Which One of the Following Directive Principles is a Socialistic Principle? - Legal Reasoning

Advertisements
Advertisements
MCQ

Which one of the following Directive Principles is a socialistic principle? 

Options

  • Equal pay for equal work to all 

  • Protection of the health of workers 

  • Prevention of concentration of wealth and the means of production 

  • All of these 

Advertisements

Solution

All of these 

Concept: Indian Constitution (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?

RELATED QUESTIONS

In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess. 

Rules 
A. The fundamental right to freedom of association includes the right to form an association as well as not join an association.
B. The fundamental right to freedom of association also includes the freedom to decide with whom to associate. C. The fundamental right to freedom of association does not extend to the right to realise the objectives of forming the association.
D. Fundamental rights are applicable only to laws made by or administrative actions of the State and do not apply to actions of private persons.
E. Any law in contravention of fundamental rights is unconstitutional and therefore cannot bind any person.

Facts: 
Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals, a private company, offered an employment contract of two years to Syed Monitul Alam. One of the clauses in the employment contract provided that Syed Monirul Alam must join Gajodhar Mazdoor Sangh (GMS), one of the trade unions active in Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals. Decide which of the following propositions can be most reasonably inferred through the application of the stated legal rules to the facts of this case:


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


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?


Principle: No court can execute the decisions unless it is having territorial jurisdiction over the property or the person against whom a decision is to be executed. The Court which gave the decision can transfer the matter to the court which has the territorial jurisdiction over the person or property.

Facts: A decision is given by the court at New Delhi on a contractual matter against X in a suit between X and Y. X is a resident of Maharashtra and he has properties in Maharashtra and Gujarat. 


Principle: Anyone who induces or attempts to induce a voter to vote in a particular manner on the ground that the voter will face divine displeasure, shall be guilty of the offence of interfering with the free exercise of the right to vote.

Facts: During the election campaign period one candidate X told the voters that if they do not vote for her, voters will be cursed because the election candidate is God‘s own child and those who do not vote for her, will not be liked by God.


Which one of the following is not among the sources of revenue for the Union? 


The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and other as Reason (R).
You are to examine the two statements carefully and select the best option.

Assertion: The reservation of thirty-three percent of seats for women in Parliament and State Legislature does not require Constitutional Amendment.

Reason: Political parties contesting elections can allocate thirty-three percent of seats they contest to women candidates without any Constitutional Amendment.


Mark the best option:
What was the 93rd amendment to the Constitution?


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.


Directions: The question below consists of two statements, one labeled as ‘Assertion’ (A) and another as ‘Reason’ (R). Examine these two statements carefully and select the answers to these items from the codes given below.

Assertion (A): It is the legal and constitutional duty of the State to provide legal aid to the poor.

Reason (R): No one should be denied justice by reason of his poverty.


A Supreme court judge must have been a High Court judge for at least?


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): The Government of India Act, 1858 transferred the Governance of India from the East India Company to the Crown. 
Reason (R): The East India Company was unwilling to administer India any more.


How many contents are there in Panchayati Raj System?


In 1950, the Constitution of India contains how many classifications of States of Indian Union?


Among the following states, which one was formed as a state of Indian Union at last?


The Indian citizenship cannot be terminated


The Directive Principles of State Policy is a cheque which is paid on the bank's convenience who told the statement?


The State List, Union List, and Concurrent List are contained in the


Which of the following matters should be only decided by the state assembly of Nagaland?


In which of the following cases can a Constitutional amendment be passed just by a simple majority in Parliament?


Share
Notifications



      Forgot password?
Use app×