Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Vote on accounts is meant for.
पर्याय
Vote on the report of CAG
To meet unforseen expenditure
Appropriating funds pending passing of budget
Budget
Advertisements
उत्तर
Appropriating funds pending passing of budget
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.
Suppose a situation arises where a recusal by a Judge is used as a means to allow a party to choose its own bench, will it be axiomatic from the passage that such recusal is proper, morally or/and constitutionally?
The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and other as Reason (R).
You are to examine the two statements carefully and select the best option.
Assertion: The Council of Ministers at the center is collectively responsib1e both to the Lok Sabha and Rajya sabha.
Reason: Title members of both Lok Sabtla and Raj ya Sabha are eligible to be ministers of the Union Government.
Mark the best option:
Which Article defines the Protection of life and Personal Liberty?
Which Article is related to "Abolition of Untouchability"?
The Lok Sabha passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriages) Bill 2017. Which of the following are true about it?
- It declares instant triple talaq illegal and criminalizes it.
- It makes a declaration of talaq a bailable offense.
- A husband declaring talaq can be imprisoned for up to two years along with a fine.
- It entitles Muslim women against whom triple talaq has been declared to seek subsistence allowance from her husband for herself and for her dependent children.
Which of the following countries have no right to acquire the Overseas Citizen of India by the persons of Indian origin?
In the question given below are two statements labelled as Assertion (A) and Reason (R). In the context of the two statements, which of the following is correct?
Assertion (A): Vice-President is the member of Rajya Sabha.
Reason (R): Constitution mention the position of Vice-President election.
In the question given below are two statements labelled as Assertion (A) and Reason (R). In the context of the two statements, which of the following is correct?
Assertion (A): CAG is the guardian of public purse in India.
Reason (R): In a democracy, the doctrine of check and balance is necessary to maintain a just society.
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: Words describing the quality of things cannot be registered as a trademark. However, such words may be registered as a trade mark, if they acquire a secondary meaning. Words acquire secondary meaning when people start associating the descriptive words with a person-specific.
Facts: A hatchery located in Raipur is owned by ‘X’. X has been using the slogan “new-laid eggs sold here”, since 1970 to describe the quality of eggs sold in his hatchery. Over a period of time because of continuous use of this slogan, people started associating this slogan with X. X filed an application for registration of the words “new-laid eggs” as a trademark in the year 1970.
Which of the following is not a constitutional body?
