Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Who called Indian constitution as Quasi-Federal?
Options
Austin
K C. Wheare
H. M Servai
Jennings
Advertisements
Solution
K C. Wheare
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.
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 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?
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: Republic Day is celebrated on 26th January every year in the country.
Reason: The Constitution of lndia came into force on 26th January 1950.
Under the Constitution of India 'Right to Pollution Free Environment' has emerged as a fundamental right from the right to-
Mark the best option:
WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly ...... to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.
Given below is the statement of Legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A reasonable classification having nexus with the object sought to be achieved is not violative of Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'X' is a male teacher in a women's college, who applied for the post of principal of that college. His candidature was rejected on the basis of the governments po|icy of appointing only women as Principal of a women's co||ege. 'X' challenges the policy on the ground of discrimination. Whether the challenge is sustainable?
DECISION:
Which of the following is not a member of Cabinet Mission?
The Fundamental Rights to the Constitution are inspired from which of the following Constitution of the world?
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): An act of the legislature cannot be lightly declared as unconstitutional.
Reason (R): An act of the legislature represents the will of the people.
Which High Court has the highest number of benches in India?
