Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Who administers oath of office to the Governor of a State?
पर्याय
President of India
Chief justice of High Court of the respective state
Chief Justice of India
Speaker of State Assembly
Advertisements
उत्तर
Chief justice of High Court of the respective state
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.
Rules
A. The fundamental right to freedom of association includes the right to form an association as well as not join an association. B. The fundamental right to freedom of association also includes the freedom to decide with whom to associate. C. The fundamental right to freedom of association does not extend to the right to realise the objectives of forming the association. D. Fundamental rights are applicable only to laws made by or administrative actions of the State and do not apply to actions of private persons. E. Any law in contravention of fundamental rights is unconstitutional and therefore cannot bind any person.
Facts
Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals, a private company, offered an employment contract of two years to Syed Monitul Alam. One of the clauses in the employment contract provided that Syed Monirul Alam must join Gajodhar Mazdoor Sangh (GMS), one of the trade unions active in Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals. If Parliament enacts a law which requires every employee to join the largest trade union in their workplace mandating Syed Monirul Alam to join GMS, then:
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.
As per the passage if right-minded persons entertain a feeling that there is any likelihood of bias on the part of the Judge, he must recuse. Does the passage also mentions about the recourse to be taken if there is mere possibility of such a feeling is
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: In India, every state has a High Court in its territory.
Reason: The Constitution of India provides for a High Court in each state.
Mark the best option:
The maximum duration of zero hours in Lok sabha can be _________?
The cardinal features of the political system in India are
- It is a democratic republic.
- It has a parliamentary form of government.
- The Supreme power vests in the people of India.
Select the correct answer using the codes given below.
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): If a person of Indian origin ordinarily resides in India for 7 years before making an application for registration.
Reason (R): The Government of India may on an application register him/her as a citizen of India.
The Legislative Assembly of each state shall consists of ____________.
The Delhi High court has asked Facebook to ban children below _________ years of age from creating an account.
Who among the following undertakes the special Audit at the request of the government?
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: Whosoever commits any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code with a view to obtaining the consent of any person to enter into an agreement, he cannot get the agreement enforced by law but the person, whose consent has been so obtained may get the agreement enforced by law. The Indian Panel Code defines various offenses and prescribes punishments therefor.
Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by an act amounting to criminal intimidation under the Indian Panel Code. A brings a case against B for a performance of agreement.
