Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

The Supreme Court of India held that to the extent Article 323A and 323B exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 are unconstitutional; was held in

The Supreme Court of India held that to the extent Article 323A and 323B exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 are unconstitutional; was held in Correct Answer L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997

Related Questions

In which case Article 323A(2)(d) and Article 323B(3)(d) were declared unconstitutional to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution?
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:
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?
Where two or more courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try the offence, the question shall be decided
1. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court
2. By the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the accused resides, carries on business or is engaged in a gainful employment
3. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court in consultation with the State Government concerned
4. If the courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by that court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced
Which of the above are correct?
Which of the following subject matters Articles Related to Supreme Court is correctly stated with their respective Article no.?  133. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases 132. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to civil matters 134 A. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters 134 . Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court
On Comparing Indian and American Supreme Courts which one of the following statements is NOT true? Indian Supreme Courts original jurisdiction is confined to federal cases. Indian Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction is confined to constitutional cases only. American Supreme Court has a very wide discretion to grant special leave to appeal in any matter against the judgement of any court or tribunal (except military). American Supreme Court has no advisory jurisdiction.
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:
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?
Which of the following statements are correct? Answer by using the code given below:
1. Persons in Govt/Judicial service need not resign to participate in District judge selection process held in "Vijay Kumar Misra and another v. High Court of Judicature at Patna" by the Supreme Court of India
2. The Supreme Court of India held in S. Kazi v. Muslim Education Society that " All Tribunals are not necessary parties to the proceedings where legality of its orders challenged"
3. The Supreme Court of India observed in Cardanumom Marketing Corporation and others v. State of Kerala and others that Social Security to the legal profession becomes an essential part of legal system
4. The Supreme Court of India held in 'Union of India v. Rajasthan High Court and others that High Court judges are exempted from Airport frisking.
Consider the following statements:
1. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States.
2. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other State on the other.
3. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and any corporation of Individual one side and one or more States on the other.
4. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between two or more States.
Which of these statements are correct?