Question Description
Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.“It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays.” Through this statement the author wants to construe that:a)Courts transgress from its own judicial rulings and precedents in the interest of delivering justice.b)Due to judicial activism, courts deviate the trial proceedings which results in shifting of matter from lower courts to higher judiciary.c)The principle of natural justice is the vital aspect in delivery of justice and courts sometimes ignore that principle relying on customary norms.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.“It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays.” Through this statement the author wants to construe that:a)Courts transgress from its own judicial rulings and precedents in the interest of delivering justice.b)Due to judicial activism, courts deviate the trial proceedings which results in shifting of matter from lower courts to higher judiciary.c)The principle of natural justice is the vital aspect in delivery of justice and courts sometimes ignore that principle relying on customary norms.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.“It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays.” Through this statement the author wants to construe that:a)Courts transgress from its own judicial rulings and precedents in the interest of delivering justice.b)Due to judicial activism, courts deviate the trial proceedings which results in shifting of matter from lower courts to higher judiciary.c)The principle of natural justice is the vital aspect in delivery of justice and courts sometimes ignore that principle relying on customary norms.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.“It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays.” Through this statement the author wants to construe that:a)Courts transgress from its own judicial rulings and precedents in the interest of delivering justice.b)Due to judicial activism, courts deviate the trial proceedings which results in shifting of matter from lower courts to higher judiciary.c)The principle of natural justice is the vital aspect in delivery of justice and courts sometimes ignore that principle relying on customary norms.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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 Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.“It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays.” Through this statement the author wants to construe that:a)Courts transgress from its own judicial rulings and precedents in the interest of delivering justice.b)Due to judicial activism, courts deviate the trial proceedings which results in shifting of matter from lower courts to higher judiciary.c)The principle of natural justice is the vital aspect in delivery of justice and courts sometimes ignore that principle relying on customary norms.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.“It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays.” Through this statement the author wants to construe that:a)Courts transgress from its own judicial rulings and precedents in the interest of delivering justice.b)Due to judicial activism, courts deviate the trial proceedings which results in shifting of matter from lower courts to higher judiciary.c)The principle of natural justice is the vital aspect in delivery of justice and courts sometimes ignore that principle relying on customary norms.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.“It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays.” Through this statement the author wants to construe that:a)Courts transgress from its own judicial rulings and precedents in the interest of delivering justice.b)Due to judicial activism, courts deviate the trial proceedings which results in shifting of matter from lower courts to higher judiciary.c)The principle of natural justice is the vital aspect in delivery of justice and courts sometimes ignore that principle relying on customary norms.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.“It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays.” Through this statement the author wants to construe that:a)Courts transgress from its own judicial rulings and precedents in the interest of delivering justice.b)Due to judicial activism, courts deviate the trial proceedings which results in shifting of matter from lower courts to higher judiciary.c)The principle of natural justice is the vital aspect in delivery of justice and courts sometimes ignore that principle relying on customary norms.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.“It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays.” Through this statement the author wants to construe that:a)Courts transgress from its own judicial rulings and precedents in the interest of delivering justice.b)Due to judicial activism, courts deviate the trial proceedings which results in shifting of matter from lower courts to higher judiciary.c)The principle of natural justice is the vital aspect in delivery of justice and courts sometimes ignore that principle relying on customary norms.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.