Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Under the Constitution of India 'Right to Pollution Free Environment' has emerged as a fundamental right from the right to-
पर्याय
Freedom of movement under Article 19
Equality under Article 14
Life and personal liberty under Article 21
Conserve culture under Article 29.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Life and personal liberty under Article 21
Explanation:
According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution of India, no person should be deprived of life and personal liberty except procedure established by law. Hence "Life and personal liberty under Article 21" is 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 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 a 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.
Which of the following is the main point of the author in the given passage?
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.
If Courts enter into executive domain or in matters of policy, which principle or standard will it be violating?
Fill in the blanks: Choose the pair of words that complete the sentence to make logical sense.
The NDA led Government notified the __________ and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, thus ending the over two-decade-old _________ of appointing judges of Supreme Court and high courts. Under the new law, a six-member panel headed by __________ will select judges of the apex court and state high courts.
Schedule Ninth of the Indian Constitution deals with
Which of the following Article deals with the Finance Commission?
By which of the following date a person from Bangladesh is deemed to be an Indian citizen?
Which of the following Article deals with the qualification of a member of Parliament?
Elections to fill up one-third seat of Rajya Sabha are held
Answer the question which follows from the application of the under mentioned legal principle.
Principle: The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and expects the citizen to respect national anthem as a fundamental duty.
Facts: According to the religion's tenets of a particular sect, singing the praise of any entity other than God is forbidden. The child, belonging to that sect, refuses to sing national anthem in the course of school assembly, in which every child must compulsorily participate. When the disciplinary action was instituted against the child, the parents challenged the school' s order of singing the national anthem.
Answer the question which follows from the application of the under mentioned legal principle.
X' s farm house in outskirts of Delhi was attacked by a gang of armed robbers. X without informing the police, at first warned the robbers by firing in the air. As they were fleeing from the farm, he fired and killed one of them. At the trial–
I. X can avail the right of private defence as he was defending his life and property
II. X cannot avail the right as he failed to inform the police
III. X cannot avail the right as he caused more harm than was necessary to ward off the danger
IV. X can avail of the right as at first he only fires in the air.
