Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Article 1 of a legal instrument reads: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”.
Which is the legal instrument being referred to above?
विकल्प
National Human Rights Act, 1995
Constitution of India, 1951
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
Philadelphia Declaration, 1944
Advertisements
उत्तर
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
Explanation:
THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 1948 is a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. Article 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Hence option 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948' is the most appropriate statement.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said: "It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, Judge recuses from hearing the case. A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that: "… I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws." Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favor, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive. The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding. Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.
If a Judge recused from hearing the review petition of four death row convicts in the gang rape-murder case after finding the name of his/her nephew, in the orders of the review petitions. Is the recusal consistent with the essence of recusal provided in the passage?
The High Courts at Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras were established under the
Mark the best option:
WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly ...... to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.
When did the Constituent Assembly adopt a National Flag?
Which of the following is the first state to have been formed on linguistic basis?
Which one of the following statements regarding the Vice-President of India officiating as President is correct?
According to which article, Parliament can make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List?
In the question given below are two statements labelled as Assertion (A) and Reason (R). In the context of the two statements, which of the following is correct?
Assertion (A): Power for conducting elections to the Parliament and State Legislature in a free and fair manner have been given to an independent body called Election Commissioner.
Reason (R): Power of removal of Election Commissioners is with Executive.
Which of the following part of the Constitution contains provisions regarding panchayats?
Which one of the following is not correct?
