Flash Card

LAKSHYA-75 [Day-33] Static Flash Cards for IAS Prelims 2020

Core of the Earth; International Date Line; Armenia; Batholiths; Laccoliths; Lapolith; Phacolith; Oceanic Crust and Continental Crust; Gravitational force; ‘Terrestrial Planet’; Rotation and Revolution of the earth; Shape of earth; Geysers;
By IASToppers
April 10, 2020

Dissent as a right has been recognized by Indian government as one aspect of the right of the freedom of speech as a Fundamental Right by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. True OR False.

Click to View the Answer
Click to View the Question

 

Solution:

  • True

Enrich Your Learning:

Right to dissent:

  • In a democratic society, the need to accept difference of opinion is an essential ingredient of plurality. In that sense, the right of dissent also becomes the duty of dissent since tactics to suppress dissent tend to diminish the democratic essence.
  • Dissent as a right has been recognized by the Supreme Court of India as one aspect of the right of the freedom of speech guaranteed as a Fundamental Right by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.
  • Viewing dissent as a utilitarian adjunct to democracy does not do justice to the integral role of dissent in deepening democracy. Dissent should be seen as a defining, constitutive part of democracy, not just a safety valve.
  • Suppose there is no dissent and the view of the head of the government is the view of everyone else in the country. That would be a situation in which progress depends solely on the vision and commitment of the person who occupies the most powerful office of the country.

Sedition Law:

  • Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, also popularly known as The Sedition Law, was introduced in the year 1870 by the Britishers.
  • Section 124-A in the Indian Penal Code explains that whoever attempts to bring hatred or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government will be punished.
  • The law has been notorious for being used against the growing voices of freedom fighters. Mahatma Gandhi was charged under the same law in the year 1922.
  • After independence, the law was retained in the IPC, although further explanations have been added to it. The three explanations aim at clearing out the way for Freedom of speech and expression. However, the terms used are largely loose ended and uncertain in their precise limits.
  • The law therefore, has been on the receiving end of reproval by many activists who see it as a Draconian law aimed at hampering peaceful dissent and speech.

Puducherry comes under the jurisdiction of which High Court?

Click to View the Answer
Click to View the Question

 

Answer:

  • Puducherry comes under the jurisdiction of Madras High Court (1862) – seated at Chennai.

Enrich Your Learning:

  • Andaman and Nicobar comes under the jurisdiction of Calcutta high court.
  • Before 2013, the six north-eastern states – Tripura, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh – have benches of the Guwahati High Court. Sikkim has a separate high court since 1975. In 2013, three north-eastern Indian states of Tripura, Manipur and Meghalaya got their own high courts.

High Courts having jurisdiction over more than one state and / or Union Territories:

  • Hyderabad High Court (1954) – Andhra Pradesh and Telangana seated in
  • Bombay High Court (1862) – Maharashtra, Goa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu seated in Mumbai (Benches at Nagpur, Panaji and Aurangabad).
  • Calcutta High Court (1862) – West Bengal and Andaman and Nicobar Islands seated at Kolkata (Circuit Bench at Port Blair).
  • Guwahati High Court (1948) – Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh seated at Guwahati (Benches at Kohima, Aizawl and Itanagar).
  • Kerala High Court (1958) – Kerala and Lakshadweep seated at Ernakulam.
  • Madras High Court (1862) – Tamil Nadu and Puducherry seated at Chennai.
  • Punjab and Haryana High Court (1875) – Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh seated at Chandigarh.

Which matters fall under the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

Click to View the Answer
Click to View the Question

 

Answer & Enrich Your Learning:

Appellate Jurisdiction:

  • The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal from all courts in the territory of India.
  • It has comprehensive appellant jurisdiction in cases involving constitutional issues; civil and criminal cases involving specified threshold values of property or a death sentence; and wide ranging powers of special appeals.
  • Article 132 of the Constitution provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court from any judgement or final order of a court in civil, criminal or other proceedings of a High Court, if it involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.
  • The appeal again depends upon whether the High Court certifies, and if does not, the Supreme Court may grant special leave to appeal.
  • Article 133 of the Constitution provides that an appeal in civil cases lies to the Supreme Court from any judgement, order or civil proceedings of a High Court.
  • This appeal may be made if the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance or if in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
  • Article 134 provides the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters from any judgement, final order, or sentence of a High Court.

This jurisdiction can be invoked only in three different categories of cases:

  • If the High Court on appeal reverses an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced to death.
  • If the High Court has withdrawn for trail before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such a trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death, and
  • If the High Court certifies that the case is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court. Finally, the Supreme Court has the special appellate jurisdiction. It has the power to grant, in its discretion, special leave appeal from any judgment, decree sentence or order in any case or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal.

The Chief Justice of High Court can be removed by President only after an impeachment process by Lok Sabha. Right OR Wrong?

Click to View the Answer
Click to View the Question

 

Answer:

  •  

Right Statement:

  • A Chief Justice or Judge of the Supreme Court or of any High Court can be removed from his/her office by the President only after an impeachment process by both the Houses of Parliament.

Enrich Your Learning:

President and High Court Judges:

  • President has power to appoint judges of High Courts.
  • President has the power to remove judges of High Courts.
  • President can reduce the salaries of judges of High Courts during finance emergency.
  • A Chief Justice or Judge of the Supreme Court or of any High Court can be removed from his/her office by the President only after an impeachment process by both the Houses of Parliament.
  • In every High Court, there is a Chief Justice and many other judges whose number is defined by the President of India as there is no specification in Constitution.
  • The Chief Justice of a High Court is appointed by the President with the consultation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Governor of the State.
  • The other judges are appointed by the will of President, Governor and the Chief Justice of High Court.
  • A judge may leave his office by resigning. He will send his letter of resignation to the President.
  • A judge of High Court may be removed by the President if the Parliament passes a motion against him by an absolute majority and 2/3rd majority of the members present and voting, both the Houses sitting separately.

Death sentence awarded by a lower court has to be confirmed by the High Court. Right OR Wrong?

Click to View the Answer
Click to View the Question

 

Answer:

  •  

Enrich Your Learning:

About Jurisdiction of High Court:

  • The jurisdiction of the High Court extends up to the territorial limits of the concerned State/States or Union Territories.
  • The High Court has original and appellate jurisdictions.
  • Under the original jurisdiction certain types of cases may be brought directly before a High Court.
  • The High Court exercises original jurisdiction for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and other legal rights. In this respect High Court has the power to issue writs.
  • These writs go a long way in protecting the rights of the individual against encroachment by the legislature, the executive or any other authority.
  • The High Court may also hear election petitions under its original jurisdiction challenging election of a member of State Legislature.
  • Under appellate jurisdiction, High Courts hear appeals against the judgments of the subordinate courts at the district level.
  • In civil cases, an appeal may be filed before the High Court against the judgment of a District Judge. In criminal matters, appeal may be made before a High Court against the judgment of a Sessions Court, where the sentence of imprisonment exceeds seven years.
  • Death sentence awarded by a lower court has to be confirmed by the High Court.
  • The High Court exercises powers of control and superintendence over all subordinate courts falling within its jurisdiction.
  • The High Court is a Court of Record. Hence, all the subordinate courts follow the judgments of the High Court. High Courts may also punish for contempt or disrespect of the Court.

The writ of Mandamus can be issued against which person/body?

Click to View the Answer
Click to View the Question

 

Answer:

  • The writ of Mandamus can be issued against any public body, a corporation, an inferior court, a tribunal or government for the same purpose.

Enrich Your Learning:

The writ of mandamus cannot be issued

  • Against a private individual or body
  • To enforce departmental instruction that does not possess statutory force
  • When the duty is discretionary and not mandatory
  • To enforce a contractual obligation
  • Against the President of India or the Governors
  • Against the Chief Justice of a high court acting in judicial capacity

Appointments to the District Courts are made by the Supreme Court at recommendation of whom?

Click to View the Answer
Click to View the Question

 

Answer:

  • Appointments to the District Courts are made by the Governor in consultation with the High Court.

Enrich Your Learning:

Appointment of District Judges:

  • Appointments to the District Courts are made by the Governor in consultation with the High Court.
  • A person to be eligible for appointment should be either an advocate or a pleader of seven years standing, or an officer in the service of the Union or the State.
  • Appointment of persons other than the District Judges to the judicial service of a State is made by the Governor in accordance with the rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the High Court and the State Public Service Commission.
  • The High Court exercises control over the District Courts and the courts subordinate to them, in matters as posting, promotions and granting of leave to all persons belonging to the State judicial service.

Indian Judiciary does not dependent for salaries on either the executive or legislature. Right OR Wrong?

Click to View the Answer
Click to View the Question

 

Answer:

  •  

Enrich Your Learning:

About Independence of Court:

The judges have a fixed tenure. They hold office till reaching the age of retirement. Only in exceptional cases, judges may be removed. But otherwise, they have security of tenure. Security of tenure ensures that judges could function without fear or favour.

The Constitution prescribes a very difficult procedure for removal of judges. The Constitution makers believed that a difficult procedure of removal would provide security of office to the members of judiciary.

The judiciary is not financially dependent on either the executive or legislature. The Constitution provides that the salaries and allowances of the judges are not subjected to the approval of the legislature.

The actions and decisions of the judges are immune from personal criticisms.

The judiciary has the power to penalise those who are found guilty of contempt of court. This authority of the court is seen as an effective protection to the judges from unfair criticism.

Parliament cannot discuss the conduct of the judges except when the proceeding to remove a judge is being carried out. This gives the judiciary independence to adjudicate without fear of being criticised.

In India, Judicial Review is exclusively vested in the Supreme Court. Right OR Wrong?

Click to View the Answer
Click to View the Question

 

Answer:

  •  

Right Statement:

In India, Judicial Review is exercised by both High Courts and Supreme Court.

Enrich Your Learning:

The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land and the Supreme Court is its interpreter and guardian.

  • It does not allow the executive or the Parliament to violate any provision of the Constitution.
  • It can also review any action of the Government, which allegedly violates any provision of the Fundamental Rights.
  • Judicial review in India is based on the ‘procedure established by the law ‘in Article 21. Under this the courts can review a Parliamentary law only if it was not enacted following the right procedure. This power of the Supreme Court is called Judicial Review
  • It is a process through which judiciary examines whether a law enacted by a legislature or an action of the executive is in accordance with the Constitution or not.
  • The power of the judicial review was first acquired by the Supreme Court of the United States.
  • Now it is freely exercised by the Supreme Court of India and in many other countries. Our High Courts also exercise this power.
  • Judicial Review does not mean that every law passed by the legislature is taken up by the Supreme Court for review.

It only means that the Court will review the law as and when it gets an opportunity. This is possible in two ways.

  • First, the Court can review the law if its validity is challenged.
  • The Supreme Court or High Court may get an opportunity to review a law in another situation also. If a person or institution feels that his/her rights are violated, or a certain benefit due to him under a law is being denied, the Court while examining such a petition may come to the conclusion that the law, under which relief is sought, is itself unconstitutional. Therefore, relief may not be granted.

The Supreme Court’s decision regarding ‘Members of Parliament disqualification on conviction for certain offences’ was given in which judgement?

Click to View the Answer
Click to View the Question

 

Answer:

Lily Thomas Case

Enrich Your Learning:

Lily Thomas case (2013)

  • Lily Thomas and an NGO Lok Prahari challenged the Sec 8(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as ultra vires to the constitution.
  • The idea of the PIL was to stop the entry of the convicted individuals in the legislative houses.
  • The court held that once a member becomes disqualified then his seat automatically becomes vacantby the virtue of Article 102 and 191. Hence the Parliament cannot make provision to defer the date on which the disqualification will have effect and prevent the member’s seat from becoming vacant.
  • The Bench found it unconstitutional that convicted persons could be disqualified from contesting elections but could continue to be Members of Parliament and State Legislatures once elected.

Public Interest Foundation Case

  • In 2018, the SC delivered a judgement in Electoral Disqualification.
  • The five-judge Bench unanimously decided that a candidate cannot be disqualified from contesting elections against whom criminal charges have been framed.
  • The Bench asked Parliament to make a law that prevents candidates accused of serious crimes from entering politics.

Article 102(1) and 191(1)

  • These both articles lay down the disqualification for a MP and MLA respectively.At the same time is also empowers the Central government to add more disqualification on its wisdom.

Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951

  • Section 8 of the RP Act deals with disqualification on conviction for certain offences.
  • A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for varying terms under Sections 8 (1) (2) and (3) shall be disqualified from the date of convictionand shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. 
  • It provides that if a sitting member of the house who is convicted for an offence which is punishable for more than two years’ imprisonment and such a convicted person moves an appeal within three months of the conviction then he shall not be disqualifiedfrom holding the membership of the house.

Topics
Daily Current Flash Cards 2020 Prelims 2020
Tags

IT on Facebook

Facebook Pagelike Widget

Comments

My Favourite Articles

  • Your favorites will be here.

Calendar Archive

May 2020
M T W T F S S
« Apr    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031