Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In order to maintain the independence of the judiciary, the primacy of the judiciary in appointment process has to be maintained.2. Independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be amended.3. Any Act in violation of the Constitution need to be struck down.Facts: The Parliament of India passes an Act called the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) which will govern the appointment of judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court. The members of the NJAC will be the Chief Justice of India, the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister and two eminent persons. One of the provisions of the Act says that Law Minister can veto a candidate's name. The law is challenged on the ground that it violates the basic feature of the Constitution.Decide accordingly.a)The Act is valid because there is always a presumption that an Act is always constitutional.b)The Act is invalid as it affects the independence of the judiciary since it allows the Law Minister, who is a politician, to veto an appointment and take away the primacy of the judiciary in the appointment process.c)The Act is valid as it only strengthens the delicate balance between the executive and the judiciary in the appointment process which is also a basic feature of the Constitution.d)The Act is invalid as it does not define eminent persons and hence is void for vagueness, thus liable to be struck down.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directions: The question consists of two sta...

Principles:

1. In order to maintain the independence of the judiciary, the primacy of the judiciary in appointment process has to be maintained.

2. Independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be amended.

3. Any Act in violation of the Constitution need to be struck down.

Facts: The Parliament of India passes an Act called the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) which will govern the appointment of judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court. The members of the NJAC will be the Chief Justice of India, the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister and two eminent persons. One of the provisions of the Act says that Law Minister can veto a candidate's name. The law is challenged on the ground that it violates the basic feature of the Constitution.

Decide accordingly.

a)
The Act is valid because there is always a presumption that an Act is always constitutional.
b)
The Act is invalid as it affects the independence of the judiciary since it allows the Law Minister, who is a politician, to veto an appointment and take away the primacy of the judiciary in the appointment process.
c)
The Act is valid as it only strengthens the delicate balance between the executive and the judiciary in the appointment process which is also a basic feature of the Constitution.
d)
The Act is invalid as it does not define eminent persons and hence is void for vagueness, thus liable to be struck down.
e)
None of the above

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as ...

The primacy of the judiciary will be affected if Law Minister can veto an appointment by going against the view of judicial members.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. A person approached the Supreme Court contending that a law passed by the Parliament takes away his fundamental right and prayed that the Court must stay the operation of law at first instance and then he would move forward to prove that law is unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights of the petitioner. Decide.

View answer

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.Q. All of the following can be inferred from the passage except

View answer

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.Q. According to the passage, article 32 has which of the following characteristics?A. it is used for enforcement of fundamental rights.B. The Supreme Court may issue a writ against any person or government of India.C. Article 32 defines a fundamental right.

View answer

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part - III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.All of the following can be inferred from the passage except

View answer

One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/ the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said:"It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, the Judge recuses from hearing the case.A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that:"… I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws."Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive.The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding.Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.Q. Which of the following is the main point of the author in the given passage?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In order to maintain the independence of the judiciary, the primacy of the judiciary in appointment process has to be maintained.2. Independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be amended.3. Any Act in violation of the Constitution need to be struck down.Facts: The Parliament of India passes an Act called the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) which will govern the appointment of judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court. The members of the NJAC will be the Chief Justice of India, the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister and two eminent persons. One of the provisions of the Act says that Law Minister can veto a candidate's name. The law is challenged on the ground that it violates the basic feature of the Constitution.Decide accordingly.a)The Act is valid because there is always a presumption that an Act is always constitutional.b)The Act is invalid as it affects the independence of the judiciary since it allows the Law Minister, who is a politician, to veto an appointment and take away the primacy of the judiciary in the appointment process.c)The Act is valid as it only strengthens the delicate balance between the executive and the judiciary in the appointment process which is also a basic feature of the Constitution.d)The Act is invalid as it does not define eminent persons and hence is void for vagueness, thus liable to be struck down.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In order to maintain the independence of the judiciary, the primacy of the judiciary in appointment process has to be maintained.2. Independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be amended.3. Any Act in violation of the Constitution need to be struck down.Facts: The Parliament of India passes an Act called the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) which will govern the appointment of judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court. The members of the NJAC will be the Chief Justice of India, the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister and two eminent persons. One of the provisions of the Act says that Law Minister can veto a candidate's name. The law is challenged on the ground that it violates the basic feature of the Constitution.Decide accordingly.a)The Act is valid because there is always a presumption that an Act is always constitutional.b)The Act is invalid as it affects the independence of the judiciary since it allows the Law Minister, who is a politician, to veto an appointment and take away the primacy of the judiciary in the appointment process.c)The Act is valid as it only strengthens the delicate balance between the executive and the judiciary in the appointment process which is also a basic feature of the Constitution.d)The Act is invalid as it does not define eminent persons and hence is void for vagueness, thus liable to be struck down.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In order to maintain the independence of the judiciary, the primacy of the judiciary in appointment process has to be maintained.2. Independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be amended.3. Any Act in violation of the Constitution need to be struck down.Facts: The Parliament of India passes an Act called the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) which will govern the appointment of judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court. The members of the NJAC will be the Chief Justice of India, the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister and two eminent persons. One of the provisions of the Act says that Law Minister can veto a candidate's name. The law is challenged on the ground that it violates the basic feature of the Constitution.Decide accordingly.a)The Act is valid because there is always a presumption that an Act is always constitutional.b)The Act is invalid as it affects the independence of the judiciary since it allows the Law Minister, who is a politician, to veto an appointment and take away the primacy of the judiciary in the appointment process.c)The Act is valid as it only strengthens the delicate balance between the executive and the judiciary in the appointment process which is also a basic feature of the Constitution.d)The Act is invalid as it does not define eminent persons and hence is void for vagueness, thus liable to be struck down.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In order to maintain the independence of the judiciary, the primacy of the judiciary in appointment process has to be maintained.2. Independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be amended.3. Any Act in violation of the Constitution need to be struck down.Facts: The Parliament of India passes an Act called the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) which will govern the appointment of judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court. The members of the NJAC will be the Chief Justice of India, the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister and two eminent persons. One of the provisions of the Act says that Law Minister can veto a candidate's name. The law is challenged on the ground that it violates the basic feature of the Constitution.Decide accordingly.a)The Act is valid because there is always a presumption that an Act is always constitutional.b)The Act is invalid as it affects the independence of the judiciary since it allows the Law Minister, who is a politician, to veto an appointment and take away the primacy of the judiciary in the appointment process.c)The Act is valid as it only strengthens the delicate balance between the executive and the judiciary in the appointment process which is also a basic feature of the Constitution.d)The Act is invalid as it does not define eminent persons and hence is void for vagueness, thus liable to be struck down.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In order to maintain the independence of the judiciary, the primacy of the judiciary in appointment process has to be maintained.2. Independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be amended.3. Any Act in violation of the Constitution need to be struck down.Facts: The Parliament of India passes an Act called the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) which will govern the appointment of judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court. The members of the NJAC will be the Chief Justice of India, the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister and two eminent persons. One of the provisions of the Act says that Law Minister can veto a candidate's name. The law is challenged on the ground that it violates the basic feature of the Constitution.Decide accordingly.a)The Act is valid because there is always a presumption that an Act is always constitutional.b)The Act is invalid as it affects the independence of the judiciary since it allows the Law Minister, who is a politician, to veto an appointment and take away the primacy of the judiciary in the appointment process.c)The Act is valid as it only strengthens the delicate balance between the executive and the judiciary in the appointment process which is also a basic feature of the Constitution.d)The Act is invalid as it does not define eminent persons and hence is void for vagueness, thus liable to be struck down.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In order to maintain the independence of the judiciary, the primacy of the judiciary in appointment process has to be maintained.2. Independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be amended.3. Any Act in violation of the Constitution need to be struck down.Facts: The Parliament of India passes an Act called the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) which will govern the appointment of judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court. The members of the NJAC will be the Chief Justice of India, the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister and two eminent persons. One of the provisions of the Act says that Law Minister can veto a candidate's name. The law is challenged on the ground that it violates the basic feature of the Constitution.Decide accordingly.a)The Act is valid because there is always a presumption that an Act is always constitutional.b)The Act is invalid as it affects the independence of the judiciary since it allows the Law Minister, who is a politician, to veto an appointment and take away the primacy of the judiciary in the appointment process.c)The Act is valid as it only strengthens the delicate balance between the executive and the judiciary in the appointment process which is also a basic feature of the Constitution.d)The Act is invalid as it does not define eminent persons and hence is void for vagueness, thus liable to be struck down.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In order to maintain the independence of the judiciary, the primacy of the judiciary in appointment process has to be maintained.2. Independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be amended.3. Any Act in violation of the Constitution need to be struck down.Facts: The Parliament of India passes an Act called the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) which will govern the appointment of judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court. The members of the NJAC will be the Chief Justice of India, the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister and two eminent persons. One of the provisions of the Act says that Law Minister can veto a candidate's name. The law is challenged on the ground that it violates the basic feature of the Constitution.Decide accordingly.a)The Act is valid because there is always a presumption that an Act is always constitutional.b)The Act is invalid as it affects the independence of the judiciary since it allows the Law Minister, who is a politician, to veto an appointment and take away the primacy of the judiciary in the appointment process.c)The Act is valid as it only strengthens the delicate balance between the executive and the judiciary in the appointment process which is also a basic feature of the Constitution.d)The Act is invalid as it does not define eminent persons and hence is void for vagueness, thus liable to be struck down.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In order to maintain the independence of the judiciary, the primacy of the judiciary in appointment process has to be maintained.2. Independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be amended.3. Any Act in violation of the Constitution need to be struck down.Facts: The Parliament of India passes an Act called the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) which will govern the appointment of judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court. The members of the NJAC will be the Chief Justice of India, the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister and two eminent persons. One of the provisions of the Act says that Law Minister can veto a candidate's name. The law is challenged on the ground that it violates the basic feature of the Constitution.Decide accordingly.a)The Act is valid because there is always a presumption that an Act is always constitutional.b)The Act is invalid as it affects the independence of the judiciary since it allows the Law Minister, who is a politician, to veto an appointment and take away the primacy of the judiciary in the appointment process.c)The Act is valid as it only strengthens the delicate balance between the executive and the judiciary in the appointment process which is also a basic feature of the Constitution.d)The Act is invalid as it does not define eminent persons and hence is void for vagueness, thus liable to be struck down.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In order to maintain the independence of the judiciary, the primacy of the judiciary in appointment process has to be maintained.2. Independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be amended.3. Any Act in violation of the Constitution need to be struck down.Facts: The Parliament of India passes an Act called the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) which will govern the appointment of judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court. The members of the NJAC will be the Chief Justice of India, the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister and two eminent persons. One of the provisions of the Act says that Law Minister can veto a candidate's name. The law is challenged on the ground that it violates the basic feature of the Constitution.Decide accordingly.a)The Act is valid because there is always a presumption that an Act is always constitutional.b)The Act is invalid as it affects the independence of the judiciary since it allows the Law Minister, who is a politician, to veto an appointment and take away the primacy of the judiciary in the appointment process.c)The Act is valid as it only strengthens the delicate balance between the executive and the judiciary in the appointment process which is also a basic feature of the Constitution.d)The Act is invalid as it does not define eminent persons and hence is void for vagueness, thus liable to be struck down.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In order to maintain the independence of the judiciary, the primacy of the judiciary in appointment process has to be maintained.2. Independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be amended.3. Any Act in violation of the Constitution need to be struck down.Facts: The Parliament of India passes an Act called the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) which will govern the appointment of judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court. The members of the NJAC will be the Chief Justice of India, the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister and two eminent persons. One of the provisions of the Act says that Law Minister can veto a candidate's name. The law is challenged on the ground that it violates the basic feature of the Constitution.Decide accordingly.a)The Act is valid because there is always a presumption that an Act is always constitutional.b)The Act is invalid as it affects the independence of the judiciary since it allows the Law Minister, who is a politician, to veto an appointment and take away the primacy of the judiciary in the appointment process.c)The Act is valid as it only strengthens the delicate balance between the executive and the judiciary in the appointment process which is also a basic feature of the Constitution.d)The Act is invalid as it does not define eminent persons and hence is void for vagueness, thus liable to be struck down.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam