All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  A dispute regarding the Presidential election... Start Learning for Free
A dispute regarding the Presidential election is referred to the
  • a)
    Chief Election Commission
  • b)
    Supreme Court
  • c)
    Parliament
  • d)
    Prime Minister and his cabinet
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CLAT doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
A dispute regarding the Presidential election is referred to thea)Chie...
Answer: B. Supreme CourtExplanation:- In the United States, disputes regarding the Presidential election are referred to the Supreme Court.- The Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in the country and has the power to interpret the Constitution and make decisions on crucial matters.- If there is a disagreement or conflict related to the election process, results, or any other aspect, the Supreme Court can be called upon to review the case and provide a final verdict.- This is done to ensure that the election process is fair, transparent, and in accordance with the Constitution.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
A dispute regarding the Presidential election is referred to thea)Chie...
C) parliament
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that a person will be disqualified if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The person is disqualified for the period of imprisonment and a further six years. There is an exception for sitting members; they have been provided a period of three months from the date of conviction to appeal; the disqualification will not be applicable until the appeal is decided. The differential treatment of candidates for elections and sitting members was challenged under Article 14 (right to equality). A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in 2005 (K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan), decided that the consequences of disqualifying a contestant and a sitting member were different. In the latter case, the strength of the party in the legislature would change, and could have an adverse impact if a government had a thin majority. It would also trigger a byelection. Therefore, it was reasonable to treat the two categories differently.The Court also considered whether in case of a disqualified candidate who is later acquitted, the disqualification would be removed with retrospective effect. It stated that this could not be done as this would require the results of the election to be cancelled. Therefore, the removal of disqualification would be prospective and for future elections. In 2013, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court again considered whether this exception was constitutionally invalid (Lily Thomas vs Union of Indi

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that a person will be disqualified if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The person is disqualified for the period of imprisonment and a further six years. There is an exception for sitting members; they have been provided a period of three months from the date of conviction to appeal; the disqualification will not be applicable until the appeal is decided. The differential treatment of candidates for elections and sitting members was challenged under Article 14 (right to equality). A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in 2005 (K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan), decided that the consequences of disqualifying a contestant and a sitting member were different. In the latter case, the strength of the party in the legislature would change, and could have an adverse impact if a government had a thin majority. It would also trigger a byelection. Therefore, it was reasonable to treat the two categories differently.The Court also considered whether in case of a disqualified candidate who is later acquitted, the disqualification would be removed with retrospective effect. It stated that this could not be done as this would require the results of the election to be cancelled. Therefore, the removal of disqualification would be prospective and for future elections. In 2013, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court again considered whether this exception was constitutionally invalid (Lily Thomas vs Union of Indi

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that a person will be disqualified if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The person is disqualified for the period of imprisonment and a further six years. There is an exception for sitting members; they have been provided a period of three months from the date of conviction to appeal; the disqualification will not be applicable until the appeal is decided. The differential treatment of candidates for elections and sitting members was challenged under Article 14 (right to equality). A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in 2005 (K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan), decided that the consequences of disqualifying a contestant and a sitting member were different. In the latter case, the strength of the party in the legislature would change, and could have an adverse impact if a government had a thin majority. It would also trigger a byelection. Therefore, it was reasonable to treat the two categories differently.The Court also considered whether in case of a disqualified candidate who is later acquitted, the disqualification would be removed with retrospective effect. It stated that this could not be done as this would require the results of the election to be cancelled. Therefore, the removal of disqualification would be prospective and for future elections. In 2013, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court again considered whether this exception was constitutionally invalid (Lily Thomas vs Union of Indi

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that a person will be disqualified if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The person is disqualified for the period of imprisonment and a further six years. There is an exception for sitting members; they have been provided a period of three months from the date of conviction to appeal; the disqualification will not be applicable until the appeal is decided. The differential treatment of candidates for elections and sitting members was challenged under Article 14 (right to equality). A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in 2005 (K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan), decided that the consequences of disqualifying a contestant and a sitting member were different. In the latter case, the strength of the party in the legislature would change, and could have an adverse impact if a government had a thin majority. It would also trigger a byelection. Therefore, it was reasonable to treat the two categories differently.The Court also considered whether in case of a disqualified candidate who is later acquitted, the disqualification would be removed with retrospective effect. It stated that this could not be done as this would require the results of the election to be cancelled. Therefore, the removal of disqualification would be prospective and for future elections. In 2013, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court again considered whether this exception was constitutionally invalid (Lily Thomas vs Union of Indi

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

A dispute regarding the Presidential election is referred to thea)Chief Election Commissionb)Supreme Courtc)Parliamentd)Prime Minister and his cabinetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
A dispute regarding the Presidential election is referred to thea)Chief Election Commissionb)Supreme Courtc)Parliamentd)Prime Minister and his cabinetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about A dispute regarding the Presidential election is referred to thea)Chief Election Commissionb)Supreme Courtc)Parliamentd)Prime Minister and his cabinetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for A dispute regarding the Presidential election is referred to thea)Chief Election Commissionb)Supreme Courtc)Parliamentd)Prime Minister and his cabinetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for A dispute regarding the Presidential election is referred to thea)Chief Election Commissionb)Supreme Courtc)Parliamentd)Prime Minister and his cabinetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of A dispute regarding the Presidential election is referred to thea)Chief Election Commissionb)Supreme Courtc)Parliamentd)Prime Minister and his cabinetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of A dispute regarding the Presidential election is referred to thea)Chief Election Commissionb)Supreme Courtc)Parliamentd)Prime Minister and his cabinetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for A dispute regarding the Presidential election is referred to thea)Chief Election Commissionb)Supreme Courtc)Parliamentd)Prime Minister and his cabinetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of A dispute regarding the Presidential election is referred to thea)Chief Election Commissionb)Supreme Courtc)Parliamentd)Prime Minister and his cabinetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice A dispute regarding the Presidential election is referred to thea)Chief Election Commissionb)Supreme Courtc)Parliamentd)Prime Minister and his cabinetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup