fbpx

Polity Test- 04

 

make learning fun!!….

TEST NOW

Results

-

873 total views, 7 views today

Please follow and like us:

874 total views, 8 views today

Please follow and like us:
next

#1 Consider the following statements: 1. No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. 2. Prevention from retrospective penalties is there only in case of criminal offence and not in civil cases. 3. No self incrimination extends only to criminal proceeding and not to civil proceedings. Which of the above statements are correct??Solution (d)

Article 20

Article 20 grants protection against arbitrary and excessive punishment to an accused person, whether citizen or foreigner or legal person like a company or a corporation. It contains three provisions in that direction:

(a) No ex-post-facto law: No person shall be (i) convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act, nor (ii) subjected to a penalty greater than that prescribed by the law in force at the time of the commission of the act.

(b) No double jeopardy : No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

(c) No self-incrimination: No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

An ex-post-facto law is one that imposes penalties retrospectively (retroactively), that is, upon acts already done or which increases the penalties for such acts. The enactment of such a law is prohibited by the first provision of Article 20. However, this limitation is imposed only on criminal laws and not on civil laws or tax laws. In other words, a civil liability or a tax can be imposed retrospectively.

Further, this provision prohibits only conviction or sentence under an ex-post-facto criminal law and not the trial thereof. Finally, the protection (immunity) under this provision cannot be claimed in case of preventive detention or demanding security from a person.

The protection against double jeopardy is available only in proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal. In other words, it is not available in proceedings before departmental or administrative authorities as they are not of judicial nature.

The protection against self-incrimination extends to both oral evidence and documentary evidence.

However, it does not extend to (i) compulsory production of material objects, (ii) compulsion to give thumb impression, specimen signature, blood specimens, and (iii) compulsory exhibition of the body. Further, it extends only to criminal proceedings and not to civil proceedings or proceedings which are not of criminal nature.

Please follow and like us:
next

#2 Which of the following Rights have been brought under the ambit of Article 21? 1. Right to Privacy 2. Right to free legal aid 3. Right to travel abroad 4. Right to information. Select the code from below:?Solution (d)

Article 21

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its judgement in the Menaka case in the subsequent cases. It has declared the following rights as part of Article 21:

(a) Right to live with human dignity.

(b) Right to decent environment including pollution free water and air and protection against hazardous industries.

(c) Right to livelihood.

(d) Right to privacy.

(e) Right to shelter.
(f) Right to health.

(g) Right to free education up to 14 years of age.

(h) Right to free legal aid.
(i) Right against solitary confinement.
(j) Right to speedy trial.

(k) Right against handcuffing.
(l) Right against inhuman treatment.
(m) Right against delayed execution.
(n) Right to travel abroad.
(o) Right against bonded labour.
(p) Right against custodial harassment.
(q) Right to emergency medical aid.
(r) Right to timely medical treatment in government hospital.

(s) Right not to be driven out of a state.
(t) Right to fair trial.
(u) Right of prisoner to have necessities of life.
(v) Right of women to be treated with decency and dignity.

(w) Right against public hanging.
(x) Right to hearing.
(y) Right to information.
(z) Right to reputation.

Please follow and like us:
next

#3 Which of the following statements are correct regarding Preventive Detention? 1. The detention cannot exceed 3 months unless an advisory board reports sufficient cause of detention. 2. Grounds of detention need not be communicated to the detenu. 3. Detenu is allowed to an opportunity to make a representation against the detention order. Select the code from following:?Solution (c)

The Article 22 has two parts—the first part deals with the cases of ordinary law and the second part deals with the cases of preventive detention law.

The second part of Article 22 grants protection to persons who are arrested or detained under a preventive detention law. This protection is available to both citizens as well as aliens and includes the following:

(i) The detention of a person cannot exceed three months unless an advisory board reports sufficient cause for extended detention. The board is to consist of judges of a high court.

(ii) The grounds of detention should be communicated to the detenu. However, the facts considered to be against the public interest need not be disclosed.

(iii) The detenu should be afforded an opportunity to make a representation against the detention order.

Article 22 also authorises the Parliament to prescribe

(a) The circumstances and the classes of cases in which a person can be detained for more than three months under a preventive detention law without obtaining the opinion of an advisory board;

(b) The maximum period for which a person can be detained in any classes of cases under a preventive detention law; and

(c) The procedure to be followed by an advisory board in an inquiry.

The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 has reduced the period of detention without obtaining the opinion of an advisory board from three to two months. However, this provision has not yet been brought into force, hence, the original period of three months still continues.

Please follow and like us:
next

#4 In which of the following educational institutes religious instruction is completely prohibited? 1. Institutions wholly maintained by state 2. Institutions administered by state but established by trust 3. Institutions recognized by state 4. Institutions receiving aid from. State Select the code from below:?Solution (a)

Article 28 distinguishes between four types of educational institutions:
(a) Institutions wholly maintained by the State.
(b) Institutions administered by the State but established under any endowment or trust.

(c) Institutions recognized by the State.
(d) Institutions receiving aid from the State.

In (a) religious instruction is completely prohibited while in (b), religious instruction is permitted. In (c) and (d), religious instruction is permitted on a voluntary basis.

Please follow and like us:
next

#5 Which of the following statements correctly differentiates between Writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Court? 1. SC can issue writs only for enforcement of FRs while HC can issue writs for other purposes also. 2. SC can issue writs throughout the country while HC can issue writs only in its state. 3. SC can’t refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction while HC can refuse. Select the code from below:?Solution (d)

The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court differs from that of a high court in three respects:

1. The Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights whereas a high court can issue writs not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for any other purpose. The expression ‘for any other purpose’ refers to the enforcement of an ordinary legal right. Thus, the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in this respect, is narrower than that of high court.

2. The Supreme Court can issue writs against a person or government throughout the territory of India whereas a high court can issue writs against a person residing or against a government or authority located within its territorial jurisdiction only or outside its territorial jurisdiction only if the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction.15 Thus, the territorial jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for the purpose of issuing writs is wider than that of a high court.

3. A remedy under Article 32 is in itself a Fundamental Right and hence, the Supreme Court may not refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. On the other hand, a remedy under Article 226 is discretionary and hence, a high court may refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Article 32 does not merely confer power on the Supreme Court as Article 226 does on a high court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights or other rights as part of its general jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is thus constituted as a defender and guarantor of the fundamental rights.

Please follow and like us:
finish

872 total views, 6 views today

Please follow and like us:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!