Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Legal Principle: Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India states that no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Fact Situation: Ubaid refuses to give a sample of his blood after he is stopped by the police for driving over the speed limit. The police suspect him to be driving under the influence of alcohol, which is prohibited under the law.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Options
Ubaid is protected by Article 20(3) in his refusal to give a blood sample.
Ubaid is not protected by Article 20(3) as he was under the influence of alcohol.
Ubaid is not protected by Article 20(3) in his refusal to give a blood sample since he is not accused of any offence yet.
Refusal to give a blood sample is a crime and Ubaid must be punished for the same.
Advertisements
Solution
Ubaid is not protected by Article 20(3) in his refusal to give a blood sample since he is not accused of any offense yet.
Explanation:
Central Government Act Article 20(3) in The Constitution of India 1949 states that no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The above stated legal statement consists of the following three components:
1. It is a right pertaining to a person accused of an offense
2. It is a protection against compulsion to be a witness; and
3. It is a protection against such compulsion resulting in his giving evidence against himself. However, in the case presented before us first point itself is not fulfilled as Ubaid till now is just a suspect and not an accused. So this right under section20(3) cannot be exercised by him. Hence "Ubaid is not protected by Article 20(3) in his refusal to give a blood sample since he is not accused of any offense yet" is most appropriate.
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 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.
Suppose a situation arises where a recusal by a Judge is used as a means to allow a party to choose its own bench, will it be axiomatic from the passage that such recusal is proper, morally or/and constitutionally?
Mark the best option:
Sovereignty under the constitution belongs to
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?
In which Constitutional Amendment Act seats of Lok Sabha were increased from 525 to 545?
Which of the following was the biggest source for the Constitution of 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 the Constitution is flexible, it may be playing at the whims and caprices of the ruling party.
Reason (R): The framers of the Indian Constitution were keen to avoid excessive rigidity.
The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as 'Assertion' and the other as 'Reason'. Read both the statements carefully and answer using the codes given below.
Assertion (A): The basic features of the Constitution cannot be amended by exercising the power of Amendment under Article 368.
Reason (R): Though Fundamental Rights, as such are not immune from Amendment en-bloc, particular rights or parts thereof may be held as basic features.
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.
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): Power for conducting elections to the Parliament and State Legislature in a free and fair manner have been given to an independent body called Election Commissioner.
Reason (R): Power of removal of Election Commissioners is with Executive.
Gangaram is a wood-cutter. He earns his livelihood by cutting forest trees in Nainital, Uttranchal. The State of Uttaranchal makes a law prohibiting the cutting of forest trees. Is Gangaram's Constitutional Right infringed?
