Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
President of India exercises his powers
Options
Either directly or through officers subordinate to him
Through ministers
Through Prime Minister
Through cabinet
Advertisements
Solution
Either directly or through officers subordinate to him
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.
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
Article 51-A on Fundamental Duties was inserted into the Constitution of India through the
Which was the law introduced by Sir William Bentinck to prohibit the practice of Sati?
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:
Delhi High court was established in?
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): ln federalism, there is a division of powers between the centre and the States.
Reason (R): The legislation is not invalid merely because it incidentally encroaches upon matters which have been assigned to another organ.
During the British period under which act direct election was introduced in India?
The 1946, Constituent Assembly became the Parliament of which of the following?
The purpose of the inclusion of DPSP in the Indian Constitution is to establish
Which of the following Article concerned with the oath and salary of members of Parliament?
