Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Anyone who induces or attempts to induce a voter to vote in a particular manner on the ground that the voter will face divine displeasure, shall be guilty of the offence of interfering with the free exercise of the right to vote.
Facts: During the election campaign period one candidate X told the voters that if they do not vote for her, voters will be cursed because the election candidate is God‘s own child and those who do not vote for her, will not be liked by God.
पर्याय
X has committed an offence
X has not committed an offence because she only narrated what she felt
X has not committed an offence because she has freedom of speech and expression
X has not committed an offence because she did not compel anyone to vote for her
Advertisements
उत्तर
X has committed an offense
Explanation:
X has committed an offense because the principle is clear that anyone who induces or attempts to induce a voter to vote in a particular manner on the ground that the voter will face divine displeasure commits the offense of interfering with the free exercise of the right to vote.
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 the 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 the 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 reflects a predisposition so strong that it seems he had already made up his mind as to the outcome of the case, will it be according to judicial norms to ask for recusal by the litigants?
Principle: Decision of Court is Null and Void if it is given by court which does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Facts: A obtains a decision from a court that did not have jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter.
The Christian Missionaries were allowed to spread their religion in India, under the Act?
Power, authority, and responsibility of Municipalities are listed in which one of the following Schedule of the Constitution?
Which among the following is the correct expression of the term secular in India?
Which of the following Article deals with the State Executive in the Constitution of India?
Under which of the following provision of the constitution of India 1950, the Supreme Court may grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order?
Who amongest the following was not a Chief Justice of India?
Planning Commission has been scrapped and replaced by a new 'Think Tank' called
Answer the question which follows from the application of the under mentioned legal principle.
Principle: Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own. No law made by the State can take away a person’s fundamental right.
Facts: Parliament enacted a law, which according to a group of lawyers is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers files a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.
