"Rule of Law Index" is released by which of the following ?
- A.Amnesty International
- B.International Court of Justice
- C.The Office of UN Commissioner for Human Rights
- D.World Justice Project
Correct answer
Explanation
The correct answer is D, World Justice Project. The Rule of Law Index is published by the World Justice Project, an independent organisation based in Washington, D.C.
The World Justice Project ranks countries on how far the rule of law is followed in practice, based on surveys of households and legal experts. The index uses eight factors: constraints on government powers, absence of corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and security, regulatory enforcement, civil justice and criminal justice. It has been published since 2009 and is widely cited in discussions on governance and judicial reform.
A is wrong: Amnesty International publishes reports on human-rights abuses and the death penalty, not this index.
B is wrong: the International Court of Justice at The Hague settles disputes between states and gives advisory opinions; it does not rank countries.
C is wrong: the UN human rights office (OHCHR) monitors rights but does not publish the Rule of Law Index.
Exam tip: Rule of Law Index = World Justice Project; Press Freedom Index = Reporters Without Borders; Corruption Perceptions Index = Transparency International.
Practice Questions
View allConsider the following statements :
1. A bill amending the Constitution requires a prior recommendation of the President of India.
2. When a Constitution Amendment Bill is presented to the President of India, it is obligatory for the President of India to give his/her assent.
3. A Constitution Amendment Bill must be passed by both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha by a special majority and there is no provision for joint sitting.
Which of the statements given above are correct ?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show answer
Explanation
The correct answer is B, 2 and 3 only. Statements 2 and 3 are correct; an amendment bill needs no prior recommendation of the President.
Under Article 368, a bill to amend the Constitution can be introduced in either House of Parliament by a minister or a private member, and the President's prior permission is not needed. Each House must pass it separately by a special majority: a majority of its total membership and two-thirds of the members present and voting. If the Houses disagree, there is no joint sitting, unlike for ordinary bills under Article 108. The 24th Amendment, 1971 made it obligatory for the President to give assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill; the President can neither withhold assent nor return it.
A is wrong: statement 1 is false.
C is wrong: statement 1 is false, and it leaves out statement 2.
D is wrong: statement 1 is false.
Exam tip: Article 368 = no prior recommendation, special majority in each House, no joint sitting, assent compulsory (24th Amendment).
With reference to India, consider the following statements :
1. Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates.
2. Bar Councils have the power to lay down the rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?
- A.1 only
- B.2 only
- C.Both 1 and 2
- D.Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
Explanation
The correct answer is B, 2 only. Only statement 2 is correct: the Bar Council of India regulates legal education and recognises law colleges.
Under the Advocates Act, 1961, only an individual enrolled on a State Bar Council's roll is an advocate. A law firm is a business entity, not a person, so it is not recognised as an advocate. A law officer of the government or a lawyer working in a company is also not treated as practising, and a full-time salaried employee cannot practise as an advocate under the Bar Council of India Rules. So statement 1 is wrong. Section 7 of the Act empowers the Bar Council of India to promote legal education, lay down its standards and recognise universities and colleges whose law degree qualifies a person for enrolment.
A is wrong: statement 1 misstates who is recognised as an advocate.
C is wrong: statement 1 is false.
D is wrong: statement 2 is correct.
Exam tip: Advocates Act, 1961 set up the Bar Council of India, which also sets the standards of legal education.
Consider the following statements :
1. Aadhaar card can be used as a proof of citizenship or domicile.
2. Once issued, Aadhaar number cannot be deactivated or omitted by the Issuing Authority.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?
- A.1 only
- B.2 only
- C.Both 1 and 2
- D.Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
Explanation
The correct answer is D, Neither 1 nor 2. Both statements are wrong: Aadhaar proves identity, not citizenship, and it can be deactivated.
The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 says in Section 9 that an Aadhaar number, or its authentication, does not by itself confer any right of, or proof of, citizenship or domicile. Any resident who has lived in India for 182 days or more in the past year can enrol, including foreigners. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) can omit or deactivate an Aadhaar number under regulations made under the Act, for example when it was obtained with false documents or is a duplicate.
A is wrong: statement 1 is false, since the Act itself denies that Aadhaar proves citizenship.
B is wrong: statement 2 is false, since UIDAI can deactivate or omit a number.
C is wrong: neither statement is correct.
Exam tip: Aadhaar = proof of identity and residence for 182 days, not of citizenship; issued by UIDAI under the 2016 Act.
Consider the following statements :
1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.
2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.
4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.1, 2 and 4
- C.3 and 4 only
- D.3 only
Show answer
Explanation
The correct answer is B, 1, 2 and 4. Statements 1, 2 and 4 are correct; only statement 3 is wrong.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed on the recommendations of the committee headed by H.N. Sanyal. Article 129 makes the Supreme Court a court of record with power to punish for contempt of itself, and Article 215 gives the High Courts the same power. The Constitution does not define civil or criminal contempt; those definitions are in Section 2 of the 1971 Act. Parliament can legislate on contempt: Entry 77 of the Union List covers contempt of the Supreme Court, and Entry 14 of the Concurrent List covers contempt of other courts.
A is wrong: it leaves out statement 4, which is also correct.
C is wrong: statement 3 is incorrect, so it cannot be part of the answer.
D is wrong: statement 3 alone is the one false statement.
Exam tip: Article 129 (SC) and Article 215 (HC) give the power; the 1971 Act (Sanyal Committee) gives the definitions.
Under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, the presiding officer of a Gram Nyayalaya is known as the
- A.Nyaya Panch
- B.Nyayadhikari
- C.Sarpanch Magistrate
- D.Lok Adalat Chairman
Show answer
Explanation
The correct answer is B, Nyayadhikari. The Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, in force from 2 October 2009, provides for mobile village courts at the intermediate panchayat level presided over by a Nyayadhikari appointed by the State Government in consultation with the High Court, who holds the rank and draws the salary of a judicial magistrate of the first class. The court exercises both civil and criminal jurisdiction, follows a summary procedure and is expected to hold sittings in the villages. A is wrong because Nyaya Panch was the member of the older nyaya panchayats set up under State panchayat laws, which were not courts of record in this sense. C is wrong because no such office exists; the sarpanch is an elected panchayat head with no judicial powers of this kind. D is wrong because a Lok Adalat is a conciliation forum under the 1987 Act, quite separate from a Gram Nyayalaya.