Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Who administers oath of office to the Governor of a State?
Options
President of India
Chief justice of High Court of the respective state
Chief Justice of India
Speaker of State Assembly
Advertisements
Solution
Chief justice of High Court of the respective state
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?
In India, a tax on agricultural income can be levied by
Mark the best option:
From which country’s Constitution the Rule of Law have been borrowed?
Mark the best option:
Principles:
- The Constitution of India has divided the power to make laws between the Central and State Legislatures by mentioning the subjects for legislation under the Union (under Central Government), State (under State Government) and Concurrent List(under both Central and State Governments) under the Seventh Schedule.
- When the Central or State Legislatures exceed the subjects in their respective lists, the law so made is considered ultra vires the Constitution and has no effect.
- A subsequent retrospective amendment of the Constitution widening the scope of legislation of the said legislature cannot validate such ultra vires legislation.
- A fresh law enacted by the said Legislature post such an amendment of the Constitution is considered valid.
- A Legislature in exercise of its valid legislative power may extend to its territory a law made by another Legislature.
Facts: In light of the growing economic development in the state of Gujarat, the state legislature passed a law on 26th December 2012 setting up Gujarat State Railways Corporation to ply goods trains between commercial areas within Gujarat. The law faced criticism since railways formed an entry under the Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Gujarat legislature stood by the legislation owing to the 118th Constitutional Amendment of 28th December 2012 shifting only commercial railways to the Concurrent List.
Post the Constitutional Amendment, laws in relation to passenger railways can be made by:
How many Articles consists presently in the Indian Constitution?
Which of the following Article requires ratification by the legislatures of one-half of the states?
Which of the following Article lays down the appointed of Prime Minister by the President?
Which of the following statement is incorrect about Money Bill?
The executive power relating to concurrent subjects remain with
Who among the following undertakes the special Audit at the request of the government?
