Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: The Constitution of India guarantees certain fundamental rights to its citizens. The Constitution also provides that these rights cannot be taken away by state even by law. For violation of this, the person adversely affected by the law may approach the High Court or the Supreme Court for the issuance of an appropriate writ. One of these rights includes the freedom to form association that implies the right to join an association or not to joins such an association.
Facts: Owing to some industrial disturbances created by XATU, one of the several trade unions in AB Chemicals (Pvt) Ltd., the Company issued a circular to all its employees that as far as possible the employees may disassociate with XATU. Navin is an employee of AB Chemicals and the current General Secretary of XATU. Aggrieved by this circular, which affected the fundamental rights of his and other members of the Union, approaches the High Court of the state for relief. Identify the most reasonable legal proposition.
Options
Circular issued by a Company amounts to law in the constitutional sense and hence the High Court can issue a writ as pleaded for by Navin.
The circular interferes with the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and hence the High Court can issue an appropriate writ.
The prohibition against any imposition of restriction against a fundamental right is not applicable to anybody other than the state and hence Navin will not get any relief from the High Court.
The Company’s circular is illegal and has to be quashed by the Court.
Advertisements
Solution
The prohibition against any imposition of restriction against a fundamental right is not applicable to anybody other than the state and hence Navin will not get any relief from the High Court.
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:
Who was the first woman Chief Justice of the High Court in India?
Which one of the following changes has not been made to the Citizenship Act of India by the Amendment in 2015?
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): A person born outside India on or after 26th January 1950, but before 10th December 1992 is a citizen of India by descent.
Reason (R): If his/her father was a citizen of India at the time of his/her birth.
Rights relating to freedom of religion are contained in
Which of the following Article Jays down to secure and protect a social order which stands for the welfare of the people?
The Delhi High court has asked Facebook to ban children below _________ years of age from creating an account.
Which of the following Articles contain provisions regarding panchayats?
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.
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:
