Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Under the Constitution of India restriction on freedom of religion cannot be placed on the ground of
पर्याय
Morality
Social justice
Health
Public order
उत्तर
Social justice
Explanation:
Article 25 of the constitution of India states restrictions on freedom of religion be place on the ground on public order, morality, and health. There is no ground for social justice.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
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.
If a judge reflects a predisposition so strong that it seems he had already made up his mind as to the outcome of the case, will it be according to judicial norms to ask for recusal by the litigants?
Mark the best option:
Who is the ex-officio chairman of Planning Commission?
Mark the best option:
House of Lords is the second chamber of:
Which one of the following is a basic feature of the Presidential Government?
Which among the following iii the Constitution of India is called Magna Carta?
Which one of the following Articles of the Indian Constitution provides that, it shall be the duty to union to protect every state against external aggression and internal distribution?
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 Governor is the Chief Executive Head of the state.
Reason (R): All the executive actions of the Government of a State are formally taken in his name.
Which of the following Article deals with the qualification of a member of Parliament?
Who amongest the following was not a Chief Justice of India?
Answer the question which follows from application of the under mentioned legal principle.
Principle: Every person has a right of self-defense if his life is under imminent threat.
Facts: Mr. Prashanth threatens Mr. Krishna that he will kill Mr. Krishna. After saying so, Mr. Prashanth goes to his house saying that he would get his axe.
