Question Description
Passage 1We live in a legal environment where the rule of sub-judice is regarded as an anachronism, emanating from a time when all trials were decided by jurors susceptible to influence by what was published in the press. By and large, the law of sub judice, which regulates the dissemination of matter under the consideration of the court, is a dead letter. In such a context, the Supreme Court's judgment last year, justifying a ban on the publication of court proceedings in certain cases is likely to have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press and the very idea of an open trial. Mercifully, the Court refused to lay down broad guidelines for reporting ongoing cases. But though its order books like a restatement of the Mirajkar case in which a nine member bench ruled that the right to open justice is not absolute, the Court has likely upset the "difficult Constitutional balance" between freedom of expression and the administration ofjustice that the landmark 1966 judgment established. Indeed, by emphasizing the right of an aggrieved person to seek postponement of media coverage of an ongoing case by approaching the appropriate writ court, there is a danger that gag orders may become commonplace. At a minimum, the door has been opened to hundreds and thousands of additional writs- a burden our legal system is unprepared to handle- filed by accused persons with meansThe fivejudge bench cited precedents in many jurisdictions to maintain "There is power in the courts to postpone the reporting ofjudicial proceedings in the administration ofjustice." Even in the USA, where the First Amendment trumps any restriction placed on rights to free speech, the courts have evolved ‘neutralizing devices' to prevent the corruption of the administration ofjustice. But set aside the judicial reasoning and consider its possible impact. Powerful defendants in high profile cases will try their best to get postponement orders despite the very strict criteria laid down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, gag orders issued in contravention of the doctrines of necessity and proportionality may take a long time to vacate, thus robbing the public of its right to know. The public scrutiny of courts is critical in ensuring that the judges do justice; a lack of awareness of what goes on in a courtroom can only undermine the public confidence in the judicial system. The same Mirajkarjudgment also said restraint on publication and closed door units could apply only in exceptional cases.Q.Which of the following options would the author most agree with?a)Public scrutiny helps put in place a system of checks and balances that have not yet failedb)A ban on publicizing court cases will lead to a weakening link between the judiciary and the common manc)Without public scrutiny, the legal system may grow lax due to the lack of accountability.d)Allowing the public to read about legal proceedings ensures that the powerful are brought to justiceCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for UPSC 2024 is part of UPSC preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about Passage 1We live in a legal environment where the rule of sub-judice is regarded as an anachronism, emanating from a time when all trials were decided by jurors susceptible to influence by what was published in the press. By and large, the law of sub judice, which regulates the dissemination of matter under the consideration of the court, is a dead letter. In such a context, the Supreme Court's judgment last year, justifying a ban on the publication of court proceedings in certain cases is likely to have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press and the very idea of an open trial. Mercifully, the Court refused to lay down broad guidelines for reporting ongoing cases. But though its order books like a restatement of the Mirajkar case in which a nine member bench ruled that the right to open justice is not absolute, the Court has likely upset the "difficult Constitutional balance" between freedom of expression and the administration ofjustice that the landmark 1966 judgment established. Indeed, by emphasizing the right of an aggrieved person to seek postponement of media coverage of an ongoing case by approaching the appropriate writ court, there is a danger that gag orders may become commonplace. At a minimum, the door has been opened to hundreds and thousands of additional writs- a burden our legal system is unprepared to handle- filed by accused persons with meansThe fivejudge bench cited precedents in many jurisdictions to maintain "There is power in the courts to postpone the reporting ofjudicial proceedings in the administration ofjustice." Even in the USA, where the First Amendment trumps any restriction placed on rights to free speech, the courts have evolved ‘neutralizing devices' to prevent the corruption of the administration ofjustice. But set aside the judicial reasoning and consider its possible impact. Powerful defendants in high profile cases will try their best to get postponement orders despite the very strict criteria laid down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, gag orders issued in contravention of the doctrines of necessity and proportionality may take a long time to vacate, thus robbing the public of its right to know. The public scrutiny of courts is critical in ensuring that the judges do justice; a lack of awareness of what goes on in a courtroom can only undermine the public confidence in the judicial system. The same Mirajkarjudgment also said restraint on publication and closed door units could apply only in exceptional cases.Q.Which of the following options would the author most agree with?a)Public scrutiny helps put in place a system of checks and balances that have not yet failedb)A ban on publicizing court cases will lead to a weakening link between the judiciary and the common manc)Without public scrutiny, the legal system may grow lax due to the lack of accountability.d)Allowing the public to read about legal proceedings ensures that the powerful are brought to justiceCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for UPSC 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Passage 1We live in a legal environment where the rule of sub-judice is regarded as an anachronism, emanating from a time when all trials were decided by jurors susceptible to influence by what was published in the press. By and large, the law of sub judice, which regulates the dissemination of matter under the consideration of the court, is a dead letter. In such a context, the Supreme Court's judgment last year, justifying a ban on the publication of court proceedings in certain cases is likely to have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press and the very idea of an open trial. Mercifully, the Court refused to lay down broad guidelines for reporting ongoing cases. But though its order books like a restatement of the Mirajkar case in which a nine member bench ruled that the right to open justice is not absolute, the Court has likely upset the "difficult Constitutional balance" between freedom of expression and the administration ofjustice that the landmark 1966 judgment established. Indeed, by emphasizing the right of an aggrieved person to seek postponement of media coverage of an ongoing case by approaching the appropriate writ court, there is a danger that gag orders may become commonplace. At a minimum, the door has been opened to hundreds and thousands of additional writs- a burden our legal system is unprepared to handle- filed by accused persons with meansThe fivejudge bench cited precedents in many jurisdictions to maintain "There is power in the courts to postpone the reporting ofjudicial proceedings in the administration ofjustice." Even in the USA, where the First Amendment trumps any restriction placed on rights to free speech, the courts have evolved ‘neutralizing devices' to prevent the corruption of the administration ofjustice. But set aside the judicial reasoning and consider its possible impact. Powerful defendants in high profile cases will try their best to get postponement orders despite the very strict criteria laid down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, gag orders issued in contravention of the doctrines of necessity and proportionality may take a long time to vacate, thus robbing the public of its right to know. The public scrutiny of courts is critical in ensuring that the judges do justice; a lack of awareness of what goes on in a courtroom can only undermine the public confidence in the judicial system. The same Mirajkarjudgment also said restraint on publication and closed door units could apply only in exceptional cases.Q.Which of the following options would the author most agree with?a)Public scrutiny helps put in place a system of checks and balances that have not yet failedb)A ban on publicizing court cases will lead to a weakening link between the judiciary and the common manc)Without public scrutiny, the legal system may grow lax due to the lack of accountability.d)Allowing the public to read about legal proceedings ensures that the powerful are brought to justiceCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Passage 1We live in a legal environment where the rule of sub-judice is regarded as an anachronism, emanating from a time when all trials were decided by jurors susceptible to influence by what was published in the press. By and large, the law of sub judice, which regulates the dissemination of matter under the consideration of the court, is a dead letter. In such a context, the Supreme Court's judgment last year, justifying a ban on the publication of court proceedings in certain cases is likely to have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press and the very idea of an open trial. Mercifully, the Court refused to lay down broad guidelines for reporting ongoing cases. But though its order books like a restatement of the Mirajkar case in which a nine member bench ruled that the right to open justice is not absolute, the Court has likely upset the "difficult Constitutional balance" between freedom of expression and the administration ofjustice that the landmark 1966 judgment established. Indeed, by emphasizing the right of an aggrieved person to seek postponement of media coverage of an ongoing case by approaching the appropriate writ court, there is a danger that gag orders may become commonplace. At a minimum, the door has been opened to hundreds and thousands of additional writs- a burden our legal system is unprepared to handle- filed by accused persons with meansThe fivejudge bench cited precedents in many jurisdictions to maintain "There is power in the courts to postpone the reporting ofjudicial proceedings in the administration ofjustice." Even in the USA, where the First Amendment trumps any restriction placed on rights to free speech, the courts have evolved ‘neutralizing devices' to prevent the corruption of the administration ofjustice. But set aside the judicial reasoning and consider its possible impact. Powerful defendants in high profile cases will try their best to get postponement orders despite the very strict criteria laid down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, gag orders issued in contravention of the doctrines of necessity and proportionality may take a long time to vacate, thus robbing the public of its right to know. The public scrutiny of courts is critical in ensuring that the judges do justice; a lack of awareness of what goes on in a courtroom can only undermine the public confidence in the judicial system. The same Mirajkarjudgment also said restraint on publication and closed door units could apply only in exceptional cases.Q.Which of the following options would the author most agree with?a)Public scrutiny helps put in place a system of checks and balances that have not yet failedb)A ban on publicizing court cases will lead to a weakening link between the judiciary and the common manc)Without public scrutiny, the legal system may grow lax due to the lack of accountability.d)Allowing the public to read about legal proceedings ensures that the powerful are brought to justiceCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for UPSC. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for UPSC Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Passage 1We live in a legal environment where the rule of sub-judice is regarded as an anachronism, emanating from a time when all trials were decided by jurors susceptible to influence by what was published in the press. By and large, the law of sub judice, which regulates the dissemination of matter under the consideration of the court, is a dead letter. In such a context, the Supreme Court's judgment last year, justifying a ban on the publication of court proceedings in certain cases is likely to have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press and the very idea of an open trial. Mercifully, the Court refused to lay down broad guidelines for reporting ongoing cases. But though its order books like a restatement of the Mirajkar case in which a nine member bench ruled that the right to open justice is not absolute, the Court has likely upset the "difficult Constitutional balance" between freedom of expression and the administration ofjustice that the landmark 1966 judgment established. Indeed, by emphasizing the right of an aggrieved person to seek postponement of media coverage of an ongoing case by approaching the appropriate writ court, there is a danger that gag orders may become commonplace. At a minimum, the door has been opened to hundreds and thousands of additional writs- a burden our legal system is unprepared to handle- filed by accused persons with meansThe fivejudge bench cited precedents in many jurisdictions to maintain "There is power in the courts to postpone the reporting ofjudicial proceedings in the administration ofjustice." Even in the USA, where the First Amendment trumps any restriction placed on rights to free speech, the courts have evolved ‘neutralizing devices' to prevent the corruption of the administration ofjustice. But set aside the judicial reasoning and consider its possible impact. Powerful defendants in high profile cases will try their best to get postponement orders despite the very strict criteria laid down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, gag orders issued in contravention of the doctrines of necessity and proportionality may take a long time to vacate, thus robbing the public of its right to know. The public scrutiny of courts is critical in ensuring that the judges do justice; a lack of awareness of what goes on in a courtroom can only undermine the public confidence in the judicial system. The same Mirajkarjudgment also said restraint on publication and closed door units could apply only in exceptional cases.Q.Which of the following options would the author most agree with?a)Public scrutiny helps put in place a system of checks and balances that have not yet failedb)A ban on publicizing court cases will lead to a weakening link between the judiciary and the common manc)Without public scrutiny, the legal system may grow lax due to the lack of accountability.d)Allowing the public to read about legal proceedings ensures that the powerful are brought to justiceCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Passage 1We live in a legal environment where the rule of sub-judice is regarded as an anachronism, emanating from a time when all trials were decided by jurors susceptible to influence by what was published in the press. By and large, the law of sub judice, which regulates the dissemination of matter under the consideration of the court, is a dead letter. In such a context, the Supreme Court's judgment last year, justifying a ban on the publication of court proceedings in certain cases is likely to have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press and the very idea of an open trial. Mercifully, the Court refused to lay down broad guidelines for reporting ongoing cases. But though its order books like a restatement of the Mirajkar case in which a nine member bench ruled that the right to open justice is not absolute, the Court has likely upset the "difficult Constitutional balance" between freedom of expression and the administration ofjustice that the landmark 1966 judgment established. Indeed, by emphasizing the right of an aggrieved person to seek postponement of media coverage of an ongoing case by approaching the appropriate writ court, there is a danger that gag orders may become commonplace. At a minimum, the door has been opened to hundreds and thousands of additional writs- a burden our legal system is unprepared to handle- filed by accused persons with meansThe fivejudge bench cited precedents in many jurisdictions to maintain "There is power in the courts to postpone the reporting ofjudicial proceedings in the administration ofjustice." Even in the USA, where the First Amendment trumps any restriction placed on rights to free speech, the courts have evolved ‘neutralizing devices' to prevent the corruption of the administration ofjustice. But set aside the judicial reasoning and consider its possible impact. Powerful defendants in high profile cases will try their best to get postponement orders despite the very strict criteria laid down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, gag orders issued in contravention of the doctrines of necessity and proportionality may take a long time to vacate, thus robbing the public of its right to know. The public scrutiny of courts is critical in ensuring that the judges do justice; a lack of awareness of what goes on in a courtroom can only undermine the public confidence in the judicial system. The same Mirajkarjudgment also said restraint on publication and closed door units could apply only in exceptional cases.Q.Which of the following options would the author most agree with?a)Public scrutiny helps put in place a system of checks and balances that have not yet failedb)A ban on publicizing court cases will lead to a weakening link between the judiciary and the common manc)Without public scrutiny, the legal system may grow lax due to the lack of accountability.d)Allowing the public to read about legal proceedings ensures that the powerful are brought to justiceCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Passage 1We live in a legal environment where the rule of sub-judice is regarded as an anachronism, emanating from a time when all trials were decided by jurors susceptible to influence by what was published in the press. By and large, the law of sub judice, which regulates the dissemination of matter under the consideration of the court, is a dead letter. In such a context, the Supreme Court's judgment last year, justifying a ban on the publication of court proceedings in certain cases is likely to have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press and the very idea of an open trial. Mercifully, the Court refused to lay down broad guidelines for reporting ongoing cases. But though its order books like a restatement of the Mirajkar case in which a nine member bench ruled that the right to open justice is not absolute, the Court has likely upset the "difficult Constitutional balance" between freedom of expression and the administration ofjustice that the landmark 1966 judgment established. Indeed, by emphasizing the right of an aggrieved person to seek postponement of media coverage of an ongoing case by approaching the appropriate writ court, there is a danger that gag orders may become commonplace. At a minimum, the door has been opened to hundreds and thousands of additional writs- a burden our legal system is unprepared to handle- filed by accused persons with meansThe fivejudge bench cited precedents in many jurisdictions to maintain "There is power in the courts to postpone the reporting ofjudicial proceedings in the administration ofjustice." Even in the USA, where the First Amendment trumps any restriction placed on rights to free speech, the courts have evolved ‘neutralizing devices' to prevent the corruption of the administration ofjustice. But set aside the judicial reasoning and consider its possible impact. Powerful defendants in high profile cases will try their best to get postponement orders despite the very strict criteria laid down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, gag orders issued in contravention of the doctrines of necessity and proportionality may take a long time to vacate, thus robbing the public of its right to know. The public scrutiny of courts is critical in ensuring that the judges do justice; a lack of awareness of what goes on in a courtroom can only undermine the public confidence in the judicial system. The same Mirajkarjudgment also said restraint on publication and closed door units could apply only in exceptional cases.Q.Which of the following options would the author most agree with?a)Public scrutiny helps put in place a system of checks and balances that have not yet failedb)A ban on publicizing court cases will lead to a weakening link between the judiciary and the common manc)Without public scrutiny, the legal system may grow lax due to the lack of accountability.d)Allowing the public to read about legal proceedings ensures that the powerful are brought to justiceCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Passage 1We live in a legal environment where the rule of sub-judice is regarded as an anachronism, emanating from a time when all trials were decided by jurors susceptible to influence by what was published in the press. By and large, the law of sub judice, which regulates the dissemination of matter under the consideration of the court, is a dead letter. In such a context, the Supreme Court's judgment last year, justifying a ban on the publication of court proceedings in certain cases is likely to have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press and the very idea of an open trial. Mercifully, the Court refused to lay down broad guidelines for reporting ongoing cases. But though its order books like a restatement of the Mirajkar case in which a nine member bench ruled that the right to open justice is not absolute, the Court has likely upset the "difficult Constitutional balance" between freedom of expression and the administration ofjustice that the landmark 1966 judgment established. Indeed, by emphasizing the right of an aggrieved person to seek postponement of media coverage of an ongoing case by approaching the appropriate writ court, there is a danger that gag orders may become commonplace. At a minimum, the door has been opened to hundreds and thousands of additional writs- a burden our legal system is unprepared to handle- filed by accused persons with meansThe fivejudge bench cited precedents in many jurisdictions to maintain "There is power in the courts to postpone the reporting ofjudicial proceedings in the administration ofjustice." Even in the USA, where the First Amendment trumps any restriction placed on rights to free speech, the courts have evolved ‘neutralizing devices' to prevent the corruption of the administration ofjustice. But set aside the judicial reasoning and consider its possible impact. Powerful defendants in high profile cases will try their best to get postponement orders despite the very strict criteria laid down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, gag orders issued in contravention of the doctrines of necessity and proportionality may take a long time to vacate, thus robbing the public of its right to know. The public scrutiny of courts is critical in ensuring that the judges do justice; a lack of awareness of what goes on in a courtroom can only undermine the public confidence in the judicial system. The same Mirajkarjudgment also said restraint on publication and closed door units could apply only in exceptional cases.Q.Which of the following options would the author most agree with?a)Public scrutiny helps put in place a system of checks and balances that have not yet failedb)A ban on publicizing court cases will lead to a weakening link between the judiciary and the common manc)Without public scrutiny, the legal system may grow lax due to the lack of accountability.d)Allowing the public to read about legal proceedings ensures that the powerful are brought to justiceCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Passage 1We live in a legal environment where the rule of sub-judice is regarded as an anachronism, emanating from a time when all trials were decided by jurors susceptible to influence by what was published in the press. By and large, the law of sub judice, which regulates the dissemination of matter under the consideration of the court, is a dead letter. In such a context, the Supreme Court's judgment last year, justifying a ban on the publication of court proceedings in certain cases is likely to have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press and the very idea of an open trial. Mercifully, the Court refused to lay down broad guidelines for reporting ongoing cases. But though its order books like a restatement of the Mirajkar case in which a nine member bench ruled that the right to open justice is not absolute, the Court has likely upset the "difficult Constitutional balance" between freedom of expression and the administration ofjustice that the landmark 1966 judgment established. Indeed, by emphasizing the right of an aggrieved person to seek postponement of media coverage of an ongoing case by approaching the appropriate writ court, there is a danger that gag orders may become commonplace. At a minimum, the door has been opened to hundreds and thousands of additional writs- a burden our legal system is unprepared to handle- filed by accused persons with meansThe fivejudge bench cited precedents in many jurisdictions to maintain "There is power in the courts to postpone the reporting ofjudicial proceedings in the administration ofjustice." Even in the USA, where the First Amendment trumps any restriction placed on rights to free speech, the courts have evolved ‘neutralizing devices' to prevent the corruption of the administration ofjustice. But set aside the judicial reasoning and consider its possible impact. Powerful defendants in high profile cases will try their best to get postponement orders despite the very strict criteria laid down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, gag orders issued in contravention of the doctrines of necessity and proportionality may take a long time to vacate, thus robbing the public of its right to know. The public scrutiny of courts is critical in ensuring that the judges do justice; a lack of awareness of what goes on in a courtroom can only undermine the public confidence in the judicial system. The same Mirajkarjudgment also said restraint on publication and closed door units could apply only in exceptional cases.Q.Which of the following options would the author most agree with?a)Public scrutiny helps put in place a system of checks and balances that have not yet failedb)A ban on publicizing court cases will lead to a weakening link between the judiciary and the common manc)Without public scrutiny, the legal system may grow lax due to the lack of accountability.d)Allowing the public to read about legal proceedings ensures that the powerful are brought to justiceCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice UPSC tests.