Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Choose the most appropriate option:
Which among the following does not belong to the 'right to freedom of religion'?
पर्याय
Freedom from payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion
Freedom from attending religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions
Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
Freedom of speech and expression
Advertisements
उत्तर
Freedom of speech and expression
Explanation:
The right of freedom of speech and expression is not part of freedom of religion.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rule: Whoever finds an unattended object can keep it unless the true owner claims that object. This does not affect the property owner's right to the ownership of the property on which the object is found. The right to ownership of a property does not include the right to ownership of unattended objects on that property.
Facts: Elizabeth is the CEO of a global management services company in Chennai and is on her way to Ranchi to deliver the convocation address at India's leading business school on the outskirts of Ranchi. Flying business class on Dolphin Airlines, she is entitled to use the lounge owned by the airline in Chennai Airport while waiting for her flight. She finds a diamond earring on the floor of the lounge and gives it to the staff of Dolphin Airlines expressly stating that in the event of nobody claiming the ear-ring within six months, she would claim it back. The airline sells the ear-ring after eight months and Elizabeth files a case to recover the value of the ear-ring from the airline when she is informed about its sale. Assume now that Elizabeth was only an economy class passenger and was not entitled to use the airline's lounge. However, she manages to gain entry and finds the ear-ring in the lounge. The rest of the above facts remain the same. Will her illegal entry into the Lounge affect Elizabeth's right to keep the ear-ring (or be compensated for its value)?
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?
Who presented the objective resolution in the Constituent Assembly?
Schedule Ninth of the Indian Constitution deals with
Those who born in India on or after which of the following date are considered citizens of India only if both of their parents are citizens of India or one of whose parents is a citizen of India?
Which one of the following Article grants protection to both religious minorities as well as linguistic minorities?
Money bill can be introduced in the Parliament only with the prior recommendation of whom?
The Union Legislature cannot legislate on a subject in the State List unless
Answer the question which follows from the application of the under mentioned legal principle.
Principle: The law permits citizens to use force only for protection when necessary against imminent attack.
Facts: P with the intention of committing theft entered the house of Q. Q, on seeing him entering, struck him with a lathi and P fell down unconscious. Thereafter, Q gave him another blow of lathi on his head which caused his death. On being prosecuted for murder, Q took the plea of private defense. Which of the following argument is valid?
The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Bill, 2019 seeks to amend _____ to include _____
