Which one of the following statements regarding judiciary in India is not correct ?

examrobotsa's picture

Submitted by examrobotsa on

Q: 63 (CDS-II/2010)
Which one of the following statements regarding judiciary in India is not correct ?

question_subject: 

Polity

question_exam: 

CDS-II

stats: 

0,93,175,27,74,93,74

keywords: 

{'district courts': [0, 0, 1, 0], 'judiciary': [1, 0, 0, 2], 'session judge': [0, 0, 1, 1], 'criminal jurisdiction': [0, 0, 2, 1], 'civil jurisdiction': [0, 0, 1, 0], 'principal court': [0, 0, 1, 0], 'judge': [6, 1, 14, 17], 'court': [11, 1, 18, 32], 'district': [1, 0, 1, 1], 'capital punishment': [0, 0, 1, 3], 'munsiff': [0, 0, 1, 0], 'india': [8, 1, 7, 13]}

Option 1 states that District Courts in India are presided over by a Judge. This statement is generally correct as District Courts are indeed presided over by a Judge.

Option 2 states that The District and Session Judge is the principal court of civil jurisdiction. This statement is generally correct as the District and Session Judge is indeed responsible for civil jurisdiction in the district.

Option 3 states that The Munsiff`s court has both civil and criminal jurisdiction. This statement is not correct. The Munsiff`s court is primarily responsible for civil jurisdiction and does not have criminal jurisdiction.

Option 4 states that The District and Session Judge has the power to impose capital punishment. This statement is generally correct as the District and Session Judge does have the power to impose capital punishment in certain cases.

Therefore, the correct answer is option 3, as it incorrectly states that the Munsiff`s court has both civil and criminal jurisdiction.