Question Description
Directions: Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given beside.The controversial Jan Vishwas Act, 2022 which was recently enacted into law by Parliament, has been touted by the government as a landmark piece of legislation aimed at improving “ease of doing business” in India by either decriminalizing or making “compoundable” offenses across 42 legislations. The fine print which has received little media attention is that while the legislation has mostly replaced criminal imprisonment with penalties, it has transferred the power to impose these monetary penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracy. For example, the Jan Vishwas Act amends the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to replace imprisonment as a punishment for certain offenses with penalties of up to 15 lakhs that can be imposed by designated bureaucrats (Joint Secretaries). Under amendments to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 forest officers have the power not just to conduct an inquiry to determine the “damage done to the forest” by anybody but also order the offender to pay a hitherto uncapped “compensation” for said damage.Given the regularity with which India Inc. complains about tax terrorism, there is surprisingly no opposition to giving the bureaucracy the power to be both prosecutor and judge while imposing penalties and ordering the payment of compensation. The larger question is whether giving the bureaucracy, rather than the courts, the power to not just adjudicate a factual dispute but also penalize or order compensation, goes against the constitutional scheme of separation of powers.Although the Constitution does not mandate a separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, Article 50 directs the state to achieve it in due time. Such a separation was not achieved until several years after the Constitution came into effect because the criminal magistracy was part of the executive at Independence. It took till approximately 1970, for several State legislatures to effect the separation of power at the level of the criminal magistracy through laws such as The West Bengal Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1970 which separated the roles of the judicial and executive magistrates in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The saga of protecting judicial independence from the roving eye of the bureaucracy did not end with the separation of the criminal magistracy from the executive.Q.What is the primary focus of the Jan Vishwas Act, 2022, as described in the passage?a)To enhance judicial authority in handling criminal offensesb)To replace penalties with criminal imprisonment for certain offensesc)To transfer the power to impose penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracyd)To encourage media attention on legislative changesCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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: Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given beside.The controversial Jan Vishwas Act, 2022 which was recently enacted into law by Parliament, has been touted by the government as a landmark piece of legislation aimed at improving “ease of doing business” in India by either decriminalizing or making “compoundable” offenses across 42 legislations. The fine print which has received little media attention is that while the legislation has mostly replaced criminal imprisonment with penalties, it has transferred the power to impose these monetary penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracy. For example, the Jan Vishwas Act amends the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to replace imprisonment as a punishment for certain offenses with penalties of up to 15 lakhs that can be imposed by designated bureaucrats (Joint Secretaries). Under amendments to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 forest officers have the power not just to conduct an inquiry to determine the “damage done to the forest” by anybody but also order the offender to pay a hitherto uncapped “compensation” for said damage.Given the regularity with which India Inc. complains about tax terrorism, there is surprisingly no opposition to giving the bureaucracy the power to be both prosecutor and judge while imposing penalties and ordering the payment of compensation. The larger question is whether giving the bureaucracy, rather than the courts, the power to not just adjudicate a factual dispute but also penalize or order compensation, goes against the constitutional scheme of separation of powers.Although the Constitution does not mandate a separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, Article 50 directs the state to achieve it in due time. Such a separation was not achieved until several years after the Constitution came into effect because the criminal magistracy was part of the executive at Independence. It took till approximately 1970, for several State legislatures to effect the separation of power at the level of the criminal magistracy through laws such as The West Bengal Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1970 which separated the roles of the judicial and executive magistrates in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The saga of protecting judicial independence from the roving eye of the bureaucracy did not end with the separation of the criminal magistracy from the executive.Q.What is the primary focus of the Jan Vishwas Act, 2022, as described in the passage?a)To enhance judicial authority in handling criminal offensesb)To replace penalties with criminal imprisonment for certain offensesc)To transfer the power to impose penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracyd)To encourage media attention on legislative changesCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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: Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given beside.The controversial Jan Vishwas Act, 2022 which was recently enacted into law by Parliament, has been touted by the government as a landmark piece of legislation aimed at improving “ease of doing business” in India by either decriminalizing or making “compoundable” offenses across 42 legislations. The fine print which has received little media attention is that while the legislation has mostly replaced criminal imprisonment with penalties, it has transferred the power to impose these monetary penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracy. For example, the Jan Vishwas Act amends the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to replace imprisonment as a punishment for certain offenses with penalties of up to 15 lakhs that can be imposed by designated bureaucrats (Joint Secretaries). Under amendments to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 forest officers have the power not just to conduct an inquiry to determine the “damage done to the forest” by anybody but also order the offender to pay a hitherto uncapped “compensation” for said damage.Given the regularity with which India Inc. complains about tax terrorism, there is surprisingly no opposition to giving the bureaucracy the power to be both prosecutor and judge while imposing penalties and ordering the payment of compensation. The larger question is whether giving the bureaucracy, rather than the courts, the power to not just adjudicate a factual dispute but also penalize or order compensation, goes against the constitutional scheme of separation of powers.Although the Constitution does not mandate a separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, Article 50 directs the state to achieve it in due time. Such a separation was not achieved until several years after the Constitution came into effect because the criminal magistracy was part of the executive at Independence. It took till approximately 1970, for several State legislatures to effect the separation of power at the level of the criminal magistracy through laws such as The West Bengal Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1970 which separated the roles of the judicial and executive magistrates in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The saga of protecting judicial independence from the roving eye of the bureaucracy did not end with the separation of the criminal magistracy from the executive.Q.What is the primary focus of the Jan Vishwas Act, 2022, as described in the passage?a)To enhance judicial authority in handling criminal offensesb)To replace penalties with criminal imprisonment for certain offensesc)To transfer the power to impose penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracyd)To encourage media attention on legislative changesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given beside.The controversial Jan Vishwas Act, 2022 which was recently enacted into law by Parliament, has been touted by the government as a landmark piece of legislation aimed at improving “ease of doing business” in India by either decriminalizing or making “compoundable” offenses across 42 legislations. The fine print which has received little media attention is that while the legislation has mostly replaced criminal imprisonment with penalties, it has transferred the power to impose these monetary penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracy. For example, the Jan Vishwas Act amends the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to replace imprisonment as a punishment for certain offenses with penalties of up to 15 lakhs that can be imposed by designated bureaucrats (Joint Secretaries). Under amendments to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 forest officers have the power not just to conduct an inquiry to determine the “damage done to the forest” by anybody but also order the offender to pay a hitherto uncapped “compensation” for said damage.Given the regularity with which India Inc. complains about tax terrorism, there is surprisingly no opposition to giving the bureaucracy the power to be both prosecutor and judge while imposing penalties and ordering the payment of compensation. The larger question is whether giving the bureaucracy, rather than the courts, the power to not just adjudicate a factual dispute but also penalize or order compensation, goes against the constitutional scheme of separation of powers.Although the Constitution does not mandate a separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, Article 50 directs the state to achieve it in due time. Such a separation was not achieved until several years after the Constitution came into effect because the criminal magistracy was part of the executive at Independence. It took till approximately 1970, for several State legislatures to effect the separation of power at the level of the criminal magistracy through laws such as The West Bengal Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1970 which separated the roles of the judicial and executive magistrates in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The saga of protecting judicial independence from the roving eye of the bureaucracy did not end with the separation of the criminal magistracy from the executive.Q.What is the primary focus of the Jan Vishwas Act, 2022, as described in the passage?a)To enhance judicial authority in handling criminal offensesb)To replace penalties with criminal imprisonment for certain offensesc)To transfer the power to impose penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracyd)To encourage media attention on legislative changesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given beside.The controversial Jan Vishwas Act, 2022 which was recently enacted into law by Parliament, has been touted by the government as a landmark piece of legislation aimed at improving “ease of doing business” in India by either decriminalizing or making “compoundable” offenses across 42 legislations. The fine print which has received little media attention is that while the legislation has mostly replaced criminal imprisonment with penalties, it has transferred the power to impose these monetary penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracy. For example, the Jan Vishwas Act amends the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to replace imprisonment as a punishment for certain offenses with penalties of up to 15 lakhs that can be imposed by designated bureaucrats (Joint Secretaries). Under amendments to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 forest officers have the power not just to conduct an inquiry to determine the “damage done to the forest” by anybody but also order the offender to pay a hitherto uncapped “compensation” for said damage.Given the regularity with which India Inc. complains about tax terrorism, there is surprisingly no opposition to giving the bureaucracy the power to be both prosecutor and judge while imposing penalties and ordering the payment of compensation. The larger question is whether giving the bureaucracy, rather than the courts, the power to not just adjudicate a factual dispute but also penalize or order compensation, goes against the constitutional scheme of separation of powers.Although the Constitution does not mandate a separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, Article 50 directs the state to achieve it in due time. Such a separation was not achieved until several years after the Constitution came into effect because the criminal magistracy was part of the executive at Independence. It took till approximately 1970, for several State legislatures to effect the separation of power at the level of the criminal magistracy through laws such as The West Bengal Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1970 which separated the roles of the judicial and executive magistrates in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The saga of protecting judicial independence from the roving eye of the bureaucracy did not end with the separation of the criminal magistracy from the executive.Q.What is the primary focus of the Jan Vishwas Act, 2022, as described in the passage?a)To enhance judicial authority in handling criminal offensesb)To replace penalties with criminal imprisonment for certain offensesc)To transfer the power to impose penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracyd)To encourage media attention on legislative changesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given beside.The controversial Jan Vishwas Act, 2022 which was recently enacted into law by Parliament, has been touted by the government as a landmark piece of legislation aimed at improving “ease of doing business” in India by either decriminalizing or making “compoundable” offenses across 42 legislations. The fine print which has received little media attention is that while the legislation has mostly replaced criminal imprisonment with penalties, it has transferred the power to impose these monetary penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracy. For example, the Jan Vishwas Act amends the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to replace imprisonment as a punishment for certain offenses with penalties of up to 15 lakhs that can be imposed by designated bureaucrats (Joint Secretaries). Under amendments to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 forest officers have the power not just to conduct an inquiry to determine the “damage done to the forest” by anybody but also order the offender to pay a hitherto uncapped “compensation” for said damage.Given the regularity with which India Inc. complains about tax terrorism, there is surprisingly no opposition to giving the bureaucracy the power to be both prosecutor and judge while imposing penalties and ordering the payment of compensation. The larger question is whether giving the bureaucracy, rather than the courts, the power to not just adjudicate a factual dispute but also penalize or order compensation, goes against the constitutional scheme of separation of powers.Although the Constitution does not mandate a separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, Article 50 directs the state to achieve it in due time. Such a separation was not achieved until several years after the Constitution came into effect because the criminal magistracy was part of the executive at Independence. It took till approximately 1970, for several State legislatures to effect the separation of power at the level of the criminal magistracy through laws such as The West Bengal Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1970 which separated the roles of the judicial and executive magistrates in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The saga of protecting judicial independence from the roving eye of the bureaucracy did not end with the separation of the criminal magistracy from the executive.Q.What is the primary focus of the Jan Vishwas Act, 2022, as described in the passage?a)To enhance judicial authority in handling criminal offensesb)To replace penalties with criminal imprisonment for certain offensesc)To transfer the power to impose penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracyd)To encourage media attention on legislative changesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given beside.The controversial Jan Vishwas Act, 2022 which was recently enacted into law by Parliament, has been touted by the government as a landmark piece of legislation aimed at improving “ease of doing business” in India by either decriminalizing or making “compoundable” offenses across 42 legislations. The fine print which has received little media attention is that while the legislation has mostly replaced criminal imprisonment with penalties, it has transferred the power to impose these monetary penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracy. For example, the Jan Vishwas Act amends the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to replace imprisonment as a punishment for certain offenses with penalties of up to 15 lakhs that can be imposed by designated bureaucrats (Joint Secretaries). Under amendments to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 forest officers have the power not just to conduct an inquiry to determine the “damage done to the forest” by anybody but also order the offender to pay a hitherto uncapped “compensation” for said damage.Given the regularity with which India Inc. complains about tax terrorism, there is surprisingly no opposition to giving the bureaucracy the power to be both prosecutor and judge while imposing penalties and ordering the payment of compensation. The larger question is whether giving the bureaucracy, rather than the courts, the power to not just adjudicate a factual dispute but also penalize or order compensation, goes against the constitutional scheme of separation of powers.Although the Constitution does not mandate a separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, Article 50 directs the state to achieve it in due time. Such a separation was not achieved until several years after the Constitution came into effect because the criminal magistracy was part of the executive at Independence. It took till approximately 1970, for several State legislatures to effect the separation of power at the level of the criminal magistracy through laws such as The West Bengal Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1970 which separated the roles of the judicial and executive magistrates in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The saga of protecting judicial independence from the roving eye of the bureaucracy did not end with the separation of the criminal magistracy from the executive.Q.What is the primary focus of the Jan Vishwas Act, 2022, as described in the passage?a)To enhance judicial authority in handling criminal offensesb)To replace penalties with criminal imprisonment for certain offensesc)To transfer the power to impose penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracyd)To encourage media attention on legislative changesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given beside.The controversial Jan Vishwas Act, 2022 which was recently enacted into law by Parliament, has been touted by the government as a landmark piece of legislation aimed at improving “ease of doing business” in India by either decriminalizing or making “compoundable” offenses across 42 legislations. The fine print which has received little media attention is that while the legislation has mostly replaced criminal imprisonment with penalties, it has transferred the power to impose these monetary penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracy. For example, the Jan Vishwas Act amends the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to replace imprisonment as a punishment for certain offenses with penalties of up to 15 lakhs that can be imposed by designated bureaucrats (Joint Secretaries). Under amendments to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 forest officers have the power not just to conduct an inquiry to determine the “damage done to the forest” by anybody but also order the offender to pay a hitherto uncapped “compensation” for said damage.Given the regularity with which India Inc. complains about tax terrorism, there is surprisingly no opposition to giving the bureaucracy the power to be both prosecutor and judge while imposing penalties and ordering the payment of compensation. The larger question is whether giving the bureaucracy, rather than the courts, the power to not just adjudicate a factual dispute but also penalize or order compensation, goes against the constitutional scheme of separation of powers.Although the Constitution does not mandate a separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, Article 50 directs the state to achieve it in due time. Such a separation was not achieved until several years after the Constitution came into effect because the criminal magistracy was part of the executive at Independence. It took till approximately 1970, for several State legislatures to effect the separation of power at the level of the criminal magistracy through laws such as The West Bengal Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1970 which separated the roles of the judicial and executive magistrates in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The saga of protecting judicial independence from the roving eye of the bureaucracy did not end with the separation of the criminal magistracy from the executive.Q.What is the primary focus of the Jan Vishwas Act, 2022, as described in the passage?a)To enhance judicial authority in handling criminal offensesb)To replace penalties with criminal imprisonment for certain offensesc)To transfer the power to impose penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracyd)To encourage media attention on legislative changesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given beside.The controversial Jan Vishwas Act, 2022 which was recently enacted into law by Parliament, has been touted by the government as a landmark piece of legislation aimed at improving “ease of doing business” in India by either decriminalizing or making “compoundable” offenses across 42 legislations. The fine print which has received little media attention is that while the legislation has mostly replaced criminal imprisonment with penalties, it has transferred the power to impose these monetary penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracy. For example, the Jan Vishwas Act amends the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to replace imprisonment as a punishment for certain offenses with penalties of up to 15 lakhs that can be imposed by designated bureaucrats (Joint Secretaries). Under amendments to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 forest officers have the power not just to conduct an inquiry to determine the “damage done to the forest” by anybody but also order the offender to pay a hitherto uncapped “compensation” for said damage.Given the regularity with which India Inc. complains about tax terrorism, there is surprisingly no opposition to giving the bureaucracy the power to be both prosecutor and judge while imposing penalties and ordering the payment of compensation. The larger question is whether giving the bureaucracy, rather than the courts, the power to not just adjudicate a factual dispute but also penalize or order compensation, goes against the constitutional scheme of separation of powers.Although the Constitution does not mandate a separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, Article 50 directs the state to achieve it in due time. Such a separation was not achieved until several years after the Constitution came into effect because the criminal magistracy was part of the executive at Independence. It took till approximately 1970, for several State legislatures to effect the separation of power at the level of the criminal magistracy through laws such as The West Bengal Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1970 which separated the roles of the judicial and executive magistrates in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The saga of protecting judicial independence from the roving eye of the bureaucracy did not end with the separation of the criminal magistracy from the executive.Q.What is the primary focus of the Jan Vishwas Act, 2022, as described in the passage?a)To enhance judicial authority in handling criminal offensesb)To replace penalties with criminal imprisonment for certain offensesc)To transfer the power to impose penalties from the judiciary to the bureaucracyd)To encourage media attention on legislative changesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.