Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Who called Indian constitution as Quasi-Federal?
विकल्प
Austin
K C. Wheare
H. M Servai
Jennings
Advertisements
उत्तर
K C. Wheare
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?
Mark the best option:
From which country's Constitution the Independence of Judiciary have been borrowed?
Which Constitutional Amendment Act, provided reservation in admissions in private unaided educational institutions for students belonging to scheduled castes/tribes and other backward classes?
For the first time, the British Parliament enacted which law for the British Colonial Empire in India?
The 97th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2011 added a new part to the Constitution. Which of the following is that part?
To organise village panchayats is enumerated in which of the following Article?
Which of the following Article constitute the Legislative Assembly?
Which of the following articles contains provisions regarding Municipalities?
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: Whosoever commits any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code with a view to obtaining the consent of any person to enter into an agreement, he cannot get the agreement enforced by law but the person, whose consent has been so obtained may get the agreement enforced by law. The Indian Panel Code defines various offenses and prescribes punishments therefor.
Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by an act amounting to criminal intimidation under the Indian Panel Code. A brings a case against B for a performance of agreement.
Legal principles:
1. Everyone has a right to defend their life and property against criminal harm provided it is not possible to approach public authorities and more harm than is necessary has been caused to avert the danger.
2 Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
Factual situation: The accused found the deceased engaged in sexual, intercourse with his 15-year-old daughter. The accused assaulted the deceased on the head with a spade which resulted in his death. Accused claimed private defence and the prosecution claimed that the sexual intercourse was with the consent of the daughter. Here, decision:
