JUDICIARY4U™


Гео и язык канала: Индия, Хинди
Категория: Право


Any Query Help @judiciary4u_bot
UGC NET (Law) Channel @lawjrf
GK Channel @judiciary4ugk

Связанные каналы  |  Похожие каналы

Гео и язык канала
Индия, Хинди
Категория
Право
Статистика
Фильтр публикаций






Eid-ul-Fitr Mubarak Everyone


RJS Rajasthan Civil Judge Exam 2021

Cut off: Category Wise: (out of 96)
(Prelims)

👉General 72
👉General (Divorcee) 58
👉General (Widow) 45
👉SC 55
👉SC (Divorcee) 39
👉ST 53
👉OBC-NCL 67
👉OBC-NCL (Divorcee) 63
👉OBC-NCL (Widow) 46
👉MBC-NCL 46
👉EWS 69



Rajasthan Judiciary Exam Cut Off 2021 (Mains)

General 148
General (Widow/Divorcee) 125
SC 122
ST 120
OBC-NCL 140.5
OBC-NCL (Widow/Divorcee) 90
MBC-NCL 121
EWS 146.5

Rajasthan Ju
diciary Exam (Final) Cut Off 2021

General 179
.5

General (Widow) 164.5
General (Divorcee) 159
SC 149
ST 147.5
EWS 167.5
OBC-NCL 163.5
MBC-NCL 141




Notic_hcsj_09042025_393d9.pdf
5.6Мб
Notic_hcsj_09042025_393d9.pdf

Haryana Judiciary result




POWER OF SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 142

■ Unique power to the Supreme Court, to do “complete justice” between the parties, where, at times, the law or statute may not provide a remedy.

■ In those situations, the court can extend itself to put an end to a dispute in a manner that would fit the facts of the case.

■ Powers under Article 142 are extraordinary in nature.

■ In the Prem Chand Garg case, the majority opinion demarcated the contours for the exercise of the court’s powers under Article 142(1)

■ An order to do complete justice between the parties “must not only be consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but it cannot even be inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the relevant statutory laws,”

■ Art. 142(1) doesn't confers upon Supreme Court powers which can contravene the provisions of Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies).

■ The seven-judge bench in ‘Antulay’ upheld the 1962 ruling in ‘Prem Chand Garg.’

■ In the Bhopal gas tragedy case (‘Union Carbide Corporation vs Union of India’), the SC in 1991 ordered UCC to pay $470 million in compensation for the victims of the tragedy. In doing so, the Bench highlighted the wide scope of Article 142 (1), adding that it found it “necessary to set at rest certain misconceptions in the arguments touching the scope of the powers of this Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution”.

■ Deeming the power under Article 142 to be “at an entirely different level and of a different quality”, the court clarified that “prohibitions on limitations on provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot, ipso-facto, act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142”.

■ It would be “wholly incorrect” to say that powers under Article 142 are subject to express statutory prohibitions,  doing so would convey the idea that statutory provisions override a constitutional provision.

■ In 1998, the Supreme Court in ‘Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union of India’ held that the powers under Article 142 are supplementary in nature and could not be used to supplant or override a substantive law and “build a new edifice where none existed earlier”.

■ Powers conferred by Article 142 are curative and cannot be construed as powers “which authorise the court to ignore the substantive rights of a litigant while dealing with a cause pending before it”.

■ Article 142 cannot be used to build a new edifice, ignoring statutory provisions dealing with a subject, the provision cannot be used “to achieve something indirectly which cannot be achieved directly”.

■ In ‘A. Jideranath vs Jubilee Hills Co-op House Building Society’ (2006), the Supreme Court discussed the scope of the power, holding that in its exercise no injustice should be caused to a person not party to the case.

■ In 2006, the apex court ruling by a five-judge Bench in ‘State of Karnataka vs Umadevi’ clarified that “complete justice” under Article 142 means justice according to law and not sympathy, while holding that it will “not grant a relief which would amount to perpetuating an illegality encroaching into the legislative domain.”


CRITICISM

■ The sweeping nature of these powers make them arbitrary and ambiguous.

■ Court has wide discretion, and this allows the possibility of its arbitrary exercise or misuse due to the absence of a standard definition for the term “complete justice”.

■ Defining “complete justice” is a subjective exercise that differs in its interpretation from case to case. Thus, the court has to place checks on itself.

■ Unlike the legislature and the executive, the judiciary cannot be held accountable for its actions. The separation of powers doctrine says that the judiciary should not venture into areas of lawmaking and that it would invite the possibility of judicial overreach.

■ However, the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution was mindful of the wide-reaching nature of the powers and reserved it only for exceptional situations, which the existing law would have failed to anticipate.






This is the most authentic (and relevant) book that i found in both English and Hindi. This is basic law. Please read it to prepare “translation” (hindi to english and vice versa)










Press_Release_and_Model_Answer_Key_dated_28_03_2024.pdf
671.3Кб
Jharkhand PCS-J official Answer Key

Question Paper Click


लड़खडाया हूँ मै ,लेकिन गिरा नहीं हूँ !
टकराया हूँ मैं , लेकिन टूटा नहीं हूँ !
मंजिल मेरी ज़रूर नाराज़ थीं मुझसे हर बार शायद,
लेकिन  उसे फिर मनाऊँगा
क्यूँकि मै अभी तक उससे रूठा नही हूँ !!”


यूँ ही नहीं मिलती राही को मंजिल, एक जुनून दिल में जगाना होता है।


Notification regarding declaration of AIBE-XVIII result.pdf
109.9Кб
Notification regarding declaration of AIBE-XVIII result


Happy Holi

Показано 19 последних публикаций.