Which one of the following is not true about the powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India?

Introduction / Context:
The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial body in the country and enjoys a wide range of jurisdictions including original, appellate, advisory, and review jurisdiction. It also has the power to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights. However, some of these powers are shared with High Courts, and examinations often test whether students can distinguish exclusive powers from powers that are concurrent. This question asks which statement about the Supreme Court is not correct.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Four statements about the Supreme Courts powers and jurisdiction are provided.
• They concern original jurisdiction in Union State disputes, advisory jurisdiction, power of review, and writ jurisdiction for fundamental rights.
• We must identify the single statement that is not true.
• We rely on constitutional provisions such as Articles 131, 143, 137, and 32, and on Article 226 for High Courts.

Concept / Approach:
Article 131 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in certain disputes between the Union and States, which is exclusive to the Supreme Court. Article 143 provides advisory jurisdiction when the President seeks the Courts opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. Article 137 allows the Court to review its own judgments. Writ jurisdiction for enforcement of fundamental rights is conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 32, but High Courts also have writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and can enforce both fundamental rights and other legal rights. Therefore, it is not correct to say that only the Supreme Court can issue writs for protecting fundamental rights.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Inspect the statement about original and exclusive jurisdiction. Article 131 indeed grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in certain disputes, and this jurisdiction is exclusive, so this statement is correct. Step 2: Inspect the statement about advisory jurisdiction. Article 143 allows the President to refer questions of law or fact to the Supreme Court, which gives the Court advisory jurisdiction. This statement is correct. Step 3: Inspect the statement about review. Article 137 expressly permits the Supreme Court to review its judgments or orders. Thus, this statement is correct. Step 4: Inspect the statement that only the Supreme Court has the exclusive power to issue writs for protection of fundamental rights. This is not correct, because High Courts under Article 226 can also issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights. Step 5: Conclude that the fourth statement misrepresents the relationship between Supreme Court and High Courts in writ jurisdiction. Step 6: Choose that statement as the incorrect option.

Verification / Alternative check:
You can verify this by comparing Articles 32 and 226. Article 32 is often described as the heart and soul of the Constitution, but Article 226 explicitly grants High Courts power to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes. In fact, in many cases people approach High Courts first rather than the Supreme Court. Since writ jurisdiction is shared, it cannot truthfully be described as exclusive to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, standard polity texts emphasise that the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction in Union State disputes is exclusive, and that its advisory and review powers flow from clear constitutional provisions, supporting the accuracy of the other statements.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
The options stating that the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction in certain federal disputes, that it has advisory jurisdiction when referred matters by the President, and that it can review its own judgments, are all correct statements about the Courts powers. These are well established and widely discussed features of the Supreme Court. Since the question asks for the statement that is not true, these three cannot be correct answers.

Common Pitfalls:
A common source of confusion is the strong emphasis placed on Article 32, which may lead some students to think that only the Supreme Court can enforce fundamental rights through writs. Another pitfall is forgetting the broad nature of High Courts writ jurisdiction under Article 226. To avoid such confusion, it is helpful to remember that both the Supreme Court and High Courts can issue writs for fundamental rights, but High Courts have even wider writ jurisdiction for other legal rights as well.

Final Answer:
The statement that is not true is that the Supreme Court alone has the exclusive power to issue writs for the protection of fundamental rights, because High Courts also have writ jurisdiction for fundamental rights under Article 226.