Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Back in March 1984, the Tenth Law Commission of India (95th Report) under Justice K K Mathew recommended that “the Supreme Court of India should consist of two Divisions, namely (a) Constitutional Division, and (b) Legal Division”, and that “only matters of Constitutional law may be assigned to the proposed Constitutional Division”. The Eleventh Law Commission under the chairmanship of Justice D.A Desai (125th Report, 1988) “reiterate(d) that the recommendation for splitting the (Supreme) Court into two halves deserves to be implemented”. Thereafter, the Eighteenth Law Commission under Justice A R Lakshmanan (229th Report, 2009) recommended that “a Constitution Bench be set up at Delhi to deal with constitutional and other allied issues”, and “four Cassation Benches be set up in the Northern region/zone at Delhi, the Southern region/zone at Chennai/Hyderabad, the Eastern region/zone at Kolkata and the Western region/zone at Mumbai to deal with all appellate work arising out of the orders/judgments of the High Courts of the particular region”.Indeed, many countries around the world have Courts of Cassation that decide cases involving non-Constitutional disputes and appeals from the lower level of courts. These are courts of last resort that have the power to reverse decisions of lower courts. (Cassation: annulment, cancellation, reversal). It has been pointed out that Article 39A says that “the state shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall… ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities”. It is obvious that travelling to New Delhi or engaging expensive Supreme Court counsel to pursue a case is beyond the means of most litigants. Standing Committees of Parliament recommended in 2004, 2005, and 2006 that Benches of the court be set up elsewhere.In 2008, the Committee suggested that at least one Bench be set up on a trial basis in Chennai. But the Supreme Court has not agreed with the proposal, which in its opinion will dilute the prestige of the court. Article 130 says that “the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.” Supreme Court Rules give the Chief Justice of India the power to constitute Benches — he can, for instance, have a Constitution Bench of seven judges in New Delhi, and set up smaller Benches in, say, four or six places across the country.`Q.A is a poor man residing in Bihar. He was fighting an eviction case, which has finally reached the final stage of appeals and is pending before the Supreme Court. A is a daily wage earner and cannot travel to Delhi to attend court hearings. Do you think according to the author, this would be a violation of Article 39A? Could this have been prevented if a regional bench was set up?a)Yes, Article 39A ensures that justice is not denied to any person on account of economic or other disabilities, hence, not having a regional bench, forces A to travel to Delhi to attend court hearings, which he cannot afford.b)No, A can always have his lawyer attend these court hearings.c)Yes, Article 39A will be violated, as justice is being denied on economic grounds.d)Only (A) and (C)Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Back in March 1984, the Tenth Law Commission of India (95th Report) under Justice K K Mathew recommended that “the Supreme Court of India should consist of two Divisions, namely (a) Constitutional Division, and (b) Legal Division”, and that “only matters of Constitutional law may be assigned to the proposed Constitutional Division”. The Eleventh Law Commission under the chairmanship of Justice D.A Desai (125th Report, 1988) “reiterate(d) that the recommendation for splitting the (Supreme) Court into two halves deserves to be implemented”. Thereafter, the Eighteenth Law Commission under Justice A R Lakshmanan (229th Report, 2009) recommended that “a Constitution Bench be set up at Delhi to deal with constitutional and other allied issues”, and “four Cassation Benches be set up in the Northern region/zone at Delhi, the Southern region/zone at Chennai/Hyderabad, the Eastern region/zone at Kolkata and the Western region/zone at Mumbai to deal with all appellate work arising out of the orders/judgments of the High Courts of the particular region”.Indeed, many countries around the world have Courts of Cassation that decide cases involving non-Constitutional disputes and appeals from the lower level of courts. These are courts of last resort that have the power to reverse decisions of lower courts. (Cassation: annulment, cancellation, reversal). It has been pointed out that Article 39A says that “the state shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall… ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities”. It is obvious that travelling to New Delhi or engaging expensive Supreme Court counsel to pursue a case is beyond the means of most litigants. Standing Committees of Parliament recommended in 2004, 2005, and 2006 that Benches of the court be set up elsewhere.In 2008, the Committee suggested that at least one Bench be set up on a trial basis in Chennai. But the Supreme Court has not agreed with the proposal, which in its opinion will dilute the prestige of the court. Article 130 says that “the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.” Supreme Court Rules give the Chief Justice of India the power to constitute Benches — he can, for instance, have a Constitution Bench of seven judges in New Delhi, and set up smaller Benches in, say, four or six places across the country.`Q.A is a poor man residing in Bihar. He was fighting an eviction case, which has finally reached the final stage of appeals and is pending before the Supreme Court. A is a daily wage earner and cannot travel to Delhi to attend court hearings. Do you think according to the author, this would be a violation of Article 39A? Could this have been prevented if a regional bench was set up?a)Yes, Article 39A ensures that justice is not denied to any person on account of economic or other disabilities, hence, not having a regional bench, forces A to travel to Delhi to attend court hearings, which he cannot afford.b)No, A can always have his lawyer attend these court hearings.c)Yes, Article 39A will be violated, as justice is being denied on economic grounds.d)Only (A) and (C)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Back in March 1984, the Tenth Law Commission of India (95th Report) under Justice K K Mathew recommended that “the Supreme Court of India should consist of two Divisions, namely (a) Constitutional Division, and (b) Legal Division”, and that “only matters of Constitutional law may be assigned to the proposed Constitutional Division”. The Eleventh Law Commission under the chairmanship of Justice D.A Desai (125th Report, 1988) “reiterate(d) that the recommendation for splitting the (Supreme) Court into two halves deserves to be implemented”. Thereafter, the Eighteenth Law Commission under Justice A R Lakshmanan (229th Report, 2009) recommended that “a Constitution Bench be set up at Delhi to deal with constitutional and other allied issues”, and “four Cassation Benches be set up in the Northern region/zone at Delhi, the Southern region/zone at Chennai/Hyderabad, the Eastern region/zone at Kolkata and the Western region/zone at Mumbai to deal with all appellate work arising out of the orders/judgments of the High Courts of the particular region”.Indeed, many countries around the world have Courts of Cassation that decide cases involving non-Constitutional disputes and appeals from the lower level of courts. These are courts of last resort that have the power to reverse decisions of lower courts. (Cassation: annulment, cancellation, reversal). It has been pointed out that Article 39A says that “the state shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall… ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities”. It is obvious that travelling to New Delhi or engaging expensive Supreme Court counsel to pursue a case is beyond the means of most litigants. Standing Committees of Parliament recommended in 2004, 2005, and 2006 that Benches of the court be set up elsewhere.In 2008, the Committee suggested that at least one Bench be set up on a trial basis in Chennai. But the Supreme Court has not agreed with the proposal, which in its opinion will dilute the prestige of the court. Article 130 says that “the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.” Supreme Court Rules give the Chief Justice of India the power to constitute Benches — he can, for instance, have a Constitution Bench of seven judges in New Delhi, and set up smaller Benches in, say, four or six places across the country.`Q.A is a poor man residing in Bihar. He was fighting an eviction case, which has finally reached the final stage of appeals and is pending before the Supreme Court. A is a daily wage earner and cannot travel to Delhi to attend court hearings. Do you think according to the author, this would be a violation of Article 39A? Could this have been prevented if a regional bench was set up?a)Yes, Article 39A ensures that justice is not denied to any person on account of economic or other disabilities, hence, not having a regional bench, forces A to travel to Delhi to attend court hearings, which he cannot afford.b)No, A can always have his lawyer attend these court hearings.c)Yes, Article 39A will be violated, as justice is being denied on economic grounds.d)Only (A) and (C)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Back in March 1984, the Tenth Law Commission of India (95th Report) under Justice K K Mathew recommended that “the Supreme Court of India should consist of two Divisions, namely (a) Constitutional Division, and (b) Legal Division”, and that “only matters of Constitutional law may be assigned to the proposed Constitutional Division”. The Eleventh Law Commission under the chairmanship of Justice D.A Desai (125th Report, 1988) “reiterate(d) that the recommendation for splitting the (Supreme) Court into two halves deserves to be implemented”. Thereafter, the Eighteenth Law Commission under Justice A R Lakshmanan (229th Report, 2009) recommended that “a Constitution Bench be set up at Delhi to deal with constitutional and other allied issues”, and “four Cassation Benches be set up in the Northern region/zone at Delhi, the Southern region/zone at Chennai/Hyderabad, the Eastern region/zone at Kolkata and the Western region/zone at Mumbai to deal with all appellate work arising out of the orders/judgments of the High Courts of the particular region”.Indeed, many countries around the world have Courts of Cassation that decide cases involving non-Constitutional disputes and appeals from the lower level of courts. These are courts of last resort that have the power to reverse decisions of lower courts. (Cassation: annulment, cancellation, reversal). It has been pointed out that Article 39A says that “the state shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall… ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities”. It is obvious that travelling to New Delhi or engaging expensive Supreme Court counsel to pursue a case is beyond the means of most litigants. Standing Committees of Parliament recommended in 2004, 2005, and 2006 that Benches of the court be set up elsewhere.In 2008, the Committee suggested that at least one Bench be set up on a trial basis in Chennai. But the Supreme Court has not agreed with the proposal, which in its opinion will dilute the prestige of the court. Article 130 says that “the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.” Supreme Court Rules give the Chief Justice of India the power to constitute Benches — he can, for instance, have a Constitution Bench of seven judges in New Delhi, and set up smaller Benches in, say, four or six places across the country.`Q.A is a poor man residing in Bihar. He was fighting an eviction case, which has finally reached the final stage of appeals and is pending before the Supreme Court. A is a daily wage earner and cannot travel to Delhi to attend court hearings. Do you think according to the author, this would be a violation of Article 39A? Could this have been prevented if a regional bench was set up?a)Yes, Article 39A ensures that justice is not denied to any person on account of economic or other disabilities, hence, not having a regional bench, forces A to travel to Delhi to attend court hearings, which he cannot afford.b)No, A can always have his lawyer attend these court hearings.c)Yes, Article 39A will be violated, as justice is being denied on economic grounds.d)Only (A) and (C)Correct 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 Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Back in March 1984, the Tenth Law Commission of India (95th Report) under Justice K K Mathew recommended that “the Supreme Court of India should consist of two Divisions, namely (a) Constitutional Division, and (b) Legal Division”, and that “only matters of Constitutional law may be assigned to the proposed Constitutional Division”. The Eleventh Law Commission under the chairmanship of Justice D.A Desai (125th Report, 1988) “reiterate(d) that the recommendation for splitting the (Supreme) Court into two halves deserves to be implemented”. Thereafter, the Eighteenth Law Commission under Justice A R Lakshmanan (229th Report, 2009) recommended that “a Constitution Bench be set up at Delhi to deal with constitutional and other allied issues”, and “four Cassation Benches be set up in the Northern region/zone at Delhi, the Southern region/zone at Chennai/Hyderabad, the Eastern region/zone at Kolkata and the Western region/zone at Mumbai to deal with all appellate work arising out of the orders/judgments of the High Courts of the particular region”.Indeed, many countries around the world have Courts of Cassation that decide cases involving non-Constitutional disputes and appeals from the lower level of courts. These are courts of last resort that have the power to reverse decisions of lower courts. (Cassation: annulment, cancellation, reversal). It has been pointed out that Article 39A says that “the state shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall… ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities”. It is obvious that travelling to New Delhi or engaging expensive Supreme Court counsel to pursue a case is beyond the means of most litigants. Standing Committees of Parliament recommended in 2004, 2005, and 2006 that Benches of the court be set up elsewhere.In 2008, the Committee suggested that at least one Bench be set up on a trial basis in Chennai. But the Supreme Court has not agreed with the proposal, which in its opinion will dilute the prestige of the court. Article 130 says that “the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.” Supreme Court Rules give the Chief Justice of India the power to constitute Benches — he can, for instance, have a Constitution Bench of seven judges in New Delhi, and set up smaller Benches in, say, four or six places across the country.`Q.A is a poor man residing in Bihar. He was fighting an eviction case, which has finally reached the final stage of appeals and is pending before the Supreme Court. A is a daily wage earner and cannot travel to Delhi to attend court hearings. Do you think according to the author, this would be a violation of Article 39A? Could this have been prevented if a regional bench was set up?a)Yes, Article 39A ensures that justice is not denied to any person on account of economic or other disabilities, hence, not having a regional bench, forces A to travel to Delhi to attend court hearings, which he cannot afford.b)No, A can always have his lawyer attend these court hearings.c)Yes, Article 39A will be violated, as justice is being denied on economic grounds.d)Only (A) and (C)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Back in March 1984, the Tenth Law Commission of India (95th Report) under Justice K K Mathew recommended that “the Supreme Court of India should consist of two Divisions, namely (a) Constitutional Division, and (b) Legal Division”, and that “only matters of Constitutional law may be assigned to the proposed Constitutional Division”. The Eleventh Law Commission under the chairmanship of Justice D.A Desai (125th Report, 1988) “reiterate(d) that the recommendation for splitting the (Supreme) Court into two halves deserves to be implemented”. Thereafter, the Eighteenth Law Commission under Justice A R Lakshmanan (229th Report, 2009) recommended that “a Constitution Bench be set up at Delhi to deal with constitutional and other allied issues”, and “four Cassation Benches be set up in the Northern region/zone at Delhi, the Southern region/zone at Chennai/Hyderabad, the Eastern region/zone at Kolkata and the Western region/zone at Mumbai to deal with all appellate work arising out of the orders/judgments of the High Courts of the particular region”.Indeed, many countries around the world have Courts of Cassation that decide cases involving non-Constitutional disputes and appeals from the lower level of courts. These are courts of last resort that have the power to reverse decisions of lower courts. (Cassation: annulment, cancellation, reversal). It has been pointed out that Article 39A says that “the state shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall… ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities”. It is obvious that travelling to New Delhi or engaging expensive Supreme Court counsel to pursue a case is beyond the means of most litigants. Standing Committees of Parliament recommended in 2004, 2005, and 2006 that Benches of the court be set up elsewhere.In 2008, the Committee suggested that at least one Bench be set up on a trial basis in Chennai. But the Supreme Court has not agreed with the proposal, which in its opinion will dilute the prestige of the court. Article 130 says that “the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.” Supreme Court Rules give the Chief Justice of India the power to constitute Benches — he can, for instance, have a Constitution Bench of seven judges in New Delhi, and set up smaller Benches in, say, four or six places across the country.`Q.A is a poor man residing in Bihar. He was fighting an eviction case, which has finally reached the final stage of appeals and is pending before the Supreme Court. A is a daily wage earner and cannot travel to Delhi to attend court hearings. Do you think according to the author, this would be a violation of Article 39A? Could this have been prevented if a regional bench was set up?a)Yes, Article 39A ensures that justice is not denied to any person on account of economic or other disabilities, hence, not having a regional bench, forces A to travel to Delhi to attend court hearings, which he cannot afford.b)No, A can always have his lawyer attend these court hearings.c)Yes, Article 39A will be violated, as justice is being denied on economic grounds.d)Only (A) and (C)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Back in March 1984, the Tenth Law Commission of India (95th Report) under Justice K K Mathew recommended that “the Supreme Court of India should consist of two Divisions, namely (a) Constitutional Division, and (b) Legal Division”, and that “only matters of Constitutional law may be assigned to the proposed Constitutional Division”. The Eleventh Law Commission under the chairmanship of Justice D.A Desai (125th Report, 1988) “reiterate(d) that the recommendation for splitting the (Supreme) Court into two halves deserves to be implemented”. Thereafter, the Eighteenth Law Commission under Justice A R Lakshmanan (229th Report, 2009) recommended that “a Constitution Bench be set up at Delhi to deal with constitutional and other allied issues”, and “four Cassation Benches be set up in the Northern region/zone at Delhi, the Southern region/zone at Chennai/Hyderabad, the Eastern region/zone at Kolkata and the Western region/zone at Mumbai to deal with all appellate work arising out of the orders/judgments of the High Courts of the particular region”.Indeed, many countries around the world have Courts of Cassation that decide cases involving non-Constitutional disputes and appeals from the lower level of courts. These are courts of last resort that have the power to reverse decisions of lower courts. (Cassation: annulment, cancellation, reversal). It has been pointed out that Article 39A says that “the state shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall… ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities”. It is obvious that travelling to New Delhi or engaging expensive Supreme Court counsel to pursue a case is beyond the means of most litigants. Standing Committees of Parliament recommended in 2004, 2005, and 2006 that Benches of the court be set up elsewhere.In 2008, the Committee suggested that at least one Bench be set up on a trial basis in Chennai. But the Supreme Court has not agreed with the proposal, which in its opinion will dilute the prestige of the court. Article 130 says that “the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.” Supreme Court Rules give the Chief Justice of India the power to constitute Benches — he can, for instance, have a Constitution Bench of seven judges in New Delhi, and set up smaller Benches in, say, four or six places across the country.`Q.A is a poor man residing in Bihar. He was fighting an eviction case, which has finally reached the final stage of appeals and is pending before the Supreme Court. A is a daily wage earner and cannot travel to Delhi to attend court hearings. Do you think according to the author, this would be a violation of Article 39A? Could this have been prevented if a regional bench was set up?a)Yes, Article 39A ensures that justice is not denied to any person on account of economic or other disabilities, hence, not having a regional bench, forces A to travel to Delhi to attend court hearings, which he cannot afford.b)No, A can always have his lawyer attend these court hearings.c)Yes, Article 39A will be violated, as justice is being denied on economic grounds.d)Only (A) and (C)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Back in March 1984, the Tenth Law Commission of India (95th Report) under Justice K K Mathew recommended that “the Supreme Court of India should consist of two Divisions, namely (a) Constitutional Division, and (b) Legal Division”, and that “only matters of Constitutional law may be assigned to the proposed Constitutional Division”. The Eleventh Law Commission under the chairmanship of Justice D.A Desai (125th Report, 1988) “reiterate(d) that the recommendation for splitting the (Supreme) Court into two halves deserves to be implemented”. Thereafter, the Eighteenth Law Commission under Justice A R Lakshmanan (229th Report, 2009) recommended that “a Constitution Bench be set up at Delhi to deal with constitutional and other allied issues”, and “four Cassation Benches be set up in the Northern region/zone at Delhi, the Southern region/zone at Chennai/Hyderabad, the Eastern region/zone at Kolkata and the Western region/zone at Mumbai to deal with all appellate work arising out of the orders/judgments of the High Courts of the particular region”.Indeed, many countries around the world have Courts of Cassation that decide cases involving non-Constitutional disputes and appeals from the lower level of courts. These are courts of last resort that have the power to reverse decisions of lower courts. (Cassation: annulment, cancellation, reversal). It has been pointed out that Article 39A says that “the state shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall… ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities”. It is obvious that travelling to New Delhi or engaging expensive Supreme Court counsel to pursue a case is beyond the means of most litigants. Standing Committees of Parliament recommended in 2004, 2005, and 2006 that Benches of the court be set up elsewhere.In 2008, the Committee suggested that at least one Bench be set up on a trial basis in Chennai. But the Supreme Court has not agreed with the proposal, which in its opinion will dilute the prestige of the court. Article 130 says that “the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.” Supreme Court Rules give the Chief Justice of India the power to constitute Benches — he can, for instance, have a Constitution Bench of seven judges in New Delhi, and set up smaller Benches in, say, four or six places across the country.`Q.A is a poor man residing in Bihar. He was fighting an eviction case, which has finally reached the final stage of appeals and is pending before the Supreme Court. A is a daily wage earner and cannot travel to Delhi to attend court hearings. Do you think according to the author, this would be a violation of Article 39A? Could this have been prevented if a regional bench was set up?a)Yes, Article 39A ensures that justice is not denied to any person on account of economic or other disabilities, hence, not having a regional bench, forces A to travel to Delhi to attend court hearings, which he cannot afford.b)No, A can always have his lawyer attend these court hearings.c)Yes, Article 39A will be violated, as justice is being denied on economic grounds.d)Only (A) and (C)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Back in March 1984, the Tenth Law Commission of India (95th Report) under Justice K K Mathew recommended that “the Supreme Court of India should consist of two Divisions, namely (a) Constitutional Division, and (b) Legal Division”, and that “only matters of Constitutional law may be assigned to the proposed Constitutional Division”. The Eleventh Law Commission under the chairmanship of Justice D.A Desai (125th Report, 1988) “reiterate(d) that the recommendation for splitting the (Supreme) Court into two halves deserves to be implemented”. Thereafter, the Eighteenth Law Commission under Justice A R Lakshmanan (229th Report, 2009) recommended that “a Constitution Bench be set up at Delhi to deal with constitutional and other allied issues”, and “four Cassation Benches be set up in the Northern region/zone at Delhi, the Southern region/zone at Chennai/Hyderabad, the Eastern region/zone at Kolkata and the Western region/zone at Mumbai to deal with all appellate work arising out of the orders/judgments of the High Courts of the particular region”.Indeed, many countries around the world have Courts of Cassation that decide cases involving non-Constitutional disputes and appeals from the lower level of courts. These are courts of last resort that have the power to reverse decisions of lower courts. (Cassation: annulment, cancellation, reversal). It has been pointed out that Article 39A says that “the state shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall… ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities”. It is obvious that travelling to New Delhi or engaging expensive Supreme Court counsel to pursue a case is beyond the means of most litigants. Standing Committees of Parliament recommended in 2004, 2005, and 2006 that Benches of the court be set up elsewhere.In 2008, the Committee suggested that at least one Bench be set up on a trial basis in Chennai. But the Supreme Court has not agreed with the proposal, which in its opinion will dilute the prestige of the court. Article 130 says that “the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.” Supreme Court Rules give the Chief Justice of India the power to constitute Benches — he can, for instance, have a Constitution Bench of seven judges in New Delhi, and set up smaller Benches in, say, four or six places across the country.`Q.A is a poor man residing in Bihar. He was fighting an eviction case, which has finally reached the final stage of appeals and is pending before the Supreme Court. A is a daily wage earner and cannot travel to Delhi to attend court hearings. Do you think according to the author, this would be a violation of Article 39A? Could this have been prevented if a regional bench was set up?a)Yes, Article 39A ensures that justice is not denied to any person on account of economic or other disabilities, hence, not having a regional bench, forces A to travel to Delhi to attend court hearings, which he cannot afford.b)No, A can always have his lawyer attend these court hearings.c)Yes, Article 39A will be violated, as justice is being denied on economic grounds.d)Only (A) and (C)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.