India and Britain Recently Signed an "Extradition Treaty" Extradition Means- - Legal Reasoning

Advertisements
Advertisements
MCQ

India and Britain recently Signed an "extradition treaty" Extradition means-

Options

  • Exports without double taxation

  • Order of lndian courts will apply to Indians living in the U.K

  • India and the U.K will deport criminals on reciprocal basis to each other.

  • None o f the above

Advertisements

Solution

India and the U.K will deport criminals on reciprocal basis to each other.

Concept: Indian Constitution (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
2014-2015 (May) Set 1

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 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 a 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.

Which of the following is the main point of the author in the given passage? 


Direction: The passage given below is followed by a set of question. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

For proper functioning of democracy it is essential that citizens are kept informed about news from various parts of the country and even abroad, because only then can they form rational opinions. A citizen surely cannot be expected personally to gather news to enable him or her to form such opinions. Hence, the media play an important role in a democracy and serve as an agency of the people to gather news for them. It is for this reason that freedom of the press has been emphasized in all democratic countries, while it was not permitted in feudal or totalitarian regimes.

In India, the media have played a historical role in providing information to people about social and economic evils. Also, sometimes the media present twisted or distorted news that may contain an element of truth but also an element of untruth.

Recently, Media comments on pending cases, especially on criminal cases where the life or liberty of a citizen is involved, are a delicate issue and should be carefully considered. After all, judges are human beings too, and sometimes it may be difficult for them not to be influenced by such news. This, too, should be avoided because a half-truth can be more dangerous than a total lie. The media should avoid giving any slant to news, and avoid sensationalism and yellow journalism. Only then will they gain the respect of the people and fulfill their true role in a democracy.

The British law is that when a case is sub judice, no comment can be made on it, whereas U.S. law permits such comment. In India we may have to take an intermediate view on this issue: while on the one hand we have a written Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) - which the unwritten British Constitution does not - the life and liberty of a citizen is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 and should not lightly be jeopardized. Hence, a balanced view has to be taken on this.

Therefore, the media have a great responsibility also to see that the news they present is accurate and serve the interest of the people. If the media convey false news that may harm the reputation of a person or a section of society, it may do great damage since reputation is a valuable asset for a person. Even if the media subsequently correct a statement, the damage done may be irreparable. Hence, the media should take care to carefully investigate any news item before reporting it.

Suppose a Supreme Court Judge, Justice Mike, sues Future Now for mistakenly displaying his photograph in a report about a person (with a phonetically similar sounding name) allegedly involved in the multi-crore Provident Fund scam.


By which amendment, were the Fundamental Duties of Indian citizens added to the Constitution? 


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 reservation of thirty-three percent of seats for women in Parliament and State Legislature does not require Constitutional Amendment.

Reason: Political parties contesting elections can allocate thirty-three percent of seats they contest to women candidates without any Constitutional Amendment.


Vote on accounts is meant for.


Choose the most appropriate option:

Which one of the following is not a Directive Principle of State Policy under Part IV of the Constitution of India?


Mark the best option:
The maximum duration of zero hours in Lok sabha can be _________?


Mark the best option:
Who is the ex-officio chairman of Planning Commission?


Mark the best option:
India adopted a federal system with a strong centre from


Direction: Read the following carefully and answer the question given below

Although women now constitute 30 percent of the global industrial force, legal hurdles and traditional barriers still hinder the vast majority of women in their efforts to achieve parity with men.

The paragraph best supports the statement


Which was the law introduced by Sir William Bentinck to prohibit the practice of Sati?


Under which Government of India Act, Federation, and Provincial Autonomy were introduced in India? 


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.


Which of the following Article Jays down to secure and protect a social order which stands for the welfare of the people?


The executive power relating to concurrent subjects remain with


Who was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India?


The 39th Constitutional Amendment laid that election of any person to Lok Sabha holding the office of Prime Minister cannot be challenged before a Court of Law, but only before an authority established by Parliament. This was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in


Which of the following Article of the constitution dealt with the reservation of Seats to SCs and STs?


Assertion (A): During inflation, there is increase in money supply and rise in price level.

Reason (R): The rise in prices is due to shortage in supply of essential consumer goods.


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: Damages are the money recompense, as far as money can do, for the violation of a right.

Facts: A, an Indian citizen, have a right to vote, was not allowed to cast his vote on the polling booth, by the returning officer. Name of A was mentioned in the voter's list. A has also reported at the polling booth in time. However, the candidate in whose favour A would have cast his vote won the election. A filed a suit claiming damages.


Share
Notifications



      Forgot password?
Use app×