मराठी

Examine the Statement and Conclusions Given Below and Choose a Suitable Answer from the Options Given: Statement: It is a Fundamental Duty, Which is Unenforceable in a Court of Law that Every Citizen

Advertisements
Advertisements

प्रश्न

Examine the Statement and Conclusions given below and choose a suitable answer from the options given:

Statement: It is a fundamental duty, which is unenforceable in a Court of Law that every citizen shall renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.

Conclusions:

1. Reservation of seats for women in employment is violative of the principle stated.
2. Asking a lady inappropriate questions about her personal life is violative of the principle stated.

पर्याय

  • Only Conclusion 1 follows.

  • Only Conclusion 2 follows.

  • Conclusions 1 and 2 follow.

  • Neither Conclusion 1 nor 2 follows.

MCQ
Advertisements

उत्तर

Only Conclusion 2 follows.

Explanation:

Central Government Act Article 51A in The Constitution Of India 1949 51A(e).  Fundamental duties: It shall be the duty of every citizen of India (a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the  National Anthem; to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.   
Hence only conclusion 2  follows is correct answer.  

shaalaa.com
Important Court Decisions (Entrance Exams)
  या प्रश्नात किंवा उत्तरात काही त्रुटी आहे का?
2017-2018 (May) Set 1

संबंधित प्रश्‍न

Direction : The passage given below is followed by a set of question. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

It is very difficult to trace the origin of judicial activism in India. Since the judiciary has come to be recognized as an independent and separate organ of the Government under the Constitution of India, it would be prudent to scan the period subsequent to 1950 for tracing the origin. However, there are a few instances even prior to that period, where certain selected judges of High Courts established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 exhibited certain flashes of judicial activism. Way back in 1893, Justice Mahmood of the Allahabad High Court delivered a dissenting judgment that sowed the seed for judicial activism in India. In that case which dealt with an under trial who could not afford to engage a lawyer, Justice Mahmood held that the pre-condition of the case being heard would be fulfilled only when somebody speaks.

At the outset, it has to be stated that there is no precise definition of judicial activism accepted by one and all. However, there is a widely accepted notion that it is related to problems and processes of political development of a country. In other words, judicial activism deals with the political role played by the judiciary, like the other two branches of the State, the legislature and the executive. An eminent Indian jurist defines judicial activism in the following words: Judicial Activism is that way of exercising judicial power which seeks fundamental recodification of power relations among the dominant institutions of State, manned by members of the ruling classes.

The same authority goes on to add that judicial activism is the use of judicial power to articulate and enforce counter-ideologies which when effective initiates significant re-codifications of power relations within the institutions of governance. An analysis of the above attempt by Upendra Baxi to define judicial activism shows that activism of the judiciary pertains to the political role played by it, like the other two political branches. The justification for judicial activism comes from the near collapse of responsible government and the pressures on the judiciary to step in aid which forced the judiciary to respond and to make political or policy-making judgments.

Judicial Activism and judicial restraint are the terms used to describe the assertiveness of judicial power. The user of these terms presumes to locate the relative assertiveness of particular courts or individual judges between two theoretical extremes. The extreme model of judicial activism is of a court so intrusive and ubiquitous that it virtually dominates the institutions of government. The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution states that the uses of judicial restraint are not entirely uniform. Often the terms are employed non-committally i.e., merely as descriptive short hand to identify some court or judges as more activist or more restrained than others. In this sense, the usage is neither commendatory nor condemnatory.

These expressions viz., judicial activism and judicial restraint are used from the angle of the personal or professional view of the right role of the Court. Accordingly, the courts may be condemned or commended for straying from or for conforming to that right role. In U.S.A., in more than two centuries of judicial review, superintended by more than one hundred justices who have served on the Supreme Court and who have interpreted a constitution highly ambiguous, in much of its text, consistency has not been institutional but personal. Individual judges have maintained strongly diverse notions of the proper or right judicial role.

How did Justice Mahmood lay the foundation of judicial activism?


Direction: The passage given below is followed by a set of question. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

It is very difficult to trace the origin of judicial activism in India. Since the judiciary has come to be recognized as an independent and separate organ of the Government under the Constitution of India, it would be prudent to scan the period subsequent to 1950 for tracing the origin. However, there are a few instances even prior to that period, where certain selected judges of High Courts established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 exhibited certain flashes of judicial activism. Way back in 1893, Justice Mahmood of the Allahabad High Court delivered a dissenting judgment that sowed the seed for judicial activism in India. In that case which dealt with an under trial who could not afford to engage a lawyer, Justice Mahmood held that the pre-condition of the case being heard would be fulfilled only when somebody speaks.

At the outset, it has to be stated that there is no precise definition of judicial activism accepted by one and all. However, there is a widely accepted notion that it is related to problems and processes of political development of a country. In other words, judicial activism deals with the political role played by the judiciary, like the other two branches of the State, the legislature and the executive. An eminent Indian jurist defines judicial activism in the following words: Judicial Activism is that way of exercising judicial power which seeks fundamental recodification of power relations among the dominant institutions of State, manned by members of the ruling classes.

The same authority goes on to add that judicial activism is the use of judicial power to articulate and enforce counter-ideologies which when effective initiates significant re-codifications of power relations within the institutions of governance. An analysis of the above attempt by Upendra Baxi to define judicial activism shows that activism of the judiciary pertains to the political role played by it, like the other two political branches. The justification for judicial activism comes from the near collapse of responsible government and the pressures on the judiciary to step in aid which forced the judiciary to respond and to make political or policy-making judgments.

Judicial Activism and judicial restraint are the terms used to describe the assertiveness of judicial power. The user of these terms presumes to locate the relative assertiveness of particular courts or individual judges between two theoretical extremes. The extreme model of judicial activism is of a court so intrusive and ubiquitous that it virtually dominates the institutions of government. The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution states that the uses of judicial restraint are not entirely uniform. Often the terms are employed non-committally i.e., merely as descriptive short hand to identify some court or judges as more activist or more restrained than others. In this sense, the usage is neither commendatory nor condemnatory.

These expressions viz., judicial activism and judicial restraint are used from the angle of the personal or professional view of the right role of the Court. Accordingly, the courts may be condemned or commended for straying from or for conforming to that right role. In the U.S.A., in more than two centuries of judicial review, superintended by more than one hundred justices who have served on the Supreme Court and who have interpreted a constitution highly ambiguous, in much of its text, consistency has not been institutional but personal. Individual judges have maintained strongly diverse notions of the proper or right judicial role.

Which of the following serves as a valid justification for the initiation of judicial activism? 


The age of retirement of a Judge of a High Court in India is 


The writ by which a High Court or the Supreme Court can secure the body of a person who has been imprisoned to be brought before it is 


Mark the best option:
Consider the following statements:

  1. Fast Track Courts are being set up on the recommendation of the 12th Finance Commission.
  2. Fast Track Courts take up Sessions cases pending for two years or more and the cases of undertrials in jails.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?


Mark the best option:
In which case it was held by the Supreme Court that ‘preamble is the basic feature of the constitution’


Given below is the statement of Legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A judgment which binds only the parties to a suit in which the judgment was passed is called judgment in personam; whereas a judgment which binds all men irrespective of whether they were party to suit or not is known as a judgment in rem.
FACTUAL SITUATION: "Judgment of a competent court determining contractual obligations of the parties to a contract is an example of judgment in personam, but a judgment of a competent court declaring a party to be insolvent is an example of judgment in rem."
Comment on the correctness of this statement.
DECISION:


ln the following States more than 60% seats are in the reserved category in educational institutions against 50% cap as fixed by the Supreme Court of India

  1. Karnataka
  2. Tamil Nadu
  3. Odisha
  4. Bihar

The correct answer is:


The age of consent for sexual intercourse between a husband and wife has been made __________ from ____________ years by the Supreme Court of India.


Regarding foreign law firms, the Supreme Court held

  1. That foreign law firms can set up offices in India.
  2. Foreign lawyers can practice in India.
  3. Foreign lawyers can visit India for a temporary period on a fly in and fly out basis.
  4. Foreign lawyers can give advice to their clients on Indian laws.

Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×