All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   Who among the following has the Constitution... Start Learning for Free
Who among the following has the Constitutional authority to make rules regarding the manner of enforcing the orders of the Supreme Court?
  • a)
    Chief Justice of India
  • b)
    Attorney General of India
  • c)
    President
  • d)
    Union Law Minister
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CLAT doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
Who among the following has the Constitutional authority to make rule...
Article 142 of C.O.I states that--
Enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc..
(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
Hence, option C is correct.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Who among the following has the Constitutional authority to make rule...
The President of India has the Constitutional authority to make rules regarding the manner of enforcing the orders of the Supreme Court. This authority is derived from Article 144 of the Indian Constitution, which states that all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.

Explanation:

1. Constitutional Authority of the President:
The President of India is the head of state and is vested with executive powers. The Constitution grants the President certain powers and functions, including the power to make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the government. This includes the power to make rules regarding the manner of enforcing the orders of the Supreme Court.

2. Article 144 of the Indian Constitution:
Article 144 of the Indian Constitution states that all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. This means that the President, as the head of the executive branch of the government, has the authority to make rules that ensure the enforcement of the orders of the Supreme Court.

3. Enforcing the Orders of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial authority in the country. Its orders and judgments are binding on all authorities and individuals within the territory of India. To ensure the effective enforcement of its orders, the Supreme Court may issue directions to the concerned authorities. The President, through the power to make rules, can prescribe the manner in which these orders are to be enforced.

4. Role of the President:
The President plays a crucial role in the functioning of the Indian judicial system. By making rules regarding the enforcement of the orders of the Supreme Court, the President ensures that the decisions of the highest court in the land are effectively implemented. This helps in upholding the rule of law and maintaining the independence and authority of the judiciary.

In conclusion, the President of India has the Constitutional authority to make rules regarding the manner of enforcing the orders of the Supreme Court. This authority is derived from Article 144 of the Indian Constitution, which mandates that all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed summoned his secretary, K. Balachandran, at around 11:15 p.m. on 25 June 1975. Ten minutes later, Balachandran met the pyjama-clad president in the private sitting room of his official residence at Rashtrapati Bhavan. The president handed his secretary a one-page letter from Indira Gandhi marked Top Secret. Referring to the prime ministers discussion with the president earlier that day, the letter said she was in receipt of information that internal disturbances posed an imminent threat to Indias internal security. It requested a proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 (1) if the president was satisfied on this score. She would have preferred to have first consulted the cabinet, but there was no time to lose. Therefore, she was invoking a departure from the Transaction of Business Rules in exercise of her powers under Rule 12 thereof. The president asked for his aides opinion on the letter, which did not have the proposed proclamation attached. Balachandran said that such a proclamation was constitutionally impermissible on more than one ground. At this, the president said that he wanted to consult the Indian Constitution. Balachandran retreated to his office to locate a copy. Meanwhile, the deputy secretary in the presidents secretariat showed up. The two officials launched into a discussion about the constitutionality of the prime ministers proposal before they returned to President Ahmed with a copy of the Constitution. Balachandran explained that the presidents personal satisfaction that internal disturbances posed a threat to internal security was constitutionally irrelevant. What the Constitution required was the advice of the council of ministers. Balachandran withdrew when the president said he wanted to speak to the prime minister. When he re-entered the room 10 minutes later, President Ahmed informed him that R. K. Dhawan had come over with a draft Emergency proclamation, which he had signed. Then the president swallowed a tranquilizer and went to bed.This late-night concern for constitutional propriety is revealing. What we see unfolding in the hunt for a copy of the Constitution, the leafing through of its pages to make sure that the draft proclamation met the letter of the law, is the meticulous process of the paradoxical suspension of the law by law. The substance of the discussion concerns the legality of the procedures to follow in issuing the Emergency proclamation. The political will behind the act goes unmentioned. This is because Article 352 (1) of the Constitution itself had left the judgement of the necessity for the Emergency proclamation outside the law. The doctrine of necessity regards the judgement of crisis conditions as something that the law itself cannot handle; it is a lacuna in the juridical order that the executive is obligated to remedy.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Emergency Chronicles: Indira Gandhi and Democracys Turning Point by Gyan Prakash, available now through Penguin Random House India.]Q.What inference can be drawn from the passage regarding the request for the Emergency proclamation?

The Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed with the Central government’s suggestion that the court should wait till the President took a call on Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan’s mercy plea referred to him by the [X] for a decision. A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai said the Centre had missed the obvious question posed by the court by a mile. The pertinent question was whether the Governor had, in the first place, the authority to refer the mercy plea to the President. Under Article 161 of the Constitution, the Governor was bound by the aid and advice given by the [Y] in September 2018 to the Governor to release Perarivalan, who has already served over 30 years of his life sentence. The Governor prima facie had no authority to transfer the mercy plea to the President. There was no role for the President here under the Constitution, the court told Additional Solicitor­General K.M. Nataraj, for the Centre. “We cannot shut our eyes to something that is happening against the Constitution. We have to follow our Bible — the Constitution of India,” Justice Rao addressed the Centre. Justice Gavai said no authority, however high, could put a spoke in the working of the Constitution. Mr. Nataraj urged the court, “The file has been referred by the Governor to the President. If the President refers it (mercy ple

The Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed with the Central government’s suggestion that the court should wait till the President took a call on Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan’s mercy plea referred to him by the [X] for a decision. A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai said the Centre had missed the obvious question posed by the court by a mile. The pertinent question was whether the Governor had, in the first place, the authority to refer the mercy plea to the President. Under Article 161 of the Constitution, the Governor was bound by the aid and advice given by the [Y] in September 2018 to the Governor to release Perarivalan, who has already served over 30 years of his life sentence. The Governor prima facie had no authority to transfer the mercy plea to the President. There was no role for the President here under the Constitution, the court told Additional Solicitor­General K.M. Nataraj, for the Centre. “We cannot shut our eyes to something that is happening against the Constitution. We have to follow our Bible — the Constitution of India,” Justice Rao addressed the Centre. Justice Gavai said no authority, however high, could put a spoke in the working of the Constitution. Mr. Nataraj urged the court, “The file has been referred by the Governor to the President. If the President refers it (mercy ple

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed summoned his secretary, K. Balachandran, at around 11:15 p.m. on 25 June 1975. Ten minutes later, Balachandran met the pyjama-clad president in the private sitting room of his official residence at Rashtrapati Bhavan. The president handed his secretary a one-page letter from Indira Gandhi marked Top Secret. Referring to the prime ministers discussion with the president earlier that day, the letter said she was in receipt of information that internal disturbances posed an imminent threat to Indias internal security. It requested a proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 (1) if the president was satisfied on this score. She would have preferred to have first consulted the cabinet, but there was no time to lose. Therefore, she was invoking a departure from the Transaction of Business Rules in exercise of her powers under Rule 12 thereof. The president asked for his aides opinion on the letter, which did not have the proposed proclamation attached. Balachandran said that such a proclamation was constitutionally impermissible on more than one ground. At this, the president said that he wanted to consult the Indian Constitution. Balachandran retreated to his office to locate a copy. Meanwhile, the deputy secretary in the presidents secretariat showed up. The two officials launched into a discussion about the constitutionality of the prime ministers proposal before they returned to President Ahmed with a copy of the Constitution. Balachandran explained that the presidents personal satisfaction that internal disturbances posed a threat to internal security was constitutionally irrelevant. What the Constitution required was the advice of the council of ministers. Balachandran withdrew when the president said he wanted to speak to the prime minister. When he re-entered the room 10 minutes later, President Ahmed informed him that R. K. Dhawan had come over with a draft Emergency proclamation, which he had signed. Then the president swallowed a tranquilizer and went to bed.This late-night concern for constitutional propriety is revealing. What we see unfolding in the hunt for a copy of the Constitution, the leafing through of its pages to make sure that the draft proclamation met the letter of the law, is the meticulous process of the paradoxical suspension of the law by law. The substance of the discussion concerns the legality of the procedures to follow in issuing the Emergency proclamation. The political will behind the act goes unmentioned. This is because Article 352 (1) of the Constitution itself had left the judgement of the necessity for the Emergency proclamation outside the law. The doctrine of necessity regards the judgement of crisis conditions as something that the law itself cannot handle; it is a lacuna in the juridical order that the executive is obligated to remedy.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Emergency Chronicles: Indira Gandhi and Democracys Turning Point by Gyan Prakash, available now through Penguin Random House India.]Q. What did President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed request from his secretary, K. Balachandran, regarding Indira Gandhis letter?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed summoned his secretary, K. Balachandran, at around 11:15 p.m. on 25 June 1975. Ten minutes later, Balachandran met the pyjama-clad president in the private sitting room of his official residence at Rashtrapati Bhavan. The president handed his secretary a one-page letter from Indira Gandhi marked 'Top Secret'. Referring to the prime minister's discussion with the president earlier that day, the letter said she was in receipt of information that internal disturbances posed an imminent threat to India's internal security. It requested a proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 (1) if the president was satisfied on this score. She would have preferred to have first consulted the cabinet, but there was no time to lose. Therefore, she was invoking a departure from the Transaction of Business Rules in exercise of her powers under Rule 12 thereof. The president asked for his aide's opinion on the letter, which did not have the proposed proclamation attached. Balachandran said that such a proclamation was constitutionally impermissible on more than one ground. At this, the president said that he wanted to consult the Indian Constitution. Balachandran retreated to his office to locate a copy. Meanwhile, the deputy secretary in the president's secretariat showed up. The two officials launched into a discussion about the constitutionality of the prime minister's proposal before they returned to President Ahmed with a copy of the Constitution. Balachandran explained that the president's personal satisfaction that internal disturbances posed a threat to internal security was constitutionally irrelevant. What the Constitution required was the advice of the council of ministers. Balachandran withdrew when the president said he wanted to speak to the prime minister. When he re-entered the room 10 minutes later, President Ahmed informed him that R. K. Dhawan had come over with a draft Emergency proclamation, which he had signed. Then the president swallowed a tranquilizer and went to bed.This late-night concern for constitutional propriety is revealing. What we see unfolding in the hunt for a copy of the Constitution, the leafing through of its pages to make sure that the draft proclamation met the letter of the law, is the meticulous process of the paradoxical suspension of the law by law. The substance of the discussion concerns the legality of the procedures to follow in issuing the Emergency proclamation. The political will behind the act goes unmentioned. This is because Article 352 (1) of the Constitution itself had left the judgement of the necessity for the Emergency proclamation outside the law. The doctrine of necessity regards the judgement of crisis conditions as something that the law itself cannot handle; it is a lacuna in the juridical order that the executive is obligated to remedy.Q. What can be inferred from the passage about the request for the Emergency proclamation?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Who among the following has the Constitutional authority to make rules regarding the manner of enforcing the orders of the Supreme Court?a)Chief Justice of Indiab)Attorney General of Indiac)Presidentd)Union Law MinisterCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Who among the following has the Constitutional authority to make rules regarding the manner of enforcing the orders of the Supreme Court?a)Chief Justice of Indiab)Attorney General of Indiac)Presidentd)Union Law MinisterCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 Who among the following has the Constitutional authority to make rules regarding the manner of enforcing the orders of the Supreme Court?a)Chief Justice of Indiab)Attorney General of Indiac)Presidentd)Union Law MinisterCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Who among the following has the Constitutional authority to make rules regarding the manner of enforcing the orders of the Supreme Court?a)Chief Justice of Indiab)Attorney General of Indiac)Presidentd)Union Law MinisterCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Who among the following has the Constitutional authority to make rules regarding the manner of enforcing the orders of the Supreme Court?a)Chief Justice of Indiab)Attorney General of Indiac)Presidentd)Union Law MinisterCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 Who among the following has the Constitutional authority to make rules regarding the manner of enforcing the orders of the Supreme Court?a)Chief Justice of Indiab)Attorney General of Indiac)Presidentd)Union Law MinisterCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Who among the following has the Constitutional authority to make rules regarding the manner of enforcing the orders of the Supreme Court?a)Chief Justice of Indiab)Attorney General of Indiac)Presidentd)Union Law MinisterCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Who among the following has the Constitutional authority to make rules regarding the manner of enforcing the orders of the Supreme Court?a)Chief Justice of Indiab)Attorney General of Indiac)Presidentd)Union Law MinisterCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Who among the following has the Constitutional authority to make rules regarding the manner of enforcing the orders of the Supreme Court?a)Chief Justice of Indiab)Attorney General of Indiac)Presidentd)Union Law MinisterCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Who among the following has the Constitutional authority to make rules regarding the manner of enforcing the orders of the Supreme Court?a)Chief Justice of Indiab)Attorney General of Indiac)Presidentd)Union Law MinisterCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

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