Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Direction: Read the following carefully and answer the question given below
Although women now constitute 30 percent of the global industrial force, legal hurdles and traditional barriers still hinder the vast majority of women in their efforts to achieve parity with men.
The paragraph best supports the statement
विकल्प
The author claims that Feminism rules.
The equality of men and women is still a myth.
Women should surpass men in all fields.
The author claims that women have to take more effort.
Advertisements
उत्तर
The equality of men and women is still a myth.
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.
As per the passage if right-minded persons entertain a feeling that there is any likelihood of bias on the part of the Judge, he must recuse. Does the passage also mentions about the recourse to be taken if there is mere possibility of such a feeling is
Direction: The passage given below is followed by a set of question. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.
For proper functioning of democracy it is essential that citizens are kept informed about news from various parts of the country and even abroad, because only then can they form rational opinions. A citizen surely cannot be expected personally to gather news to enable him or her to form such opinions. Hence, the media play an important role in a democracy and serve as an agency of the people to gather news for them. It is for this reason that freedom of the press has been emphasized in all democratic countries, while it was not permitted in feudal or totalitarian regimes.
In India, the media have played a historical role in providing information to people about social and economic evils. Also, sometimes the media present twisted or distorted news that may contain an element of truth but also an element of untruth.
Recently, Media comments on pending cases, especially on criminal cases where the life or liberty of a citizen is involved, are a delicate issue and should be carefully considered. After all, judges are human beings too, and sometimes it may be difficult for them not to be influenced by such news. This, too, should be avoided because a half-truth can be more dangerous than a total lie. The media should avoid giving any slant to news, and avoid sensationalism and yellow journalism. Only then will they gain the respect of the people and fulfill their true role in a democracy.
The British law is that when a case is sub judice, no comment can be made on it, whereas U.S. law permits such comment. In India we may have to take an intermediate view on this issue: while on the one hand we have a written Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) - which the unwritten British Constitution does not - the life and liberty of a citizen is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 and should not lightly be jeopardized. Hence, a balanced view has to be taken on this.
Therefore, the media have a great responsibility also to see that the news they present is accurate and serve the interest of the people. If the media convey false news that may harm the reputation of a person or a section of society, it may do great damage since reputation is a valuable asset for a person. Even if the media subsequently correct a statement, the damage done may be irreparable. Hence, the media should take care to carefully investigate any news item before reporting it.
Suppose a Supreme Court Judge, Justice Mike, sues Future Now for mistakenly displaying his photograph in a report about a person (with a phonetically similar sounding name) allegedly involved in the multi-crore Provident Fund scam.
Direction: The passage given below is followed by a set of question. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.
Under our Constitution, the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary all have their own broad spheres of operation. Ordinarily it is not proper for any of these three organs of the State to encroach upon the domain of another, otherwise the delicate balance in the Constitution will be upset, and there will be a reaction. Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the Government. They must have modesty and humility, and not behave like Emperors. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution and each organ of the State the legislature, the executive and the judiciary must have respect for the others and must not encroach into each other’s domains.
The theory of separation of powers first propounded by the French thinker Montesquieu (in his book ‘The Spirit of Laws' broadly holds the field in India too. In chapter XI of his book ‘The Spirit of Laws’ Montesquieu writes:
When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner. Again, there is no liberty, if the judicial power is not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.
In India, the judiciary occupies an important place. The constitution visualizes an independent judiciary to safeguard the rights of citizens. In a democratic polity, the independent judiciary is a sine qua non to the effective functioning of the system. Administration has to function according to the law and the Constitution. The judiciary has an important role to play in protecting the citizen against the arbitrary exercise of power by administration. In the context of ever-expanding activities of government and discretionary powers vested in the various administrative agencies and public officials, the need to protect and safeguard the citizen's rights assumes significance and priority. In developing societies where the state is playing an important role in development, judiciary has a special responsibility to ensure social justice to the underprivileged sections of the community. However, it must be admitted that the courts cannot interfere in the administrative activities on their own accord even if such activities are arbitrary. They act only when their intervention is sought. Judicial intervention is restrictive in nature and limited in its scope.
Suppose the Judiciary has intervened in the questions involving, allotment of a particular bungalow to a Judge, specific bungalows for the Judges pool, monkeys capering in colonies, stray cattle on the streets, will it be safe to say that the Judiciary is disturbing the delicate balance of the Constitution?
Mark the best option:
From which country’s Constitution the Right to Equality have been borrowed
Legal Principle: The doctrine of basic structure in Constitutional jurisprudence means that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be taken away through amendments by the Parliament. The power of judicial review is a part of the basic structure and it helps the constitutional Courts to determine whether an amendment is against the basic structure or not.
Fact Situation: Parliament proposes an amendment limit the power of appeal against conviction for the offence of Sedition, to be exercised only by the Supreme Court of India.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as 'Assertion' and the other as 'Reason'. Read both the statements carefully and answer using the codes given below.
Assertion (A): A person suffering from AIDS can be restricted in his movements by law.
Reason (R): Where a policy is laid down· discretion is not of reasonableness.
The financial emergency can be declared by applying
Which of the following statements are true regarding the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016?
- GST Act is a comprehensive direct tax on the manufacture, sale, and consumption of goods and services throughout India.
- The Act will transform India into a common market, harmonising myriads of State and Central levies into a national goods and services tax which is expected to boost manufacturing and reduce corruption.
- It provides for the Constitution of a Goods and Services Tax Council by inserting Article 297 A in the Constitution.
- GST will be based on the input tax credit method.
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act was passed by the Parliament in the year
Which one of the following Directive Principles is non-Gandhian?
