Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: Decision of Court is Null and Void if it is given by court which does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Facts: A obtains a decision from a court that did not have jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter.
Options
A decision can be enforced because both the parties were present
A decision cannot be enforced because the decision is null and void
A decision can be enforced because it is given a court
A decision can be enforced
Advertisements
Solution
A decision cannot be enforced because the decision is null and void
Explanation:
A decision cannot be enforced because the decision is null and void. It is null and void because the decision was obtained by A from a court which did not have the jurisdiction over the subject matter. This fact clearly complies with the principle that the decision given by a court is null and void if it is given by court which does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
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:
The maximum duration for which the Vice-President may officiate as the President of India is
President can make proclamation of Emergency under :
Which of the following were constituted as a Union Territory by 12th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1962?
By which of the following amendment Article 43A has been added to the Directive Principle of State Policy?
Which of the following Union Territory have the representation in Rajya Sabha?
Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction is provided under ___________ of the Constitution.
Which part of the Constitution of India contains Article 370?
Affirmative action connotes:
I. Measures taken by the state to help the socially disadvantaged groups
II. Positive discrimination
III. Strict quotas for the socially and educationally backward class in school/college admissions and jobs. Which of the above mentioned is true?
In India, cyber terrorism is an offence punishable under
