Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Consider the following statements and choose the best option:
1. The Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) is the Chief justice of India.
2. Chief justice Mr. justice H L Dattu is the present Chairman of NALSA
3. The Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) is the senior-most Judge (after CJI) of the Supreme Court of I nd1a
4. Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. s. Thakur is the present Chairman of NALSA.
Options
1 and 2 are correct
2 and 3 are correct
3 and 4 are correct
None is correct
Advertisements
Solution
3 and 4 are correct
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
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 legislation prohibiting strikes by trade unions of employees engaged in pharmaceutical industry, 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 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?
Choose the best option for the following statement:
No one can be compelled to sing the National Anthem since:
1. It will be violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression.
2. It will be violative of the right to freedom of conscience and practice & propagation of religion.
3. There is no legal provision obliging anyone to sing the National Anthem.
Mark the best option:
Principle: The Constitution of India guarantees the Right to Equality to all persons and embodies the principle of non-discrimination. It provides protection to persons from arbitrary state action. State and private individuals are not however placed on the same footing under some circumstances.
Facts: The Madhya Pradesh government was in possession of 250 acres of land which had been let out to four different businessmen. The rate of rent applied on these businessmen for the land was raised by the government to a rate higher than that applicable on other individual property owners under the state under the Rent Control Act. The Government was exempted from the application of the Act.
Assuming that the government was in fact covered under the Act, as a judge your decision would be:
Mark the best option:
Principles:
- Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees to all citizens the right to 'freedom of speech and expression'.
- This freedom includes the right to express one's views and opinions on any issue through any medium, e.g., by word of mouth, writing, printing picture, Rim, movie, etc.
- Reasonable restrictions may be imposed by the State on this freedom, 'in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency, morality, sovereignty and integrity of India, or 'in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense'
- While the Apex court has justified pre-censorship of a film because it caters to a mass audience, it has held that if the film is unobjectionable and cannot constitutionally be restricted under Article 19(2), freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration or threats of violence.
- There is a difference between 'public order' and 'public tranquility', in that such acts as disturbing only the serenity of others may not fall within the term 'public order'.
Facts: Schoen Frederick Muller is an eminent businessman of German origin. He is known to have a fascination for showbusiness. He has recently produced a film on how a group of four detectives from different parts of the world unearths a conspiracy to assassinate a leader at the United Nations, and one of them turns out to be an accomplice in the plan. The film was awarded as the 'Best Motion Picture (Fiction)' in the Berlin Film Festival. The film is taken for exhibition in India by Spread the Word, an agency headed by Ritesh Zakaria, an Indian citizen.
Which of the following can approach an Indian court against an order imposing a ban on the film for containing objectionable material under Article 19 of the Constitution?
The Concept of Welfare State is included in which part of the Indian Constitution?
Which of the following Articles deal with the Union executive in the Constitution?
How many members from Anglo-Indian Communities have been nominated by President in the Lok Sabha?
The following questions consists of two statements, one labeled as ‘Assertion’ (A) and other as ‘Reason’ (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and select the correct answers.
Assertion (A): The Indian Constitution was adopted on 26th November 1949.
Reason (R): Law Day is celebrated in India on 26th November every year.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Factual Situation: In order to ensure that people live in an amicable atmosphere the Government of India decided to abolish courts and constituted Dispute Settlement Boards. Further to achieve this objective, the law stipulated that lawyers should not be allowed to espouse the claims of parties, and instead their claims be espoused by social workers.
Legal Principles:
I. Any law made by the Parliament that infringes the fundamental rights of the citizens is invalid and unenforceable.
II. Freedom to carry on trade or profession of one’s own choice is a fundamental right.
III. The Parliament is competent to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of this right.
IV. If the restrictions, on fundamental rights imposed by the Parliament, totally removes or nullifies any fundamental right then it will be construed as an unreasonable restriction. Decision:
