Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Fill in the blanks: Choose the pair of words that complete the sentence to make logical sense.
A bench headed by _________ quashed allocation of 2014 ______ as _____.
Options
Justice H L Dattu, coal blocks, illegal and arbitrary
justice R. M. Lodha, coal blocks, illegal and arbitrary
Justice T. S. Thakur, licenses, illegal and arbitrary
None of the above.
Advertisements
Solution
justice R. M. Lodha, coal blocks, illegal and arbitrary
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
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?
For how long did the Constituent Assembly work on the Constitution of India?
If any new territory becomes a part of India the Government of India specifies the persons of the territory who shall be
If a person resources his/her citizenship his/her child attains Indian citizenship.
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): The fundamental duties are included into the Constitution by 42nd Constitution Amendment Act, 1976.
Reason (R): The inclusion of fundamental duties in the Constitution would help to strengthen democracy and making the people conscious of their duties equally as they are conscious of their rights.
Who among the following authorised to dissolve the Lok Sabha before 5 years of its time?
In the case of a conflict between the centre and a state in respect of a subject included in the Concurrent List
Answer the question which follows from the application of the under mentioned legal principle.
Principle:
(1) The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
(2) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth or any of them.
Facts: The Government of Rajasthan, passed an order providing for reservations for the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (including Muslims), and Women, in all institutions of higher education, including private educational institutions, both aided as well as unaided, in the following manner: Scheduled Caste- 15%; Scheduled Tribe- 7.5%, Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (including Muslims) - 27%.
I. The reservation policy of the government is violative of the principle of equality envisaged in the Constitution
II. The reservation policy is unconstitutional because it is based on ‘caste’ which is a prohibited marker
III. Reservation does not violate equality clause as it entails “like should be treated like and unlike should be treated differently.”
IV. Reservation does not violate equality clause as the Constitution itself enables the State to make special provision for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Which one of the following is not correct?
Which of the following rights is not available to the citizens of India under Article 21 of the Constitution?
