Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Assertion (A): A Habeas Corpus writ petition dismissed by the Supreme Court can be admitted by High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
Reasons (R): In exercising writ jurisdiction the powers of the Supreme Court and High Court are concurrent

Assertion (A): A Habeas Corpus writ petition dismissed by the Supreme Court can be admitted by High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
Reasons (R): In exercising writ jurisdiction the powers of the Supreme Court and High Court are concurrent Correct Answer A is false but R is true

Related Questions

"If the writ petition under Article 226 in a High Court is dismissed on the merits (i.e. dismissed in limine); but because of laches of the party applying for the writ or because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, then dismissal of writ petition (under Article 226) would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32." This principle was laid down by Supreme Court in:
Assertion (A): Refusal to issue a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 does not bar the remedy for a similar writ under Article 32.
Reason (R): The rule of res judicata is not applicable to the writ of habeas corpus.
A, a bank officer, got compulsorily retired in 2014. Since the bank authorities did not release the leave encashment in his favour, he filed writ petition WP 2001 (W) of 2017 in Ranchi High Court for the same and also for the interest on the unpaid amount. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge in December 2018 directing the bank to release the privileged leave encashment benefits to the petitioner to the extent he was entitled to in accordance with law within a certain period. The prayer for interest was not specifically denied by the court. The bank filed an appeal against the order. The Division Bench of Ranchi High Court in February, 2019 declined to admit the appeal. The bank authorities released the leave encashment in favour of the petitioner. However, A files a writ petition again for a direction to the bank to disburse interest to A at the rate of 18% per annum on leave encashment released by the bank. This petition is covered under which of the following?
Assertion (A): The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to writs.
Reason (R): If a writ of habeas corpus is rejected by the Supreme Court, the same writ can be file a fresh before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Consider the following statements:
1. The powers of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are wider than those of Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
2. Both High Court and Supreme Court have concurrent power to enforce the fundamental rights.
3. It is mandatory for a petitioner first to approach the High Court instead of approaching the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
A seven member bench of the Supreme Court unanimously struck down clauses 2(d) of Article 323A and clause 3(d) of Article 323B of the Constitution relating to tribunals which excluded the jurisdiction of High Court and Supreme Court. The court held that power of judicial review over legislative action is vested in the High Court under Article 226 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32. This is an integral part of the basic structure of the constitution. Name the case:
The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is not wider than that of the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 because the High Courts may exercise this power in relation to:
Study the following statements and pick up the correct code:
Statement I: The power of High Court to issue writs under Article 226 is wider than the power of Supreme Court under Article 32.
Statement II: The Supreme Court has the power to issue writs only for violation of fundamental rights whereas the power of High Court under Article 226 can be invoked for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as legal rights.
Part XIV-A entitled "Tribunals" was inserted by the Constitution (Forty Second) Amendment Act, 1976. Clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and Clause (3)(d) of Article 323-B excluded jurisdiction of all courts, except that of the Supreme Court under Article 136. In which case were these clauses struck down as being unconstitutional to the extent they barred the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and that of the Supreme Court under Article 32?
In which decision rendered by the Apex Court has it been held that an order under Article 226 passed in a habeas corpus matter will not constitute res judicata to bar a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India?