LAW Previous Year Papers

*🛡️Dissolution*

♟️Rajya Sabha, being a permanent House, is not subject to dissolution. Only the Lok Sabha is subject to dissolution.

♟️Unlike a prorogation, a dissolution ends the very life of the existing House, and a new House is constituted after general elections are held.

♟️The dissolution of the Lok Sabha may take place in either of two ways:

1. Automatic dissolution, that is, on the expiry of its tenure of five years or the terms as extended during a national emergency; or

2. Whenever the President decides to dissolve the House, which he is authorised to do. Once the Lok Sabha is dissolved before the completion of its normal tenure, the dissolution is irrevocable.

*🛡️Language In Parliament*

♟️The Constitution has declared Hindi and English to be the languages for transacting business in the Parliament. However, the presiding officer can permit a member to address the House in his mother-tongue. In both the Houses, arrangements are made for simultaneous translation.

♟️Though English was to be discontinued as a floor language after the expiration of fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution (that is, in 1965), the Official Languages Act (1963) allowed English to be continued along with Hindi.

🛡️ *Appointment Of Judges*

♟️The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president.

♟️The chief justice is appointed by the president after consultationl with such judges of the Supreme Court and high courts as he deems necessary.

♟️The other judges are appointed by president after consultation with the chief justice and such other judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts as he deems necessary.

♟️The consultation with the chief justice is obligatory in the case of appointment of a judge other than Chief justice.

*🛡️Appointment Of Chief Justice*

♟️From 1950 to 1973, the practice has been to appoint the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court as the chief justice of India.

♟️This established convention was violated in 1973 when A.N. Ray was appointed as the Chief Justice of India by superseding three senior judges.

♟️Again in 1977, M.U. Beg was appointed as the chief justice of India by superseding the then senior-most judge.

♟️This discretion of the government was curtailed by the Supreme Court in the Second Judges Case (1993), in which the Supreme Court ruled that the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court should alone be appointed to the office of the chief justice of India.

*♟️Qualification Of Judges*

♟️A person to be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court should have the following qualifications:-

✔️He should be a citizen of India.

✔️a) He should have been a judge of a High Court (or high courts in succession) for five years; or (b) He should have been an advocate of a High Court (or High Courts in succession) for ten years; or (c) He should be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the president.

♟️From the above, it is clear that the Constitution has not prescribed a minimum age for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court.

🛡️ *Article 12*

♟️It defines the term ‘state’ for the purposes of Part III.
♟️ *Article 12 and applicability on United Nation (UN)* The Delhi High Court has ruled earlier that the UN is not a State under Article 12 and hence cannot be brought under the jurisdiction.
♟️ *Article 12 and PM CARES fund* The Centre recently informed the Delhi High Court in a plea seeking to declare the fund a ‘state’ under Article 12 that:
♟️PM CARES Fund is set up as a public charitable trust and is not created under the Constitution or any law made by the Parliament or the state.

💎 *Judiciary under Article 12*

♟️ *Judicial & Non-Judicial Function* When the Judiciary is discharging Judicial functions, it is not regarded as a State whereas the non-judicial function brings it under the definition of ‘State’.

*💎Related Cases*

♟️ *Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar case (1966)* Judiciary should be put under the ambit of Article 12, otherwise the courts would be allowed to make rules which violate the fundamental rights of the citizens.
♟️ *Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra case (2002)* Superior courts of justice do not fall within the ambit of ‘state’ or ‘other authorities’ under Article 12.
♟️ *Riju Prasad Sarmah Case (2015)* The court again held that when a court is acting in its judicial capacity, it cannot be regarded as a State. However, its administrative action is amenable to the writ jurisdiction.