All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Directions: Study the following information c... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
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. Which of the following best captures the key takeaway from the passage?
  • a)
    The government wants to show that it is committed to corporate responsibility and to enhancing its public image.
  • b)
    The government wants to persuade companies to implement improved compliance procedures.
  • c)
    The passage raises concerns about the judiciary's transfer of penalty-imposition authority to the administrative branch, which may threaten the separation of powers.
  • d)
    The government can hold firms accountable without enacting draconian punishments by switching from criminal to civil fines.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Study the following information carefully and answer the q...
The passage explores various instances of this transfer of authority, such as granting designated bureaucrats the ability to levy fines for violations related to environmental protection, pollution control, and harm to forests. The author raises concerns regarding the potential consequences of this shift, specifically how it could conflict with the constitutional principle of the separation of powers.
The broader question raised by the passage is whether entrusting the bureaucracy with the dual role of adjudicating factual disputes, imposing penalties, and ordering compensation aligns with the constitutional framework of the separation of powers. The author expresses doubt about the delegation of power to the bureaucracy and its potential impact on the traditional balance between the judiciary and the executive. In light of these considerations, Option C correctly captures the central argument of the passage. Options A, B, and D lack supporting evidence from the passage and can therefore be dismissed.
Therefore, option C stands as the accurate response.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

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 constitutional principle is raised as a concern in the passage regarding the Jan Vishwas Act, 2022?

Passage - 3Under our Constitution, the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary all have their own broad spheres of operation. Ordinarily it is not proper for any of these three organs of the State to encroach upon the domain of another, otherwise the delicate balance in the Constitution will be upset, and there will be a reaction. Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the Government. They must have modesty and humility, and not behave like Emperors. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution and each organ of the State the legislature, the executive and the judiciary must have respect for the others and must not encroach into each other’s domains.The theory of separation of powers first propounded by the French thinker Montesquieu (in his book ‘The Spirit of Laws broadly holds the field in India too. In chapter XI of his book ‘The Spirit of Laws’ Montesquieu writes:When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner. Again, there is no liberty, if the judicial power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.In India, the judiciary occupies an important place. The constitution visualizes an independent judiciary to safeguard the rights of citizens. In a democratic polity, the independent judiciary is a sine qua non to the effective functioning of the system. Administration has to function according to the law and the Constitution. The judiciary has an important role to play in protecting the citizen against the arbitrary exercise of power by administration. In the context of ever-expanding activities of government and discretionary powers vested in the various administrative agencies and public officials, the need to protect and safeguard the citizens rights assumes significance and priority. In developing societies where the state is playing an important role in development, judiciary has a special responsibility to ensure social justice to the underprivileged sections of the community. However, it must be admitted that the courts cannot interfere in the administrative activities on their own accord even if such activities are arbitrary. They act only when their intervention is sought. Judicial intervention is restrictive in nature and limited in its scope.Q.Suppose a Judge gives the direction to create the post of tractor driver and regularizing the services against the newly created posts, will it be right that the judiciary is entering into policy making?

Passage - 3Under our Constitution, the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary all have their own broad spheres of operation. Ordinarily it is not proper for any of these three organs of the State to encroach upon the domain of another, otherwise the delicate balance in the Constitution will be upset, and there will be a reaction. Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the Government. They must have modesty and humility, and not behave like Emperors. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution and each organ of the State the legislature, the executive and the judiciary must have respect for the others and must not encroach into each other’s domains.The theory of separation of powers first propounded by the French thinker Montesquieu (in his book ‘The Spirit of Laws broadly holds the field in India too. In chapter XI of his book ‘The Spirit of Laws’ Montesquieu writes:When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner. Again, there is no liberty, if the judicial power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.In India, the judiciary occupies an important place. The constitution visualizes an independent judiciary to safeguard the rights of citizens. In a democratic polity, the independent judiciary is a sine qua non to the effective functioning of the system. Administration has to function according to the law and the Constitution. The judiciary has an important role to play in protecting the citizen against the arbitrary exercise of power by administration. In the context of ever-expanding activities of government and discretionary powers vested in the various administrative agencies and public officials, the need to protect and safeguard the citizens rights assumes significance and priority. In developing societies where the state is playing an important role in development, judiciary has a special responsibility to ensure social justice to the underprivileged sections of the community. However, it must be admitted that the courts cannot interfere in the administrative activities on their own accord even if such activities are arbitrary. They act only when their intervention is sought. Judicial intervention is restrictive in nature and limited in its scope.Q.Which among the following is the most critical inference that can be made from the above passage?

Under our Constitution, the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary all have their own broad spheres of operation.Ordinarily it is not proper for any of these three organs of the State to encroach upon the domain of another, otherwise the delicate balance in the Constitution will be upset, and there will be a reaction. Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the Government. They must have modesty and humility, and not behave like Emperors. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution and each organ of the State the legislature, the executive and the judiciary must have respect for the others and must not encroach into each other’s domains.The theory of separation of powers first propounded by the French thinker Montesquieu (in his book ‘The Spirit of Laws' broadly holds the field in India too. In chapter XI of his book ‘The Spirit of Laws’ Montesquieu writes:When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner. Again, there is no liberty, if the judicial power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.In India, the judiciary occupies an important place. The constitution visualizes an independent judiciary to safeguard the rights of citizens. In a democratic polity, the independent judiciary is a sine qua non to the effective functioning of the system. Administration has to function according to the law and the Constitution. The judiciary has an important role to play in protecting the citizen against the arbitrary exercise of power by administration.In the context of ever-expanding activities of government and discretionary powers vested in the various administrative agencies and public officials, the need to protect and safeguard the citizen's rights assumes significance and priority. In developing societies where the state is playing an important role in development, judiciary has a special responsibility to ensure social justice to the underprivileged sections of the community. However, it must be admitted that the courts cannot interfere in the administrative activities on their own accord even if such activities are arbitrary. They act only when their intervention is sought. Judicial intervention is restrictive in nature and limited in its scope.Q. Which among the following is the most critical inference that can be made from the above passage?

Under our Constitution, the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary all have their own broad spheres of operation.Ordinarily it is not proper for any of these three organs of the State to encroach upon the domain of another, otherwise the delicate balance in the Constitution will be upset, and there will be a reaction. Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the Government. They must have modesty and humility, and not behave like Emperors. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution and each organ of the State the legislature, the executive and the judiciary must have respect for the others and must not encroach into each other’s domains.The theory of separation of powers first propounded by the French thinker Montesquieu (in his book ‘The Spirit of Laws' broadly holds the field in India too. In chapter XI of his book ‘The Spirit of Laws’ Montesquieu writes:When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner. Again, there is no liberty, if the judicial power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.In India, the judiciary occupies an important place. The constitution visualizes an independent judiciary to safeguard the rights of citizens. In a democratic polity, the independent judiciary is a sine qua non to the effective functioning of the system. Administration has to function according to the law and the Constitution. The judiciary has an important role to play in protecting the citizen against the arbitrary exercise of power by administration.In the context of ever-expanding activities of government and discretionary powers vested in the various administrative agencies and public officials, the need to protect and safeguard the citizen's rights assumes significance and priority. In developing societies where the state is playing an important role in development, judiciary has a special responsibility to ensure social justice to the underprivileged sections of the community. However, it must be admitted that the courts cannot interfere in the administrative activities on their own accord even if such activities are arbitrary. They act only when their intervention is sought. Judicial intervention is restrictive in nature and limited in its scope.Q. Suppose a Judge gives the direction to create the post of tractor driver and regularizing the services against the newly created posts, will it be right that the judiciary is entering into policy making?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

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.Which of the following best captures the key takeaway from the passage?a)The government wants to show that it is committed to corporate responsibility and to enhancing its public image.b)The government wants to persuade companies to implement improved compliance procedures.c)The passage raises concerns about the judiciarys transfer of penalty-imposition authority to the administrative branch, which may threaten the separation of powers.d)The government can hold firms accountable without enacting draconian punishments by switching from criminal to civil fines.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
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.Which of the following best captures the key takeaway from the passage?a)The government wants to show that it is committed to corporate responsibility and to enhancing its public image.b)The government wants to persuade companies to implement improved compliance procedures.c)The passage raises concerns about the judiciarys transfer of penalty-imposition authority to the administrative branch, which may threaten the separation of powers.d)The government can hold firms accountable without enacting draconian punishments by switching from criminal to civil fines.Correct 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.Which of the following best captures the key takeaway from the passage?a)The government wants to show that it is committed to corporate responsibility and to enhancing its public image.b)The government wants to persuade companies to implement improved compliance procedures.c)The passage raises concerns about the judiciarys transfer of penalty-imposition authority to the administrative branch, which may threaten the separation of powers.d)The government can hold firms accountable without enacting draconian punishments by switching from criminal to civil fines.Correct 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.Which of the following best captures the key takeaway from the passage?a)The government wants to show that it is committed to corporate responsibility and to enhancing its public image.b)The government wants to persuade companies to implement improved compliance procedures.c)The passage raises concerns about the judiciarys transfer of penalty-imposition authority to the administrative branch, which may threaten the separation of powers.d)The government can hold firms accountable without enacting draconian punishments by switching from criminal to civil fines.Correct 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.Which of the following best captures the key takeaway from the passage?a)The government wants to show that it is committed to corporate responsibility and to enhancing its public image.b)The government wants to persuade companies to implement improved compliance procedures.c)The passage raises concerns about the judiciarys transfer of penalty-imposition authority to the administrative branch, which may threaten the separation of powers.d)The government can hold firms accountable without enacting draconian punishments by switching from criminal to civil fines.Correct 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.Which of the following best captures the key takeaway from the passage?a)The government wants to show that it is committed to corporate responsibility and to enhancing its public image.b)The government wants to persuade companies to implement improved compliance procedures.c)The passage raises concerns about the judiciarys transfer of penalty-imposition authority to the administrative branch, which may threaten the separation of powers.d)The government can hold firms accountable without enacting draconian punishments by switching from criminal to civil fines.Correct 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.Which of the following best captures the key takeaway from the passage?a)The government wants to show that it is committed to corporate responsibility and to enhancing its public image.b)The government wants to persuade companies to implement improved compliance procedures.c)The passage raises concerns about the judiciarys transfer of penalty-imposition authority to the administrative branch, which may threaten the separation of powers.d)The government can hold firms accountable without enacting draconian punishments by switching from criminal to civil fines.Correct 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.Which of the following best captures the key takeaway from the passage?a)The government wants to show that it is committed to corporate responsibility and to enhancing its public image.b)The government wants to persuade companies to implement improved compliance procedures.c)The passage raises concerns about the judiciarys transfer of penalty-imposition authority to the administrative branch, which may threaten the separation of powers.d)The government can hold firms accountable without enacting draconian punishments by switching from criminal to civil fines.Correct 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.Which of the following best captures the key takeaway from the passage?a)The government wants to show that it is committed to corporate responsibility and to enhancing its public image.b)The government wants to persuade companies to implement improved compliance procedures.c)The passage raises concerns about the judiciarys transfer of penalty-imposition authority to the administrative branch, which may threaten the separation of powers.d)The government can hold firms accountable without enacting draconian punishments by switching from criminal to civil fines.Correct 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.Which of the following best captures the key takeaway from the passage?a)The government wants to show that it is committed to corporate responsibility and to enhancing its public image.b)The government wants to persuade companies to implement improved compliance procedures.c)The passage raises concerns about the judiciarys transfer of penalty-imposition authority to the administrative branch, which may threaten the separation of powers.d)The government can hold firms accountable without enacting draconian punishments by switching from criminal to civil fines.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

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