Which of the following statements are INCORRECT?

Solution

To determine the correctness of the given statements regarding the Supreme Court of India, let's examine each one: 1) The Original Jurisdiction establishes the Supreme Court as an umpire in all disputes regarding federal matters.   Correct. The Supreme Court of India has original jurisdiction in any dispute involving the Government of India and one or more states, or between two or more states. This role establishes the Court essentially as an umpire in such disputes. 2) The Supreme Court can give special orders in the form of writs.    Correct.- Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. 3) Article 129 of the Indian Constitution mentions the appointment of the acting Chief Justice of India.  Incorrect. Article 129 of the Indian Constitution declares the Supreme Court to be a court of record and confers on it all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. It does not deal with the appointment of the acting Chief Justice. The provisions for the appointment of an acting Chief Justice are actually found in Article 126 of the Constitution. 4) Every Judge of the Supreme Court of India shall be appointed by the Prime Minister of India.  Incorrect.- Judges of the Supreme Court of India are appointed by the President of India, not the Prime Minister. The President appoints them after consultation with such members of the judiciary and legal community as deemed necessary, as per Article 124 of the Constitution. Therefore, statements 3 and 4 are incorrect.