CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Justice [X] midnight transfer raises both imm... Start Learning for Free
Justice [X] midnight transfer raises both immediate and deeper questions. Although we were forewarned that he would be transferred, the post midnight marching orders were clearly punitive because he wanted FIRs to be filed against hate speech provocateurs against whom more than a prima facie existed on video. His orders were to immediately register the FIR's which were bypassed to the Chief Justice of Delhi to whom the case went who gave 4 extra weeks to file the criminal cases. FIRs are to be filed immediately. In fact in criminal jurisprudence delay in filing a FIR goes to veracity. If several murders are committed, you do not wait for all murders to cease to start investigation. Thus the Chief Justice of Delhi and Solicitor General who had the gall to make such a request have a lot to answer for.
This is a fundamental question whether High Court judges can be transferred from one High Court to another like civil servants even though the Constitution gives the power to do so.
Before the 99th amendment of the Constitution of 2014 (Article 222) gave the President the power to transfer judges. In constitutional terms, under the parliamentary system, this meant on the advice of the Prime Minister. That amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court because of the way the commission was constructed it would have undermined the independence of the judiciary to restore the status quo of judicial approval but powerfully influenced by the Prime Minister and his law minister.
Q. Which of the following statements is not true?
  • a)
    The institution of High Court in India was first formed in 1862
  • b)
    Article 214 to 231 of the Indian constitution envisages about the powers of the High Court
  • c)
    Only Delhi is a Union territory which has its own High Court
  • d)
    Only Parliament determines the number of judges in the High Court
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Justice [X] midnight transfer raises both immediate and deeper questions. Although we were forewarned that he would be transferred, the post midnight marching orders were clearly punitive because he wanted FIRs to be filed against hate speech provocateurs against whom more than a prima facie existed on video. His orders were to immediately register the FIRs which were bypassed to the Chief Justice of Delhi to whom the case went who gave 4 extra weeks to file the criminal cases. FIRs are to be filed immediately. In fact in criminal jurisprudence delay in filing a FIR goes to veracity. If several murders are committed, you do not wait for all murders to cease to start investigation. Thus the Chief Justice of Delhi and Solicitor General who had the gall to make such a request have a lot to answer for.This is a fundamental question whether High Court judges can be transferred from one High Court to another like civil servants even though the Constitution gives the power to do so.Before the 99th amendment of the Constitution of 2014 (Article 222) gave the President the power to transfer judges. In constitutional terms, under the parliamentary system, this meant on the advice of the Prime Minister. That amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court because of the way the commission was constructed it would have undermined the independence of the judiciary to restore the status quo of judicial approval but powerfully influenced by the Prime Minister and his law minister.Q. Who can extend the jurisdiction of a High Court?

Justice [X] midnight transfer raises both immediate and deeper questions. Although we were forewarned that he would be transferred, the post midnight marching orders were clearly punitive because he wanted FIRs to be filed against hate speech provocateurs against whom more than a prima facie existed on video. His orders were to immediately register the FIRs which were bypassed to the Chief Justice of Delhi to whom the case went who gave 4 extra weeks to file the criminal cases. FIRs are to be filed immediately. In fact in criminal jurisprudence delay in filing a FIR goes to veracity. If several murders are committed, you do not wait for all murders to cease to start investigation. Thus the Chief Justice of Delhi and Solicitor General who had the gall to make such a request have a lot to answer for.This is a fundamental question whether High Court judges can be transferred from one High Court to another like civil servants even though the Constitution gives the power to do so.Before the 99th amendment of the Constitution of 2014 (Article 222) gave the President the power to transfer judges. In constitutional terms, under the parliamentary system, this meant on the advice of the Prime Minister. That amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court because of the way the commission was constructed it would have undermined the independence of the judiciary to restore the status quo of judicial approval but powerfully influenced by the Prime Minister and his law minister.Q.Who does not participate in the appointment of the High Court Judge?

Justice [X] midnight transfer raises both immediate and deeper questions. Although we were forewarned that he would be transferred, the post midnight marching orders were clearly punitive because he wanted FIRs to be filed against hate speech provocateurs against whom more than a prima facie existed on video. His orders were to immediately register the FIRs which were bypassed to the Chief Justice of Delhi to whom the case went who gave 4 extra weeks to file the criminal cases. FIRs are to be filed immediately. In fact in criminal jurisprudence delay in filing a FIR goes to veracity. If several murders are committed, you do not wait for all murders to cease to start investigation. Thus the Chief Justice of Delhi and Solicitor General who had the gall to make such a request have a lot to answer for.This is a fundamental question whether High Court judges can be transferred from one High Court to another like civil servants even though the Constitution gives the power to do so.Before the 99th amendment of the Constitution of 2014 (Article 222) gave the President the power to transfer judges. In constitutional terms, under the parliamentary system, this meant on the advice of the Prime Minister. That amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court because of the way the commission was constructed it would have undermined the independence of the judiciary to restore the status quo of judicial approval but powerfully influenced by the Prime Minister and his law minister.Q.How can the High Court Judge be removed?

Justice [X] midnight transfer raises both immediate and deeper questions. Although we were forewarned that he would be transferred, the post midnight marching orders were clearly punitive because he wanted FIRs to be filed against hate speech provocateurs against whom more than a prima facie existed on video. His orders were to immediately register the FIRs which were bypassed to the Chief Justice of Delhi to whom the case went who gave 4 extra weeks to file the criminal cases. FIRs are to be filed immediately. In fact in criminal jurisprudence delay in filing a FIR goes to veracity. If several murders are committed, you do not wait for all murders to cease to start investigation. Thus the Chief Justice of Delhi and Solicitor General who had the gall to make such a request have a lot to answer for.This is a fundamental question whether High Court judges can be transferred from one High Court to another like civil servants even though the Constitution gives the power to do so.Before the 99th amendment of the Constitution of 2014 (Article 222) gave the President the power to transfer judges. In constitutional terms, under the parliamentary system, this meant on the advice of the Prime Minister. That amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court because of the way the commission was constructed it would have undermined the independence of the judiciary to restore the status quo of judicial approval but powerfully influenced by the Prime Minister and his law minister.Q.The judge claimed to be hurriedly transferred is

Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.A murder case is fit for the death penalty where the crime is committed with a depraved motive, or where it is of a socially abhorrent nature. But what motive can be more depraved, and what crime can be of a more socially abhorrent nature, than a murder committed with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution?To be sure, every murder involves an interference with the fundamental right to live, but under the "rarest of rare" doctrine not every murder deserves the death penalty.Death penalty rather should apply for murders interfering with something more than the mere right to live - to murders motivated by a depraved desire to interfere with "fundamental" constitutional rights.The one who murders another for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the strictest of punishment. After all, if constitutional rights are to have any meaning, they must not merely dictate the manner in which the State interacts with its citizens, but must also colour the standards that will be applied to interactions amongst private citizens. The law will not tolerate the motive of stifling "fundamental" constitutional rights contained in part III of the Constitution.To use a religious analogy, if the lengthy Constitution were the epic Mahabharata, the fundamental rights chapter would be its Bhagwad Gita. For the sacrosanct position fundamental rights occupy in Indian jurisprudence, it is perhaps justifiable in a system which permits the death penalty, to claim that a murderer who seeks to punish his victim for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the death penalty. There is a chance of commuting death sentence. Commuting death sentences to life on account of the "death row phenomenon"-Prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to have the death sentence commuted to life, on account of the dehumanising psycho logical effect of the prolonged wait.However, in essence, there can be no "hard and fast" rule with respect to commuting death sentences to life imprisonment on account of the delay. In such cases, it is also imperative for the Court to examine the root cause of the delay, in order to ensure that the delay was not caused by the accused himself. After all, reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment because of delays caused on account of frivolous proceedings filed by the accused himself would "defeat" death penalty law in India, reducing it to an "object of ridicule".Q.Extending the previous question with the following alternative facts: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; a sentence which was confirmed by the High Court in May 2005. The question is before the Supreme Court in the year 2014, 12 years since the trial court sentence. The delay was caused by the investigation agency as the first report that it had submitted was held to be unreliable and therefore they were asked to conduct a fresh investigation. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?

Justice [X] midnight transfer raises both immediate and deeper questions. Although we were forewarned that he would be transferred, the post midnight marching orders were clearly punitive because he wanted FIRs to be filed against hate speech provocateurs against whom more than a prima facie existed on video. His orders were to immediately register the FIRs which were bypassed to the Chief Justice of Delhi to whom the case went who gave 4 extra weeks to file the criminal cases. FIRs are to be filed immediately. In fact in criminal jurisprudence delay in filing a FIR goes to veracity. If several murders are committed, you do not wait for all murders to cease to start investigation. Thus the Chief Justice of Delhi and Solicitor General who had the gall to make such a request have a lot to answer for.This is a fundamental question whether High Court judges can be transferred from one High Court to another like civil servants even though the Constitution gives the power to do so.Before the 99th amendment of the Constitution of 2014 (Article 222) gave the President the power to transfer judges. In constitutional terms, under the parliamentary system, this meant on the advice of the Prime Minister. That amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court because of the way the commission was constructed it would have undermined the independence of the judiciary to restore the status quo of judicial approval but powerfully influenced by the Prime Minister and his law minister.Q.Which of the following statements is not true?a)The institution of High Court in India was first formed in 1862b)Article 214 to 231 of the Indian constitution envisages about the powers of the High Courtc)Only Delhi is a Union territory which has its own High Courtd)Only Parliament determines the number of judges in the High CourtCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Justice [X] midnight transfer raises both immediate and deeper questions. Although we were forewarned that he would be transferred, the post midnight marching orders were clearly punitive because he wanted FIRs to be filed against hate speech provocateurs against whom more than a prima facie existed on video. His orders were to immediately register the FIRs which were bypassed to the Chief Justice of Delhi to whom the case went who gave 4 extra weeks to file the criminal cases. FIRs are to be filed immediately. In fact in criminal jurisprudence delay in filing a FIR goes to veracity. If several murders are committed, you do not wait for all murders to cease to start investigation. Thus the Chief Justice of Delhi and Solicitor General who had the gall to make such a request have a lot to answer for.This is a fundamental question whether High Court judges can be transferred from one High Court to another like civil servants even though the Constitution gives the power to do so.Before the 99th amendment of the Constitution of 2014 (Article 222) gave the President the power to transfer judges. In constitutional terms, under the parliamentary system, this meant on the advice of the Prime Minister. That amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court because of the way the commission was constructed it would have undermined the independence of the judiciary to restore the status quo of judicial approval but powerfully influenced by the Prime Minister and his law minister.Q.Which of the following statements is not true?a)The institution of High Court in India was first formed in 1862b)Article 214 to 231 of the Indian constitution envisages about the powers of the High Courtc)Only Delhi is a Union territory which has its own High Courtd)Only Parliament determines the number of judges in the High CourtCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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 Justice [X] midnight transfer raises both immediate and deeper questions. Although we were forewarned that he would be transferred, the post midnight marching orders were clearly punitive because he wanted FIRs to be filed against hate speech provocateurs against whom more than a prima facie existed on video. His orders were to immediately register the FIRs which were bypassed to the Chief Justice of Delhi to whom the case went who gave 4 extra weeks to file the criminal cases. FIRs are to be filed immediately. In fact in criminal jurisprudence delay in filing a FIR goes to veracity. If several murders are committed, you do not wait for all murders to cease to start investigation. Thus the Chief Justice of Delhi and Solicitor General who had the gall to make such a request have a lot to answer for.This is a fundamental question whether High Court judges can be transferred from one High Court to another like civil servants even though the Constitution gives the power to do so.Before the 99th amendment of the Constitution of 2014 (Article 222) gave the President the power to transfer judges. In constitutional terms, under the parliamentary system, this meant on the advice of the Prime Minister. That amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court because of the way the commission was constructed it would have undermined the independence of the judiciary to restore the status quo of judicial approval but powerfully influenced by the Prime Minister and his law minister.Q.Which of the following statements is not true?a)The institution of High Court in India was first formed in 1862b)Article 214 to 231 of the Indian constitution envisages about the powers of the High Courtc)Only Delhi is a Union territory which has its own High Courtd)Only Parliament determines the number of judges in the High CourtCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Justice [X] midnight transfer raises both immediate and deeper questions. Although we were forewarned that he would be transferred, the post midnight marching orders were clearly punitive because he wanted FIRs to be filed against hate speech provocateurs against whom more than a prima facie existed on video. His orders were to immediately register the FIRs which were bypassed to the Chief Justice of Delhi to whom the case went who gave 4 extra weeks to file the criminal cases. FIRs are to be filed immediately. In fact in criminal jurisprudence delay in filing a FIR goes to veracity. If several murders are committed, you do not wait for all murders to cease to start investigation. Thus the Chief Justice of Delhi and Solicitor General who had the gall to make such a request have a lot to answer for.This is a fundamental question whether High Court judges can be transferred from one High Court to another like civil servants even though the Constitution gives the power to do so.Before the 99th amendment of the Constitution of 2014 (Article 222) gave the President the power to transfer judges. In constitutional terms, under the parliamentary system, this meant on the advice of the Prime Minister. That amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court because of the way the commission was constructed it would have undermined the independence of the judiciary to restore the status quo of judicial approval but powerfully influenced by the Prime Minister and his law minister.Q.Which of the following statements is not true?a)The institution of High Court in India was first formed in 1862b)Article 214 to 231 of the Indian constitution envisages about the powers of the High Courtc)Only Delhi is a Union territory which has its own High Courtd)Only Parliament determines the number of judges in the High CourtCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Justice [X] midnight transfer raises both immediate and deeper questions. Although we were forewarned that he would be transferred, the post midnight marching orders were clearly punitive because he wanted FIRs to be filed against hate speech provocateurs against whom more than a prima facie existed on video. His orders were to immediately register the FIRs which were bypassed to the Chief Justice of Delhi to whom the case went who gave 4 extra weeks to file the criminal cases. FIRs are to be filed immediately. In fact in criminal jurisprudence delay in filing a FIR goes to veracity. If several murders are committed, you do not wait for all murders to cease to start investigation. Thus the Chief Justice of Delhi and Solicitor General who had the gall to make such a request have a lot to answer for.This is a fundamental question whether High Court judges can be transferred from one High Court to another like civil servants even though the Constitution gives the power to do so.Before the 99th amendment of the Constitution of 2014 (Article 222) gave the President the power to transfer judges. In constitutional terms, under the parliamentary system, this meant on the advice of the Prime Minister. That amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court because of the way the commission was constructed it would have undermined the independence of the judiciary to restore the status quo of judicial approval but powerfully influenced by the Prime Minister and his law minister.Q.Which of the following statements is not true?a)The institution of High Court in India was first formed in 1862b)Article 214 to 231 of the Indian constitution envisages about the powers of the High Courtc)Only Delhi is a Union territory which has its own High Courtd)Only Parliament determines the number of judges in the High CourtCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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 Justice [X] midnight transfer raises both immediate and deeper questions. Although we were forewarned that he would be transferred, the post midnight marching orders were clearly punitive because he wanted FIRs to be filed against hate speech provocateurs against whom more than a prima facie existed on video. His orders were to immediately register the FIRs which were bypassed to the Chief Justice of Delhi to whom the case went who gave 4 extra weeks to file the criminal cases. FIRs are to be filed immediately. In fact in criminal jurisprudence delay in filing a FIR goes to veracity. If several murders are committed, you do not wait for all murders to cease to start investigation. Thus the Chief Justice of Delhi and Solicitor General who had the gall to make such a request have a lot to answer for.This is a fundamental question whether High Court judges can be transferred from one High Court to another like civil servants even though the Constitution gives the power to do so.Before the 99th amendment of the Constitution of 2014 (Article 222) gave the President the power to transfer judges. In constitutional terms, under the parliamentary system, this meant on the advice of the Prime Minister. That amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court because of the way the commission was constructed it would have undermined the independence of the judiciary to restore the status quo of judicial approval but powerfully influenced by the Prime Minister and his law minister.Q.Which of the following statements is not true?a)The institution of High Court in India was first formed in 1862b)Article 214 to 231 of the Indian constitution envisages about the powers of the High Courtc)Only Delhi is a Union territory which has its own High Courtd)Only Parliament determines the number of judges in the High CourtCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Justice [X] midnight transfer raises both immediate and deeper questions. Although we were forewarned that he would be transferred, the post midnight marching orders were clearly punitive because he wanted FIRs to be filed against hate speech provocateurs against whom more than a prima facie existed on video. His orders were to immediately register the FIRs which were bypassed to the Chief Justice of Delhi to whom the case went who gave 4 extra weeks to file the criminal cases. FIRs are to be filed immediately. In fact in criminal jurisprudence delay in filing a FIR goes to veracity. If several murders are committed, you do not wait for all murders to cease to start investigation. Thus the Chief Justice of Delhi and Solicitor General who had the gall to make such a request have a lot to answer for.This is a fundamental question whether High Court judges can be transferred from one High Court to another like civil servants even though the Constitution gives the power to do so.Before the 99th amendment of the Constitution of 2014 (Article 222) gave the President the power to transfer judges. In constitutional terms, under the parliamentary system, this meant on the advice of the Prime Minister. That amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court because of the way the commission was constructed it would have undermined the independence of the judiciary to restore the status quo of judicial approval but powerfully influenced by the Prime Minister and his law minister.Q.Which of the following statements is not true?a)The institution of High Court in India was first formed in 1862b)Article 214 to 231 of the Indian constitution envisages about the powers of the High Courtc)Only Delhi is a Union territory which has its own High Courtd)Only Parliament determines the number of judges in the High CourtCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Justice [X] midnight transfer raises both immediate and deeper questions. Although we were forewarned that he would be transferred, the post midnight marching orders were clearly punitive because he wanted FIRs to be filed against hate speech provocateurs against whom more than a prima facie existed on video. His orders were to immediately register the FIRs which were bypassed to the Chief Justice of Delhi to whom the case went who gave 4 extra weeks to file the criminal cases. FIRs are to be filed immediately. In fact in criminal jurisprudence delay in filing a FIR goes to veracity. If several murders are committed, you do not wait for all murders to cease to start investigation. Thus the Chief Justice of Delhi and Solicitor General who had the gall to make such a request have a lot to answer for.This is a fundamental question whether High Court judges can be transferred from one High Court to another like civil servants even though the Constitution gives the power to do so.Before the 99th amendment of the Constitution of 2014 (Article 222) gave the President the power to transfer judges. In constitutional terms, under the parliamentary system, this meant on the advice of the Prime Minister. That amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court because of the way the commission was constructed it would have undermined the independence of the judiciary to restore the status quo of judicial approval but powerfully influenced by the Prime Minister and his law minister.Q.Which of the following statements is not true?a)The institution of High Court in India was first formed in 1862b)Article 214 to 231 of the Indian constitution envisages about the powers of the High Courtc)Only Delhi is a Union territory which has its own High Courtd)Only Parliament determines the number of judges in the High CourtCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Justice [X] midnight transfer raises both immediate and deeper questions. Although we were forewarned that he would be transferred, the post midnight marching orders were clearly punitive because he wanted FIRs to be filed against hate speech provocateurs against whom more than a prima facie existed on video. His orders were to immediately register the FIRs which were bypassed to the Chief Justice of Delhi to whom the case went who gave 4 extra weeks to file the criminal cases. FIRs are to be filed immediately. In fact in criminal jurisprudence delay in filing a FIR goes to veracity. If several murders are committed, you do not wait for all murders to cease to start investigation. Thus the Chief Justice of Delhi and Solicitor General who had the gall to make such a request have a lot to answer for.This is a fundamental question whether High Court judges can be transferred from one High Court to another like civil servants even though the Constitution gives the power to do so.Before the 99th amendment of the Constitution of 2014 (Article 222) gave the President the power to transfer judges. In constitutional terms, under the parliamentary system, this meant on the advice of the Prime Minister. That amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court because of the way the commission was constructed it would have undermined the independence of the judiciary to restore the status quo of judicial approval but powerfully influenced by the Prime Minister and his law minister.Q.Which of the following statements is not true?a)The institution of High Court in India was first formed in 1862b)Article 214 to 231 of the Indian constitution envisages about the powers of the High Courtc)Only Delhi is a Union territory which has its own High Courtd)Only Parliament determines the number of judges in the High CourtCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Justice [X] midnight transfer raises both immediate and deeper questions. Although we were forewarned that he would be transferred, the post midnight marching orders were clearly punitive because he wanted FIRs to be filed against hate speech provocateurs against whom more than a prima facie existed on video. His orders were to immediately register the FIRs which were bypassed to the Chief Justice of Delhi to whom the case went who gave 4 extra weeks to file the criminal cases. FIRs are to be filed immediately. In fact in criminal jurisprudence delay in filing a FIR goes to veracity. If several murders are committed, you do not wait for all murders to cease to start investigation. Thus the Chief Justice of Delhi and Solicitor General who had the gall to make such a request have a lot to answer for.This is a fundamental question whether High Court judges can be transferred from one High Court to another like civil servants even though the Constitution gives the power to do so.Before the 99th amendment of the Constitution of 2014 (Article 222) gave the President the power to transfer judges. In constitutional terms, under the parliamentary system, this meant on the advice of the Prime Minister. That amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court because of the way the commission was constructed it would have undermined the independence of the judiciary to restore the status quo of judicial approval but powerfully influenced by the Prime Minister and his law minister.Q.Which of the following statements is not true?a)The institution of High Court in India was first formed in 1862b)Article 214 to 231 of the Indian constitution envisages about the powers of the High Courtc)Only Delhi is a Union territory which has its own High Courtd)Only Parliament determines the number of judges in the High CourtCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam
Signup to solve all Doubts
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev