Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The President of India can be removed from office by a process of impeachment for andlsquo;violation of the Constitutionandrsquo;. However, the Constitution does not define the meaning of the phrase andlsquo;violation of the Constitutionandrsquo;. The impeachment charges can be initiated by either House of Parliament. These charges should be signed by one-fourth of members of the House (that framed the charges), and a 14 daysandrsquo; notice should be given to the President. An impeachment resolution on the President must be made by a two-thirds majority (special majority) of the total members of the originating House, to be later sent to the other House. The other House conducts an investigation of the charges made. Meanwhile, the President can defend himself through an authorised counsel. But if the second House also approves the charges levelled by a special majority, the President stands impeached. Consequently, he is deemed to have vacated his office from the date of passing the resolution. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for impeachment of judges. A Judge of the Supreme Court must be removed from his office by order of the President. Such an order needs the approval of both the Houses of Parliament. It requires a special majority of members present and voting in the same session. The grounds of impeachment are proven misbehaviour or incapacity. It is brought to light after the submission of notice to the speaker or chairman of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively. A committee of three jurists conducts a detailed investigation. They submit the report in the next session of both the Houses of Parliament.Q.Situation: It is alleged that a Supreme Court justice displayed bias when rendering decisions in matters involving a particular political party. Four lawmakers from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha send separate notifications to the speakers of those chambers asking for the Judges resignation. If a Supreme Court judge is accused of political prejudice in a ruling, can a member of either House of Parliament independently ask for their removal?a)Individual members of both Houses may, on their own initiative, request the removal of a judge if their notices are supported by proof of judicial bias.b)According to Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the removal procedure can only be started if a joint notice is presented by members of both Houses.c)While specific members may independently ask to be removed, the accusations of political bias must be confirmed by a majority vote in a joint session of both Houses.d)While individual members may independently request removal, the Judge may first fight the claims in the Supreme Court.Correct 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 > Direction: Read the following passage careful...

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

The President of India can be removed from office by a process of impeachment for ‘violation of the Constitution’. However, the Constitution does not define the meaning of the phrase ‘violation of the Constitution’. The impeachment charges can be initiated by either House of Parliament. These charges should be signed by one-fourth of members of the House (that framed the charges), and a 14 days’ notice should be given to the President. An impeachment resolution on the President must be made by a two-thirds majority (special majority) of the total members of the originating House, to be later sent to the other House. The other House conducts an investigation of the charges made. Meanwhile, the President can defend himself through an authorised counsel. But if the second House also approves the charges levelled by a special majority, the President stands impeached. Consequently, he is deemed to have vacated his office from the date of passing the resolution. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for impeachment of judges. A Judge of the Supreme Court must be removed from his office by order of the President. Such an order needs the approval of both the Houses of Parliament. It requires a special majority of members present and voting in the same session. The grounds of impeachment are proven misbehaviour or incapacity. It is brought to light after the submission of notice to the speaker or chairman of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively. A committee of three jurists conducts a detailed investigation. They submit the report in the next session of both the Houses of Parliament.

Q. Situation: It is alleged that a Supreme Court justice displayed bias when rendering decisions in matters involving a particular political party. Four lawmakers from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha send separate notifications to the speakers of those chambers asking for the Judge's resignation. If a Supreme Court judge is accused of political prejudice in a ruling, can a member of either House of Parliament independently ask for their removal?

a)
Individual members of both Houses may, on their own initiative, request the removal of a judge if their notices are supported by proof of judicial bias.
b)
According to Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the removal procedure can only be started if a joint notice is presented by members of both Houses.
c)
While specific members may independently ask to be removed, the accusations of political bias must be confirmed by a majority vote in a joint session of both Houses.
d)
While individual members may independently request removal, the Judge may first fight the claims in the Supreme Court.

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questio...

According to Article 124(4) of the Constitution, a joint notice from both Houses of Parliament and support from one-fourth of members are required for the dismissal of a Supreme Court judge. The removal of a judge cannot be independently requested by a member based on claims of political prejudice in rulings. The correct answer is B.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The President of India can be removed from office by a process of impeachment for ‘violation of the Constitution’. However, the Constitution does not define the meaning of the phrase ‘violation of the Constitution’. The impeachment charges can be initiated by either House of Parliament. These charges should be signed by one-fourth of members of the House (that framed the charges), and a 14 days’ notice should be given to the President. An impeachment resolution on the President must be made by a two-thirds majority (special majority) of the total members of the originating House, to be later sent to the other House. The other House conducts an investigation of the charges made. Meanwhile, the President can defend himself through an authorised counsel. But if the second House also approves the charges levelled by a special majority, the President stands impeached. Consequently, he is deemed to have vacated his office from the date of passing the resolution. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for impeachment of judges. A Judge of the Supreme Court must be removed from his office by order of the President. Such an order needs the approval of both the Houses of Parliament. It requires a special majority of members present and voting in the same session. The grounds of impeachment are proven misbehaviour or incapacity. It is brought to light after the submission of notice to the speaker or chairman of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively. A committee of three jurists conducts a detailed investigation. They submit the report in the next session of both the Houses of Parliament.Q.In the case of impeaching a Judge of the Supreme Court in India, what grounds are required for removal from office, as mentioned in the passage?

View answer

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The President of India can be removed from office by a process of impeachment for ‘violation of the Constitution’. However, the Constitution does not define the meaning of the phrase ‘violation of the Constitution’. The impeachment charges can be initiated by either House of Parliament. These charges should be signed by one-fourth of members of the House (that framed the charges), and a 14 days’ notice should be given to the President. An impeachment resolution on the President must be made by a two-thirds majority (special majority) of the total members of the originating House, to be later sent to the other House. The other House conducts an investigation of the charges made. Meanwhile, the President can defend himself through an authorised counsel. But if the second House also approves the charges levelled by a special majority, the President stands impeached. Consequently, he is deemed to have vacated his office from the date of passing the resolution. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for impeachment of judges. A Judge of the Supreme Court must be removed from his office by order of the President. Such an order needs the approval of both the Houses of Parliament. It requires a special majority of members present and voting in the same session. The grounds of impeachment are proven misbehaviour or incapacity. It is brought to light after the submission of notice to the speaker or chairman of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively. A committee of three jurists conducts a detailed investigation. They submit the report in the next session of both the Houses of Parliament.Q.What is the minimum percentage of members of the House required to sign impeachment charges against the President of India, according to the passage?

View answer

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The President of India can be removed from office by a process of impeachment for ‘violation of the Constitution’. However, the Constitution does not define the meaning of the phrase ‘violation of the Constitution’. The impeachment charges can be initiated by either House of Parliament. These charges should be signed by one-fourth of members of the House (that framed the charges), and a 14 days’ notice should be given to the President. An impeachment resolution on the President must be made by a two-thirds majority (special majority) of the total members of the originating House, to be later sent to the other House. The other House conducts an investigation of the charges made. Meanwhile, the President can defend himself through an authorised counsel. But if the second House also approves the charges levelled by a special majority, the President stands impeached. Consequently, he is deemed to have vacated his office from the date of passing the resolution. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for impeachment of judges. A Judge of the Supreme Court must be removed from his office by order of the President. Such an order needs the approval of both the Houses of Parliament. It requires a special majority of members present and voting in the same session. The grounds of impeachment are proven misbehaviour or incapacity. It is brought to light after the submission of notice to the speaker or chairman of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively. A committee of three jurists conducts a detailed investigation. They submit the report in the next session of both the Houses of Parliament.Q.If someone is found guilty of a horrible crime, they could receive a harsh 8-year prison sentence. The defendant is given a sentence of 8 years in jail with the possibility of one month in solitary confinement. According to the states attorney, the judge had to have mandated three months of solitary confinement for the horrific crime. Decide?

View answer

Passage:The President’s notification of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 2019 of August 5 amends Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and scraps its 65-year-old predecessor, The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of May 14, 1954. By junking the 1954 Order, the notification takes away the special rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of Kashmir. It has effectively allowed the entire provisions of the Constitution, with all its amendments, exceptions and modifications, to apply to the area of Jammu and Kashmir. This is evident from the text of the August 5, 2019 notification. For one, the 2019 notification “supersedes” the 1954 Order. And two, it declares that “all the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. It is important to note that Article 370(1)( c) explicitly mentions that Article 1 of the Indian Constitution applies to Kashmir through Article 370. Article 1 lists the states of the Union. This means that it is Article 370 that binds the state of J&K to the Indian Union. Removing Article 370, which can be done by a Presidential Order, would render the state independent of India, unless new overriding laws are made. The August 5 notification has been issued under Article 370 of the Constitution. In short, the government has employed Article 370, which had once protected the 1954 Order giving special rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to scrap the sexagenarian Order.So far, the Parliament had only residuary powers of legislation in J&K. This included enacted of laws to prevent terror and secessionist activities, for taxation on foreign and inland travel and on communication. Now, the Centre has proposed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill of 2019, which says the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir would be administered/governed like the Union Territory of Puducherry.The tabling of the proposed Reorganization Bill is also proof that the long reign of the 1954 Order has ended. The 1954 Order had introduced a proviso to Article 3, namely that “no Bill providingfor increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of that State shall be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that State". That power of the State Legislature to give prior consent does not exist anymore. This has provided a free hand to the Centre to table the Re-organization Bill.The 1954 Order had also brought into existence Article 35A. This Article gave the State Legislature of Jammu and Kashmir exclusive power to define classes of persons who are/shall be permanent residents of the State; to confer permanent residents special rights and privileges and impose restrictions upon other persons from outside the State; make laws and conditions for State government employment, acquisition of immovable property, settlement rights, scholarships and other forms of aid from the State government.With the removal of the 1954 Order, the power of the State Legislature ceases to exist and Parliamentary laws, including that of reservation, would apply to Jammu and Kashmir as it does in other parts of the country. The government called this the end of “positive discrimination” and the closing of the “chasm” between residents of J&K and citizens of other parts of the country. The removal of the 1954 Order further also negates a clause which was added to Article 352. The Order had mandated that no proclamation of Emergency on grounds “only of internal disturbance or imminent danger shall have effect” in the State unless with the concurrence of the State government.The second part of the August 5, 2019 notification deals with the addition of a new clause to Article 367 which amends the proviso to clause (3) of 370. Article 367 deals with the applicability of the General Clauses Act 1897 to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,.The August 5 notification amends the expression “Constituent Assembly”, contained in the proviso to clause (3) of Article 370, to mean “Legislative Assembly”.Clause (3) of Article 370 gives the President power to end the special rights and privileges of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the 1954 Order. However, the clause carries a rider. That is, the President would have to first get the consent of the Constituent Assembly of J&K before issuing such a notification. This rider or check on the President’s power was intended to give the people of the State a say in their own future. Now, theConstituent Assembly has ceased to exist since 1956, when it was dissolved. The Assembly, at the time of its dissolution, had said nothing about the abrogation of Article 370. Consequently, Article 370, though it resides among the ‘temporary provisions’ of the Constitution, is deemed have become a permanent feature of the Constitution.The August 5 notification has tided over this obstacle of a non-existent ‘Constituent Assembly’ by amending the expression in the proviso to ‘Legislative Assembly’. Ideally, any such amendment to the name of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ would require the assent of the Constituent Assembly itself. Besides, an amendment in Article 370 should have undergone the constitutional amendment procedure envisaged under Article 368 of the Constitution.But the government can, on the other hand, argue that the amendment made in its August 5 notification only applies to Jammu and Kashmir and not the entire Dominion of India, and so, does not require a constitutional amendment. This point of contention may reach the Supreme Court, where several petitions on the constitutionality of Article 35A, and in consequence Article 370, are pending for adjudication.Q.The legislative assembly of Jammu and Kashmir passes a law against the 100th Amendment Act of Parliament of India passed in 2015 in its session held on 20-1-20. The Speaker of the House attends the session and calls it path-breaking in the ethos of federal democracy where the legislative Assembly can pass a law showing true spirit of dissent against the Union.

View answer

Passage:The President’s notification of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 2019 of August 5 amends Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and scraps its 65-year-old predecessor, The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of May 14, 1954. By junking the 1954 Order, the notification takes away the special rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of Kashmir. It has effectively allowed the entire provisions of the Constitution, with all its amendments, exceptions and modifications, to apply to the area of Jammu and Kashmir. This is evident from the text of the August 5, 2019 notification. For one, the 2019 notification “supersedes” the 1954 Order. And two, it declares that “all the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. It is important to note that Article 370(1)( c) explicitly mentions that Article 1 of the Indian Constitution applies to Kashmir through Article 370. Article 1 lists the states of the Union. This means that it is Article 370 that binds the state of J&K to the Indian Union. Removing Article 370, which can be done by a Presidential Order, would render the state independent of India, unless new overriding laws are made. The August 5 notification has been issued under Article 370 of the Constitution. In short, the government has employed Article 370, which had once protected the 1954 Order giving special rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to scrap the sexagenarian Order.So far, the Parliament had only residuary powers of legislation in J&K. This included enacted of laws to prevent terror and secessionist activities, for taxation on foreign and inland travel and on communication. Now, the Centre has proposed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill of 2019, which says the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir would be administered/governed like the Union Territory of Puducherry.The tabling of the proposed Reorganization Bill is also proof that the long reign of the 1954 Order has ended. The 1954 Order had introduced a proviso to Article 3, namely that “no Bill providingfor increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of that State shall be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that State". That power of the State Legislature to give prior consent does not exist anymore. This has provided a free hand to the Centre to table the Re-organization Bill.The 1954 Order had also brought into existence Article 35A. This Article gave the State Legislature of Jammu and Kashmir exclusive power to define classes of persons who are/shall be permanent residents of the State; to confer permanent residents special rights and privileges and impose restrictions upon other persons from outside the State; make laws and conditions for State government employment, acquisition of immovable property, settlement rights, scholarships and other forms of aid from the State government.With the removal of the 1954 Order, the power of the State Legislature ceases to exist and Parliamentary laws, including that of reservation, would apply to Jammu and Kashmir as it does in other parts of the country. The government called this the end of “positive discrimination” and the closing of the “chasm” between residents of J&K and citizens of other parts of the country. The removal of the 1954 Order further also negates a clause which was added to Article 352. The Order had mandated that no proclamation of Emergency on grounds “only of internal disturbance or imminent danger shall have effect” in the State unless with the concurrence of the State government.The second part of the August 5, 2019 notification deals with the addition of a new clause to Article 367 which amends the proviso to clause (3) of 370. Article 367 deals with the applicability of the General Clauses Act 1897 to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,.The August 5 notification amends the expression “Constituent Assembly”, contained in the proviso to clause (3) of Article 370, to mean “Legislative Assembly”.Clause (3) of Article 370 gives the President power to end the special rights and privileges of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the 1954 Order. However, the clause carries a rider. That is, the President would have to first get the consent of the Constituent Assembly of J&K before issuing such a notification. This rider or check on the President’s power was intended to give the people of the State a say in their own future. Now, theConstituent Assembly has ceased to exist since 1956, when it was dissolved. The Assembly, at the time of its dissolution, had said nothing about the abrogation of Article 370. Consequently, Article 370, though it resides among the ‘temporary provisions’ of the Constitution, is deemed have become a permanent feature of the Constitution.The August 5 notification has tided over this obstacle of a non-existent ‘Constituent Assembly’ by amending the expression in the proviso to ‘Legislative Assembly’. Ideally, any such amendment to the name of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ would require the assent of the Constituent Assembly itself. Besides, an amendment in Article 370 should have undergone the constitutional amendment procedure envisaged under Article 368 of the Constitution.But the government can, on the other hand, argue that the amendment made in its August 5 notification only applies to Jammu and Kashmir and not the entire Dominion of India, and so, does not require a constitutional amendment. This point of contention may reach the Supreme Court, where several petitions on the constitutionality of Article 35A, and in consequence Article 370, are pending for adjudication.Q.The President issued an order well under his powers and under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. If instead of the promugulation of the order, the Parliament would have removed Article 370 from the Indian Constitution,what would have been the consequence?

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

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The President of India can be removed from office by a process of impeachment for ‘violation of the Constitution’. However, the Constitution does not define the meaning of the phrase ‘violation of the Constitution’. The impeachment charges can be initiated by either House of Parliament. These charges should be signed by one-fourth of members of the House (that framed the charges), and a 14 days’ notice should be given to the President. An impeachment resolution on the President must be made by a two-thirds majority (special majority) of the total members of the originating House, to be later sent to the other House. The other House conducts an investigation of the charges made. Meanwhile, the President can defend himself through an authorised counsel. But if the second House also approves the charges levelled by a special majority, the President stands impeached. Consequently, he is deemed to have vacated his office from the date of passing the resolution. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for impeachment of judges. A Judge of the Supreme Court must be removed from his office by order of the President. Such an order needs the approval of both the Houses of Parliament. It requires a special majority of members present and voting in the same session. The grounds of impeachment are proven misbehaviour or incapacity. It is brought to light after the submission of notice to the speaker or chairman of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively. A committee of three jurists conducts a detailed investigation. They submit the report in the next session of both the Houses of Parliament.Q.Situation: It is alleged that a Supreme Court justice displayed bias when rendering decisions in matters involving a particular political party. Four lawmakers from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha send separate notifications to the speakers of those chambers asking for the Judges resignation. If a Supreme Court judge is accused of political prejudice in a ruling, can a member of either House of Parliament independently ask for their removal?a)Individual members of both Houses may, on their own initiative, request the removal of a judge if their notices are supported by proof of judicial bias.b)According to Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the removal procedure can only be started if a joint notice is presented by members of both Houses.c)While specific members may independently ask to be removed, the accusations of political bias must be confirmed by a majority vote in a joint session of both Houses.d)While individual members may independently request removal, the Judge may first fight the claims in the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The President of India can be removed from office by a process of impeachment for ‘violation of the Constitution’. However, the Constitution does not define the meaning of the phrase ‘violation of the Constitution’. The impeachment charges can be initiated by either House of Parliament. These charges should be signed by one-fourth of members of the House (that framed the charges), and a 14 days’ notice should be given to the President. An impeachment resolution on the President must be made by a two-thirds majority (special majority) of the total members of the originating House, to be later sent to the other House. The other House conducts an investigation of the charges made. Meanwhile, the President can defend himself through an authorised counsel. But if the second House also approves the charges levelled by a special majority, the President stands impeached. Consequently, he is deemed to have vacated his office from the date of passing the resolution. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for impeachment of judges. A Judge of the Supreme Court must be removed from his office by order of the President. Such an order needs the approval of both the Houses of Parliament. It requires a special majority of members present and voting in the same session. The grounds of impeachment are proven misbehaviour or incapacity. It is brought to light after the submission of notice to the speaker or chairman of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively. A committee of three jurists conducts a detailed investigation. They submit the report in the next session of both the Houses of Parliament.Q.Situation: It is alleged that a Supreme Court justice displayed bias when rendering decisions in matters involving a particular political party. Four lawmakers from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha send separate notifications to the speakers of those chambers asking for the Judges resignation. If a Supreme Court judge is accused of political prejudice in a ruling, can a member of either House of Parliament independently ask for their removal?a)Individual members of both Houses may, on their own initiative, request the removal of a judge if their notices are supported by proof of judicial bias.b)According to Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the removal procedure can only be started if a joint notice is presented by members of both Houses.c)While specific members may independently ask to be removed, the accusations of political bias must be confirmed by a majority vote in a joint session of both Houses.d)While individual members may independently request removal, the Judge may first fight the claims in the Supreme Court.Correct 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 Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The President of India can be removed from office by a process of impeachment for ‘violation of the Constitution’. However, the Constitution does not define the meaning of the phrase ‘violation of the Constitution’. The impeachment charges can be initiated by either House of Parliament. These charges should be signed by one-fourth of members of the House (that framed the charges), and a 14 days’ notice should be given to the President. An impeachment resolution on the President must be made by a two-thirds majority (special majority) of the total members of the originating House, to be later sent to the other House. The other House conducts an investigation of the charges made. Meanwhile, the President can defend himself through an authorised counsel. But if the second House also approves the charges levelled by a special majority, the President stands impeached. Consequently, he is deemed to have vacated his office from the date of passing the resolution. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for impeachment of judges. A Judge of the Supreme Court must be removed from his office by order of the President. Such an order needs the approval of both the Houses of Parliament. It requires a special majority of members present and voting in the same session. The grounds of impeachment are proven misbehaviour or incapacity. It is brought to light after the submission of notice to the speaker or chairman of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively. A committee of three jurists conducts a detailed investigation. They submit the report in the next session of both the Houses of Parliament.Q.Situation: It is alleged that a Supreme Court justice displayed bias when rendering decisions in matters involving a particular political party. Four lawmakers from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha send separate notifications to the speakers of those chambers asking for the Judges resignation. If a Supreme Court judge is accused of political prejudice in a ruling, can a member of either House of Parliament independently ask for their removal?a)Individual members of both Houses may, on their own initiative, request the removal of a judge if their notices are supported by proof of judicial bias.b)According to Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the removal procedure can only be started if a joint notice is presented by members of both Houses.c)While specific members may independently ask to be removed, the accusations of political bias must be confirmed by a majority vote in a joint session of both Houses.d)While individual members may independently request removal, the Judge may first fight the claims in the Supreme Court.Correct 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 Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The President of India can be removed from office by a process of impeachment for ‘violation of the Constitution’. However, the Constitution does not define the meaning of the phrase ‘violation of the Constitution’. The impeachment charges can be initiated by either House of Parliament. These charges should be signed by one-fourth of members of the House (that framed the charges), and a 14 days’ notice should be given to the President. An impeachment resolution on the President must be made by a two-thirds majority (special majority) of the total members of the originating House, to be later sent to the other House. The other House conducts an investigation of the charges made. Meanwhile, the President can defend himself through an authorised counsel. But if the second House also approves the charges levelled by a special majority, the President stands impeached. Consequently, he is deemed to have vacated his office from the date of passing the resolution. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for impeachment of judges. A Judge of the Supreme Court must be removed from his office by order of the President. Such an order needs the approval of both the Houses of Parliament. It requires a special majority of members present and voting in the same session. The grounds of impeachment are proven misbehaviour or incapacity. It is brought to light after the submission of notice to the speaker or chairman of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively. A committee of three jurists conducts a detailed investigation. They submit the report in the next session of both the Houses of Parliament.Q.Situation: It is alleged that a Supreme Court justice displayed bias when rendering decisions in matters involving a particular political party. Four lawmakers from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha send separate notifications to the speakers of those chambers asking for the Judges resignation. If a Supreme Court judge is accused of political prejudice in a ruling, can a member of either House of Parliament independently ask for their removal?a)Individual members of both Houses may, on their own initiative, request the removal of a judge if their notices are supported by proof of judicial bias.b)According to Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the removal procedure can only be started if a joint notice is presented by members of both Houses.c)While specific members may independently ask to be removed, the accusations of political bias must be confirmed by a majority vote in a joint session of both Houses.d)While individual members may independently request removal, the Judge may first fight the claims in the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The President of India can be removed from office by a process of impeachment for ‘violation of the Constitution’. However, the Constitution does not define the meaning of the phrase ‘violation of the Constitution’. The impeachment charges can be initiated by either House of Parliament. These charges should be signed by one-fourth of members of the House (that framed the charges), and a 14 days’ notice should be given to the President. An impeachment resolution on the President must be made by a two-thirds majority (special majority) of the total members of the originating House, to be later sent to the other House. The other House conducts an investigation of the charges made. Meanwhile, the President can defend himself through an authorised counsel. But if the second House also approves the charges levelled by a special majority, the President stands impeached. Consequently, he is deemed to have vacated his office from the date of passing the resolution. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for impeachment of judges. A Judge of the Supreme Court must be removed from his office by order of the President. Such an order needs the approval of both the Houses of Parliament. It requires a special majority of members present and voting in the same session. The grounds of impeachment are proven misbehaviour or incapacity. It is brought to light after the submission of notice to the speaker or chairman of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively. A committee of three jurists conducts a detailed investigation. They submit the report in the next session of both the Houses of Parliament.Q.Situation: It is alleged that a Supreme Court justice displayed bias when rendering decisions in matters involving a particular political party. Four lawmakers from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha send separate notifications to the speakers of those chambers asking for the Judges resignation. If a Supreme Court judge is accused of political prejudice in a ruling, can a member of either House of Parliament independently ask for their removal?a)Individual members of both Houses may, on their own initiative, request the removal of a judge if their notices are supported by proof of judicial bias.b)According to Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the removal procedure can only be started if a joint notice is presented by members of both Houses.c)While specific members may independently ask to be removed, the accusations of political bias must be confirmed by a majority vote in a joint session of both Houses.d)While individual members may independently request removal, the Judge may first fight the claims in the Supreme Court.Correct 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 Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The President of India can be removed from office by a process of impeachment for ‘violation of the Constitution’. However, the Constitution does not define the meaning of the phrase ‘violation of the Constitution’. The impeachment charges can be initiated by either House of Parliament. These charges should be signed by one-fourth of members of the House (that framed the charges), and a 14 days’ notice should be given to the President. An impeachment resolution on the President must be made by a two-thirds majority (special majority) of the total members of the originating House, to be later sent to the other House. The other House conducts an investigation of the charges made. Meanwhile, the President can defend himself through an authorised counsel. But if the second House also approves the charges levelled by a special majority, the President stands impeached. Consequently, he is deemed to have vacated his office from the date of passing the resolution. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for impeachment of judges. A Judge of the Supreme Court must be removed from his office by order of the President. Such an order needs the approval of both the Houses of Parliament. It requires a special majority of members present and voting in the same session. The grounds of impeachment are proven misbehaviour or incapacity. It is brought to light after the submission of notice to the speaker or chairman of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively. A committee of three jurists conducts a detailed investigation. They submit the report in the next session of both the Houses of Parliament.Q.Situation: It is alleged that a Supreme Court justice displayed bias when rendering decisions in matters involving a particular political party. Four lawmakers from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha send separate notifications to the speakers of those chambers asking for the Judges resignation. If a Supreme Court judge is accused of political prejudice in a ruling, can a member of either House of Parliament independently ask for their removal?a)Individual members of both Houses may, on their own initiative, request the removal of a judge if their notices are supported by proof of judicial bias.b)According to Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the removal procedure can only be started if a joint notice is presented by members of both Houses.c)While specific members may independently ask to be removed, the accusations of political bias must be confirmed by a majority vote in a joint session of both Houses.d)While individual members may independently request removal, the Judge may first fight the claims in the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The President of India can be removed from office by a process of impeachment for ‘violation of the Constitution’. However, the Constitution does not define the meaning of the phrase ‘violation of the Constitution’. The impeachment charges can be initiated by either House of Parliament. These charges should be signed by one-fourth of members of the House (that framed the charges), and a 14 days’ notice should be given to the President. An impeachment resolution on the President must be made by a two-thirds majority (special majority) of the total members of the originating House, to be later sent to the other House. The other House conducts an investigation of the charges made. Meanwhile, the President can defend himself through an authorised counsel. But if the second House also approves the charges levelled by a special majority, the President stands impeached. Consequently, he is deemed to have vacated his office from the date of passing the resolution. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for impeachment of judges. A Judge of the Supreme Court must be removed from his office by order of the President. Such an order needs the approval of both the Houses of Parliament. It requires a special majority of members present and voting in the same session. The grounds of impeachment are proven misbehaviour or incapacity. It is brought to light after the submission of notice to the speaker or chairman of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively. A committee of three jurists conducts a detailed investigation. They submit the report in the next session of both the Houses of Parliament.Q.Situation: It is alleged that a Supreme Court justice displayed bias when rendering decisions in matters involving a particular political party. Four lawmakers from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha send separate notifications to the speakers of those chambers asking for the Judges resignation. If a Supreme Court judge is accused of political prejudice in a ruling, can a member of either House of Parliament independently ask for their removal?a)Individual members of both Houses may, on their own initiative, request the removal of a judge if their notices are supported by proof of judicial bias.b)According to Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the removal procedure can only be started if a joint notice is presented by members of both Houses.c)While specific members may independently ask to be removed, the accusations of political bias must be confirmed by a majority vote in a joint session of both Houses.d)While individual members may independently request removal, the Judge may first fight the claims in the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The President of India can be removed from office by a process of impeachment for ‘violation of the Constitution’. However, the Constitution does not define the meaning of the phrase ‘violation of the Constitution’. The impeachment charges can be initiated by either House of Parliament. These charges should be signed by one-fourth of members of the House (that framed the charges), and a 14 days’ notice should be given to the President. An impeachment resolution on the President must be made by a two-thirds majority (special majority) of the total members of the originating House, to be later sent to the other House. The other House conducts an investigation of the charges made. Meanwhile, the President can defend himself through an authorised counsel. But if the second House also approves the charges levelled by a special majority, the President stands impeached. Consequently, he is deemed to have vacated his office from the date of passing the resolution. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for impeachment of judges. A Judge of the Supreme Court must be removed from his office by order of the President. Such an order needs the approval of both the Houses of Parliament. It requires a special majority of members present and voting in the same session. The grounds of impeachment are proven misbehaviour or incapacity. It is brought to light after the submission of notice to the speaker or chairman of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively. A committee of three jurists conducts a detailed investigation. They submit the report in the next session of both the Houses of Parliament.Q.Situation: It is alleged that a Supreme Court justice displayed bias when rendering decisions in matters involving a particular political party. Four lawmakers from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha send separate notifications to the speakers of those chambers asking for the Judges resignation. If a Supreme Court judge is accused of political prejudice in a ruling, can a member of either House of Parliament independently ask for their removal?a)Individual members of both Houses may, on their own initiative, request the removal of a judge if their notices are supported by proof of judicial bias.b)According to Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the removal procedure can only be started if a joint notice is presented by members of both Houses.c)While specific members may independently ask to be removed, the accusations of political bias must be confirmed by a majority vote in a joint session of both Houses.d)While individual members may independently request removal, the Judge may first fight the claims in the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The President of India can be removed from office by a process of impeachment for ‘violation of the Constitution’. However, the Constitution does not define the meaning of the phrase ‘violation of the Constitution’. The impeachment charges can be initiated by either House of Parliament. These charges should be signed by one-fourth of members of the House (that framed the charges), and a 14 days’ notice should be given to the President. An impeachment resolution on the President must be made by a two-thirds majority (special majority) of the total members of the originating House, to be later sent to the other House. The other House conducts an investigation of the charges made. Meanwhile, the President can defend himself through an authorised counsel. But if the second House also approves the charges levelled by a special majority, the President stands impeached. Consequently, he is deemed to have vacated his office from the date of passing the resolution. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for impeachment of judges. A Judge of the Supreme Court must be removed from his office by order of the President. Such an order needs the approval of both the Houses of Parliament. It requires a special majority of members present and voting in the same session. The grounds of impeachment are proven misbehaviour or incapacity. It is brought to light after the submission of notice to the speaker or chairman of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively. A committee of three jurists conducts a detailed investigation. They submit the report in the next session of both the Houses of Parliament.Q.Situation: It is alleged that a Supreme Court justice displayed bias when rendering decisions in matters involving a particular political party. Four lawmakers from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha send separate notifications to the speakers of those chambers asking for the Judges resignation. If a Supreme Court judge is accused of political prejudice in a ruling, can a member of either House of Parliament independently ask for their removal?a)Individual members of both Houses may, on their own initiative, request the removal of a judge if their notices are supported by proof of judicial bias.b)According to Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the removal procedure can only be started if a joint notice is presented by members of both Houses.c)While specific members may independently ask to be removed, the accusations of political bias must be confirmed by a majority vote in a joint session of both Houses.d)While individual members may independently request removal, the Judge may first fight the claims in the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The President of India can be removed from office by a process of impeachment for ‘violation of the Constitution’. However, the Constitution does not define the meaning of the phrase ‘violation of the Constitution’. The impeachment charges can be initiated by either House of Parliament. These charges should be signed by one-fourth of members of the House (that framed the charges), and a 14 days’ notice should be given to the President. An impeachment resolution on the President must be made by a two-thirds majority (special majority) of the total members of the originating House, to be later sent to the other House. The other House conducts an investigation of the charges made. Meanwhile, the President can defend himself through an authorised counsel. But if the second House also approves the charges levelled by a special majority, the President stands impeached. Consequently, he is deemed to have vacated his office from the date of passing the resolution. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for impeachment of judges. A Judge of the Supreme Court must be removed from his office by order of the President. Such an order needs the approval of both the Houses of Parliament. It requires a special majority of members present and voting in the same session. The grounds of impeachment are proven misbehaviour or incapacity. It is brought to light after the submission of notice to the speaker or chairman of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively. A committee of three jurists conducts a detailed investigation. They submit the report in the next session of both the Houses of Parliament.Q.Situation: It is alleged that a Supreme Court justice displayed bias when rendering decisions in matters involving a particular political party. Four lawmakers from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha send separate notifications to the speakers of those chambers asking for the Judges resignation. If a Supreme Court judge is accused of political prejudice in a ruling, can a member of either House of Parliament independently ask for their removal?a)Individual members of both Houses may, on their own initiative, request the removal of a judge if their notices are supported by proof of judicial bias.b)According to Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the removal procedure can only be started if a joint notice is presented by members of both Houses.c)While specific members may independently ask to be removed, the accusations of political bias must be confirmed by a majority vote in a joint session of both Houses.d)While individual members may independently request removal, the Judge may first fight the claims in the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam