Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
The law which provides special powers to the Armed Forces in India is popularly known as:
Options
AFSPA
POTA
TADA
SARFAESI
Advertisements
Solution
AFSPA
Explanation:
The law which provides special powers to the armed forces in India is popularly known as option 'AFSPA'
(1) Armed Forces (Special Powers) Acts (AFSPA), are Acts of the Parliament of India that grant special powers to the Indian Armed Forces in what each act terms "disturbed areas".
(2) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, commonly known as TADA, An Act to make special provisions for the prevention of, and for coping with, terrorist and disruptive activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
(3) The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) was an Act passed by the Parliament of India in 2002, with the objective of strengthening anti-terrorism operations.
(4) The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002(also known as the SARFAESI Act) is an Indian law. It allows banks and other financial institutions to auction residential or commercial properties to recover loans.
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 the 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 the 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.
What kind of institution the judiciary is referred to in the passage?
Which Act is associated with "Courts can interpret the rules and regulations."?
When did the Constituent Assembly adopt a National Flag?
Which of the following Article provides the Right of Citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan?
Who among the following is appointed by the President?
Who among the following decides the salaries and allowances of Member of Parliament?
The State List, Union List, and Concurrent List are contained in the
Under which of the following Article the Governor can reserve a Bill for the President's Constitution?
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:
Principle: Whenever there is an invasion of a legal right, the person in whom the right is vested, is entitled to bring an action though he has suffered no actual loss or harm and may recover damages (compensation).
Facts: 'A’ was a qualified voter for the Lok Sabha election. However, a returning officer wrongfully refused to take A's vote. Inspite of such wrongful refusal, the candidate, for whom 'A' wanted to vote, won the election. But, 'A' brought an action for damages. Which of the following derivations is correct?
