ex-servicemen).

    Interview: 35 marks

    Roughly three times the vacancies are called. The interview assesses record, personality, general knowledge and current affairs, and gives marks for knowledge of Rajasthani dialects and social customs. The final merit is out of 335, with a minimum of 40 percent (35 percent for reserved categories).

    Syllabus

    Law Paper I

    Code of Civil Procedure; Constitution of India; Indian Contract Act; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and Indian Evidence Act; Limitation Act; Specific Relief Act; Transfer of Property Act; Interpretation of Statutes; Hindu law (marriage, adoption and maintenance, succession, minority and guardianship); Muslim law; Partnership Act; Sale of Goods Act; Registration Act; order and judgment writing. Rajasthan laws: the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 and the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

    Law Paper II

    Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and CrPC; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and Evidence Act; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and IPC; Juvenile Justice Act, 2015; Negotiable Instruments Act; Probation of Offenders Act; Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Indecent Representation of Women Act; POCSO Act; POSH Act, 2013; Information Technology Act, 2000; framing of charge and judgment writing. Rajasthan law: the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.

    Language (prelims)

    Hindi: word formation, word knowledge and correction, grammar, sentence correction, punctuation, idioms and proverbs, and technical terminology. English: tenses, articles, phrasal verbs and idioms, voice, narration, modals, synonyms and antonyms.

    Preparation priorities

    • Both old and new criminal laws are in the syllabus. Learn the new law and the corresponding old section together.
    • Judgment and order writing appear in both law papers; practise full judgments under time.
    • The four Rajasthan Acts are small but certain to be asked.

    Prepare with Lexfolio

    Every state paper now tests the new criminal laws alongside, or in place of, the old codes. Our New Criminal Laws Guide maps the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act to the BNS, BNSS and BSA section by section, and the judiciary packs add model answers and judgment digests for mains. Read the practice rule after Bhumika Trust to check whether you can apply in the next cycle.

    Get one law MCQ a day, free, on Telegram

    A daily question for CLAT, AIBE, NET and judiciary with the answer, plus alerts when exam dates, admit cards and new free mocks are released. No spam.

    Join @lexfolio_in on Telegram

    Sources

    • Rajasthan High Court, Advertisement for Civil Judge Cadre Direct Recruitment Exam 2025, No. RHC/Exam Cell/RJS/CivilJudgeCadre/2025/1287, 27 February 2025
    • Rajasthan High Court recruitment notices for the 2025 cycle (prelims, results, interview)
    • Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010
    • Supreme Court of India, Bhumika Trust v. Union of India, judgment of 21 August 2026

    Last checked: 24 October 2026.

  • UP PCS (J) 2026: Civil Judge Exam Pattern, Syllabus, Eligibility, Age Limit and Latest Status

    UP PCS (J) 2026: Civil Judge Exam Pattern, Syllabus, Eligibility, Age Limit and Latest Status

    UPPSC conducts the Uttar Pradesh Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam, known as UP PCS (J), and no new advertisement has been issued since the 2022 cycle. That cycle had 303 posts, with mains in March 2023 and the final result in August 2023. When the next advertisement comes, eligibility will be shaped by the Supreme Court’s August 2026 judgment in Bhumika Trust: if it is issued by 31 March 2027, law graduates without practice can apply. Here are the rules, pattern and syllabus from the U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001, as amended up to 30 January 2026.

    Latest status

    • Last cycle: Civil Judge (Junior Division) Exam 2022, Advertisement A-5/E-1/2022, 303 posts. Prelims was held on 12 February 2023 and the final result came on 30 August 2023.
    • Next cycle: no advertisement on UPPSC as of 24 October 2026. No official date or vacancy figure has been announced.

    Eligibility

    Practice

    UP amended its rules on 30 January 2026 to require at least 3 years of practice on the date of the advertisement, counted from provisional enrolment, in line with the Supreme Court’s May 2025 ruling. On 21 August 2026 the Supreme Court modified that ruling in Bhumika Trust: for advertisements issued up to 31 March 2027, all law graduates can apply and are deemed to have one year of practice, and from 1 April 2027 one year of certified practice will be required. UP’s rules will need to be amended again to reflect this. See the practice rule after Bhumika Trust.

    Other conditions under the rules

    • Degree: LL.B. from a university established by law in Uttar Pradesh, or another university recognised by the Governor (Rule 11).
    • Age: 22 to 35 years on 1 July of the year following the year in which the notification is published. The upper limit is 5 years higher for SC, ST and other notified categories (Rule 10).
    • Attempts: a maximum of 4.
    • Language: a thorough knowledge of Hindi in Devanagari script.
    • Disability reservation: 4 percent.

    Exam pattern

    Preliminary exam

    UPPSC holds an objective preliminary exam as a screening test, as it did in February 2023. Its marks do not count in the final merit. Check the paper structure and negative marking in the advertisement when it is issued.

    Mains (Appendix II of the rules): 1,000 marks

    PaperSubjectMarks
    1General Knowledge200
    2English Language100
    3Hindi Language100
    4Law I (Substantive Law)200
    5Law II (Procedure and Evidence)200
    6Law III (Penal, Revenue and Local Laws)200

    Interview

    100 marks, added to the written total, so the final merit is out of 1,100. The Commission fixes the minimum marks for an interview call and may refuse an interview to candidates with inadequate marks in the law papers.

    Syllabus highlights

    • Paper 1 (General Knowledge) includes social legislation: the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, the Senior Citizens Act, the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Domestic Violence Act, the POSH Act, the PC-PNDT Act, the MTP Act, the Indecent Representation of Women Act and the POCSO Act.
    • Paper 4 (Substantive Law): Contract, Partnership, Easements and Torts, Transfer of Property, Equity, Trusts and Specific Relief, Hindu and Muslim law, and Constitutional Law (50 marks).
    • Paper 5 (Procedure and Evidence): Evidence, Criminal Procedure and Civil Procedure.
    • Paper 6: criminal law (50 marks) and UP revenue and local laws (150 marks): the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972; the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021; the Municipalities Act; the Panchayat Raj Act; the Consolidation of Holdings Act; and the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

    New criminal laws

    Appendix II still names the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act. A notification of 25 July 2025 added a clause that any enactment in the syllabus includes the enactment that replaces it. So the BNS, BNSS and BSA are part of the syllabus. Prepare them as the main texts, with the old section numbers for reference.

    Preparation priorities

    • Local laws are 150 marks. The Revenue Code and the rent laws decide ranks; most candidates under-prepare them.
    • Write in both languages. The English and Hindi papers are 100 marks each and count in the merit.
    • Track the advertisement date. An advertisement before 31 March 2027 opens the exam to fresh graduates.

    Prepare with Lexfolio

    Every state paper now tests the new criminal laws alongside, or in place of, the old codes. Our New Criminal Laws Guide maps the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act to the BNS, BNSS and BSA section by section, and the judiciary packs add model answers and judgment digests for mains. Read the practice rule after Bhumika Trust to check whether you can apply in the next cycle.

    Get one law MCQ a day, free, on Telegram

    A daily question for CLAT, AIBE, NET and judiciary with the answer, plus alerts when exam dates, admit cards and new free mocks are released. No spam.

    Join @lexfolio_in on Telegram

    Sources

    • U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001, consolidated up to 30 January 2026 (Allahabad High Court)
    • Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, notifications and advertisements page (checked 24 October 2026)
    • Supreme Court of India, Bhumika Trust v. Union of India, judgment of 21 August 2026

    Last checked: 24 October 2026.

  • Bihar Judiciary 2026 (33rd BJSE): 173 Posts, Exam Status, Pattern, Syllabus and Eligibility

    Bihar Judiciary 2026 (33rd BJSE): 173 Posts, Exam Status, Pattern, Syllabus and Eligibility

    BPSC advertised 173 Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts in the 33rd Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination on 23 February 2026, but the preliminary exam fixed for 3 June 2026 was postponed and no new date has been announced. The postponement followed a Supreme Court interim order in the case on the practice requirement for judicial service. That case was decided on 21 August 2026, and the judgment says advertisements issued after May 2025, like this one, are to follow its new eligibility directions. Here is where things stand, and the full pattern and syllabus so you can keep preparing.

    Current status (as of 24 October 2026)

    EventDate
    Advertisement No. 12/202623 February 2026
    Online applications25 February to 18 March 2026, extended to 30 April 2026
    Prelims (as first scheduled)3 June 2026, Patna
    Prelims postponedNotice of 25 May 2026, following the Supreme Court’s interim order of 22 May 2026
    Supreme Court final judgment (Bhumika Trust)21 August 2026
    New prelims dateNot yet announced by BPSC

    The Supreme Court gave states and High Courts three months from 21 August 2026 to amend their rules. Expect BPSC to issue a revised notice on eligibility and the prelims date after that. Keep an eye on bpsc.bihar.gov.in.

    Vacancies: 173 posts

    CategoryPostsOf which for women
    Unreserved6925
    EWS175
    SC2811
    ST21
    EBC3612
    BC217
    Total17361

    Women have 35 percent horizontal reservation, and 2 posts are reserved for orthopaedically disabled candidates. Reservation benefits are available only to Bihar domiciles; candidates from other states can apply in the unreserved category.

    Eligibility

    Practice: what the advertisement said, and what has changed

    The advertisement required at least 3 years of practice as an advocate on 23 February 2026, following the Supreme Court’s May 2025 ruling. On 21 August 2026, in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India, the Court modified that ruling. For advertisements issued after the May 2025 judgment and up to 31 March 2027, every law graduate may apply and is deemed to have one year of practice, and the Court said advertisements already issued are to be governed by these directions. Selected candidates then undergo one year of academy training and one year of clerkship. BPSC has not yet announced how it will apply this to Advertisement 12/2026, for example whether it will reopen applications. Read our full explainer: the practice rule after Bhumika Trust.

    Other conditions in the advertisement

    • Degree: a law degree from a university or institution recognised by the Bar Council of India.
    • Age: over 22 years on 1 August 2025, and under 35 years on 1 August 2022. The upper limit is 40 years for reserved categories, women and disabled candidates. Note the two different reckoning dates.
    • Attempts: candidates outside the reserved categories (and other than women and disabled candidates) get a maximum of 5 attempts.
    • Fee: Rs 100.

    Exam pattern

    Preliminary exam (objective, qualifying)

    PaperQuestionsMarksDuration
    General Studies1001001.5 hours
    Law1501502 hours
    • Minimum qualifying marks: 45 percent (unreserved), 40 percent (reserved).
    • Up to 10 times the vacancies are called for mains. Prelims marks do not count in the final merit.
    • Under BPSC’s notice of 1 May 2026 for its MCQ exams, each question has five options, with option E meaning “not attempted”. A question left completely blank costs one-third of a mark, so always mark an option, including E.

    Mains (descriptive, 3 hours per paper)

    PaperMarks
    General Hindi (qualifying, minimum 30)100
    General English (qualifying, minimum 30)100
    General Knowledge including Current Affairs150
    Elementary General Science100
    Law of Evidence and Procedure150
    Three optional law papers (choose 3 of 5), 150 each450

    The five optional papers are: Constitutional and Administrative Law; Hindu Law and Muhammadan Law; Transfer of Property and Principles of Equity, including Trusts and Specific Relief; Contracts and Torts; and Commercial Law. The two language papers are qualifying only, so the papers that count total 850 marks.

    Interview

    100 marks, with candidates called at three times the vacancies. The qualifying mark is 35 percent. The final merit is mains plus interview.

    Syllabus highlights

    • Law of Evidence and Procedure now covers the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the CPC, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, under the 2026 amendment to the Bihar rules quoted in the advertisement. Older syllabus copies still list the Evidence Act and CrPC; follow the advertisement.
    • Constitutional Law: the whole Constitution, Articles 1 to 395 and the Schedules. Administrative Law: delegated legislation, natural justice, judicial review, writs, PIL, tortious liability of the State, promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and proportionality.
    • Hindu and Muslim law: marriage, adoption, joint family and partition, succession, wills and gifts, endowments, waqf, dower, pre-emption and guardianship.
    • Commercial Law: sale of goods, negotiable instruments, company law and partnership.
    • General Hindi: matriculation level, with essay, syntax and grammar.

    How to use the waiting time

    • Learn the new criminal laws thoroughly. They are now named in the Evidence and Procedure paper.
    • Choose your three optional papers now, and start writing answers for mains while prelims is pending.
    • Build a General Science and General Knowledge base; both count in mains.

    Prepare with Lexfolio

    Every state paper now tests the new criminal laws alongside, or in place of, the old codes. Our New Criminal Laws Guide maps the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act to the BNS, BNSS and BSA section by section, and the judiciary packs add model answers and judgment digests for mains. Read the practice rule after Bhumika Trust to check whether you can apply in the next cycle.

    Get one law MCQ a day, free, on Telegram

    A daily question for CLAT, AIBE, NET and judiciary with the answer, plus alerts when exam dates, admit cards and new free mocks are released. No spam.

    Join @lexfolio_in on Telegram

    Sources

    • Bihar Public Service Commission, Advertisement No. 12/2026 (33rd Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination), 23 February 2026
    • BPSC notices of 18 March 2026 (extension), 13 May 2026 (exam programme), 25 May 2026 (postponement) and 1 May 2026 (five-option answer sheets)
    • BPSC syllabus for the Judicial Services Examination
    • Supreme Court of India, Bhumika Trust v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 1110/2025, judgment of 21 August 2026

    Last checked: 24 October 2026.

  • Civil Judge Eligibility 2026: The Practice Rule After the Supreme Court’s Bhumika Trust Judgment

    Civil Judge Eligibility 2026: The Practice Rule After the Supreme Court’s Bhumika Trust Judgment

    Fresh law graduates can again apply for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts advertised up to 31 March 2027. On 21 August 2026, in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India, a Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant modified its May 2025 ruling that had made three years of practice compulsory. For advertisements issued up to 31 March 2027, every law graduate may apply and is treated as having one year of practice; those selected go through two years of training before presiding over a court. For advertisements issued on or after 1 April 2027, at least one year of actual, certified practice will be required. Here is what changed, and what it means for the next round of state judiciary exams.

    Timeline: how the rule changed

    DateDecisionEffect
    20 May 2025All India Judges Association v. Union of IndiaRestored a minimum of 3 years’ practice for Civil Judge (Junior Division), counted from provisional enrolment. Processes already under way were not affected.
    2025 to 2026High Courts amend their rulesSeveral states wrote the 3-year requirement into their rules or advertisements: Uttar Pradesh (January 2026), Delhi (February 2026), Bihar (in its February 2026 advertisement for 173 posts) and Haryana (August 2026).
    21 August 2026Bhumika Trust v. Union of IndiaModified the 2025 ruling: a transitional window with no practice requirement, then a 1-year requirement from 1 April 2027.

    What Bhumika Trust decided

    Advertisements issued up to 31 March 2027

    • All law graduates can apply.
    • Candidates are deemed to have one year of practice.
    • Selected candidates become trainee judicial officers. They complete one year of training at the state Judicial Academy, followed by one year of law clerkship: six months with a judge of the district judiciary and six months with a High Court judge.
    • During this period they are paid half the pay of a Judicial Magistrate First Class.

    Advertisements issued on or after 1 April 2027

    • At least one year of actual practice as an advocate, supported by a certificate.
    • An LL.M. does not count as practice, according to reports of the judgment.
    • The same academy training and clerkship then follow.

    The Court also said that advertisements already issued after the May 2025 judgment are to be governed by these directions. The decision was by a majority; Justice K. Vinod Chandran dissented. States and High Courts were directed to amend their rules within three months, that is, by around 21 November 2026.

    What this means for you

    Your situationNext cycle (advertised by 31 March 2027)Later cycles
    Final-year student or fresh graduateEligible, subject to the state’s other conditionsNeed 1 year of certified practice
    Advocate with under 1 year of practiceEligibleEligible once you complete 1 year
    LL.M. without practiceEligibleLL.M. alone will not count

    Watch the state rules

    Many state rules still show the 3-year requirement added after the 2025 judgment. Delhi’s rules (as on 9 February 2026) and Haryana’s amendment of 7 August 2026 both say 3 years. These now have to be read with the August 2026 directions, and High Courts are expected to amend them. The advertisement for each cycle is the document that will settle your eligibility, so read its eligibility clause carefully when it comes out.

    Why the timing matters

    The transitional window depends on the date the advertisement is issued, not the exam date. Several states have not advertised Civil Judge posts since 2024 or 2025, including Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana and Punjab, so a number of notifications could come before 31 March 2027. If you are a recent graduate, this is the cycle to prepare for seriously.

    How to get your practice certificate (for 2027 onwards)

    • Practice is counted from your provisional enrolment.
    • The 2025 ruling allowed the certificate to come from the Principal Judicial Officer of the court where you practise, or from an advocate of at least 10 years’ standing endorsed by that officer, and counted experience as a law clerk to a judge. Check how your state’s amended rules treat these points.
    • Keep a record of the cases you appear in from the day you enrol.

    State guides

    Prepare with Lexfolio

    Every state paper now tests the new criminal laws alongside, or in place of, the old codes. Our New Criminal Laws Guide maps the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act to the BNS, BNSS and BSA section by section, and the judiciary packs add model answers and judgment digests for mains.

    Get one law MCQ a day, free, on Telegram

    A daily question for CLAT, AIBE, NET and judiciary with the answer, plus alerts when exam dates, admit cards and new free mocks are released. No spam.

    Join @lexfolio_in on Telegram

    Sources

    • Supreme Court of India, All India Judges Association v. Union of India, judgment of 20 May 2025 (2025 INSC 735)
    • Supreme Court of India, Bhumika Trust v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 1110/2025, judgment of 21 August 2026 (2026 INSC 904), paras 73 to 76
    • Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970, as on 9 February 2026 (Delhi High Court)
    • Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 as applicable to Haryana, updated to 7 August 2026 (Punjab and Haryana High Court)

    Last checked: 24 October 2026.