Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Sharma, a Member of Parliament (MP), was found to be holding a profit-making job in a state government in the case of Ramesh Sharma v. Union of India, which is a reason for disqualification under Article 102 of the Constitution. Ramesh Sharma appeals his disqualification on the grounds that the clause violates his right to engage in authorized employment.a)The High Court ought to sustain Ramesh Sharmas exclusion because, in accordance with Article 102 of the Constitution, holding a profit-making post in the government qualifies as a legitimate reason to bar a person from office in order to avoid conflicts of interest and protect the legislative bodys independence.b)The High Court should rule that it is unconstitutional for a person to be barred from holding a profit-making position in the government because it restricts their ability to engage in a lawful occupation and flouts the separation of powers by allowing the Parliament to set the criteria for exclusion.c)In light of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 245 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court should submit the case to a constitutional bench for review.d)Ramesh Sharmas disqualification should be overturned and relief granted by the High Court because it is arbitrary and unfairly restricts peoples rights to be disqualified for holding a lucrative post in the government.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Sharma, a Member of Parliament (MP), was found to be holding a profit-making job in a state government in the case of Ramesh Sharma v. Union of India, which is a reason for disqualification under Article 102 of the Constitution. Ramesh Sharma appeals his disqualification on the grounds that the clause violates his right to engage in authorized employment.a)The High Court ought to sustain Ramesh Sharmas exclusion because, in accordance with Article 102 of the Constitution, holding a profit-making post in the government qualifies as a legitimate reason to bar a person from office in order to avoid conflicts of interest and protect the legislative bodys independence.b)The High Court should rule that it is unconstitutional for a person to be barred from holding a profit-making position in the government because it restricts their ability to engage in a lawful occupation and flouts the separation of powers by allowing the Parliament to set the criteria for exclusion.c)In light of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 245 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court should submit the case to a constitutional bench for review.d)Ramesh Sharmas disqualification should be overturned and relief granted by the High Court because it is arbitrary and unfairly restricts peoples rights to be disqualified for holding a lucrative post in the government.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Sharma, a Member of Parliament (MP), was found to be holding a profit-making job in a state government in the case of Ramesh Sharma v. Union of India, which is a reason for disqualification under Article 102 of the Constitution. Ramesh Sharma appeals his disqualification on the grounds that the clause violates his right to engage in authorized employment.a)The High Court ought to sustain Ramesh Sharmas exclusion because, in accordance with Article 102 of the Constitution, holding a profit-making post in the government qualifies as a legitimate reason to bar a person from office in order to avoid conflicts of interest and protect the legislative bodys independence.b)The High Court should rule that it is unconstitutional for a person to be barred from holding a profit-making position in the government because it restricts their ability to engage in a lawful occupation and flouts the separation of powers by allowing the Parliament to set the criteria for exclusion.c)In light of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 245 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court should submit the case to a constitutional bench for review.d)Ramesh Sharmas disqualification should be overturned and relief granted by the High Court because it is arbitrary and unfairly restricts peoples rights to be disqualified for holding a lucrative post in the government.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Sharma, a Member of Parliament (MP), was found to be holding a profit-making job in a state government in the case of Ramesh Sharma v. Union of India, which is a reason for disqualification under Article 102 of the Constitution. Ramesh Sharma appeals his disqualification on the grounds that the clause violates his right to engage in authorized employment.a)The High Court ought to sustain Ramesh Sharmas exclusion because, in accordance with Article 102 of the Constitution, holding a profit-making post in the government qualifies as a legitimate reason to bar a person from office in order to avoid conflicts of interest and protect the legislative bodys independence.b)The High Court should rule that it is unconstitutional for a person to be barred from holding a profit-making position in the government because it restricts their ability to engage in a lawful occupation and flouts the separation of powers by allowing the Parliament to set the criteria for exclusion.c)In light of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 245 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court should submit the case to a constitutional bench for review.d)Ramesh Sharmas disqualification should be overturned and relief granted by the High Court because it is arbitrary and unfairly restricts peoples rights to be disqualified for holding a lucrative post in the government.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Sharma, a Member of Parliament (MP), was found to be holding a profit-making job in a state government in the case of Ramesh Sharma v. Union of India, which is a reason for disqualification under Article 102 of the Constitution. Ramesh Sharma appeals his disqualification on the grounds that the clause violates his right to engage in authorized employment.a)The High Court ought to sustain Ramesh Sharmas exclusion because, in accordance with Article 102 of the Constitution, holding a profit-making post in the government qualifies as a legitimate reason to bar a person from office in order to avoid conflicts of interest and protect the legislative bodys independence.b)The High Court should rule that it is unconstitutional for a person to be barred from holding a profit-making position in the government because it restricts their ability to engage in a lawful occupation and flouts the separation of powers by allowing the Parliament to set the criteria for exclusion.c)In light of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 245 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court should submit the case to a constitutional bench for review.d)Ramesh Sharmas disqualification should be overturned and relief granted by the High Court because it is arbitrary and unfairly restricts peoples rights to be disqualified for holding a lucrative post in the government.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Sharma, a Member of Parliament (MP), was found to be holding a profit-making job in a state government in the case of Ramesh Sharma v. Union of India, which is a reason for disqualification under Article 102 of the Constitution. Ramesh Sharma appeals his disqualification on the grounds that the clause violates his right to engage in authorized employment.a)The High Court ought to sustain Ramesh Sharmas exclusion because, in accordance with Article 102 of the Constitution, holding a profit-making post in the government qualifies as a legitimate reason to bar a person from office in order to avoid conflicts of interest and protect the legislative bodys independence.b)The High Court should rule that it is unconstitutional for a person to be barred from holding a profit-making position in the government because it restricts their ability to engage in a lawful occupation and flouts the separation of powers by allowing the Parliament to set the criteria for exclusion.c)In light of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 245 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court should submit the case to a constitutional bench for review.d)Ramesh Sharmas disqualification should be overturned and relief granted by the High Court because it is arbitrary and unfairly restricts peoples rights to be disqualified for holding a lucrative post in the government.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Sharma, a Member of Parliament (MP), was found to be holding a profit-making job in a state government in the case of Ramesh Sharma v. Union of India, which is a reason for disqualification under Article 102 of the Constitution. Ramesh Sharma appeals his disqualification on the grounds that the clause violates his right to engage in authorized employment.a)The High Court ought to sustain Ramesh Sharmas exclusion because, in accordance with Article 102 of the Constitution, holding a profit-making post in the government qualifies as a legitimate reason to bar a person from office in order to avoid conflicts of interest and protect the legislative bodys independence.b)The High Court should rule that it is unconstitutional for a person to be barred from holding a profit-making position in the government because it restricts their ability to engage in a lawful occupation and flouts the separation of powers by allowing the Parliament to set the criteria for exclusion.c)In light of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 245 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court should submit the case to a constitutional bench for review.d)Ramesh Sharmas disqualification should be overturned and relief granted by the High Court because it is arbitrary and unfairly restricts peoples rights to be disqualified for holding a lucrative post in the government.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Sharma, a Member of Parliament (MP), was found to be holding a profit-making job in a state government in the case of Ramesh Sharma v. Union of India, which is a reason for disqualification under Article 102 of the Constitution. Ramesh Sharma appeals his disqualification on the grounds that the clause violates his right to engage in authorized employment.a)The High Court ought to sustain Ramesh Sharmas exclusion because, in accordance with Article 102 of the Constitution, holding a profit-making post in the government qualifies as a legitimate reason to bar a person from office in order to avoid conflicts of interest and protect the legislative bodys independence.b)The High Court should rule that it is unconstitutional for a person to be barred from holding a profit-making position in the government because it restricts their ability to engage in a lawful occupation and flouts the separation of powers by allowing the Parliament to set the criteria for exclusion.c)In light of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 245 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court should submit the case to a constitutional bench for review.d)Ramesh Sharmas disqualification should be overturned and relief granted by the High Court because it is arbitrary and unfairly restricts peoples rights to be disqualified for holding a lucrative post in the government.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or the Legislative Council (MLC) if: a) An elected official voluntarily withdraws from a political party, b) An elected member votes or abstains from voting in such House in defiance of any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so. The power to decide on the disqualification of legislators under the tenth schedule rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned. However, the decision of the Speaker can be challenged in a court of law.Q.Ramesh Sharma, a Member of Parliament (MP), was found to be holding a profit-making job in a state government in the case of Ramesh Sharma v. Union of India, which is a reason for disqualification under Article 102 of the Constitution. Ramesh Sharma appeals his disqualification on the grounds that the clause violates his right to engage in authorized employment.a)The High Court ought to sustain Ramesh Sharmas exclusion because, in accordance with Article 102 of the Constitution, holding a profit-making post in the government qualifies as a legitimate reason to bar a person from office in order to avoid conflicts of interest and protect the legislative bodys independence.b)The High Court should rule that it is unconstitutional for a person to be barred from holding a profit-making position in the government because it restricts their ability to engage in a lawful occupation and flouts the separation of powers by allowing the Parliament to set the criteria for exclusion.c)In light of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 245 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court should submit the case to a constitutional bench for review.d)Ramesh Sharmas disqualification should be overturned and relief granted by the High Court because it is arbitrary and unfairly restricts peoples rights to be disqualified for holding a lucrative post in the government.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.