Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Choose the best option for the following statement:
No one can be compelled to sing the National Anthem since:
1. It will be violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression.
2. It will be violative of the right to freedom of conscience and practice & propagation of religion.
3. There is no legal provision obliging anyone to sing the National Anthem.
विकल्प
1 and 2 are correct
2 and 3 are correct
1, 2 and 3 are correct
None is correct
Advertisements
उत्तर
1, 2 and 3 are correct
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 favour, 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.
Suppose a situation arises where a recusal by a Judge is used as a means to allow a party to choose its own bench, will it be axiomatic from the passage that such recusal is proper, morally or/and constitutionally?
Mark the best option:
From which country’s Constitution the Rule of Law have been borrowed?
By which of the following act, the Indian (Central) Legislative Council was a set-up?
Consider the following words:
- Socialist
- Democratic
- Sovereign
- Secular
Choose the response that gives the correct sequence in the Preamble.
Which of the following Article lays down no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds?
The main purpose of including Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution is
The National Commission of Scheduled Tribes has been established under the
Which of the following constitutions when framed did not provide for judicial review?
The President of India is elected by an electoral college consisting of
The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.
Principle: Damages are the money recompense, as far as money can do, for the violation of a right.
Facts: A, an Indian citizen, have a right to vote, was not allowed to cast his vote on the polling booth, by the returning officer. Name of A was mentioned in the voter's list. A has also reported at the polling booth in time. However, the candidate in whose favour A would have cast his vote won the election. A filed a suit claiming damages.
