The aim of the exclusionary rule as defined in the Mapp v Ohio Supreme Court case is to

The aim of the exclusionary rule as defined in the Mapp v Ohio Supreme Court case is to Correct Answer not allow illegally obtained evidence to be admitted into a court proceeding

(E) Type of Question: Identification and analysis
Bissoy MCQ

Related Questions

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court passes judgment in a matter. In a later case before a high court, a party presents the Supreme Court judgment as a binding authority. The opposing party claims that the high court is not bound by the Supreme Court's judgment because relevant provisions of law were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in that case. Which of the following is most correct in this case?
Principle: Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
Which of the following statements regarding the 'advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court' is correct:
1. The opinion of Supreme Court may be sought by the President on any question of law or fact
2. In case the opinion of the Supreme Court is sought it is bound to give
3. The advice given by Supreme Court on matters referred to it is binding on the President
4. Advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court can also be exercised over disputes arising out of references made over preconstitutional treaties
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.
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:
Consider the following statements to answer this question.
1. Parliament cannot extend the jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court.
2. No discussion can take place in Parliament with respect to the conduct of judge of the Supreme Court in discharge of the duties.
3. A retired judge of the Supreme Court cannot appear or plead in any court or before any authority within the territory of India.
4. The salaries and allowances of the Supreme Court are fixed by the Constitution and charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.
Which of these statement are correct?
The exclusionary rule established by the Supreme Court supported the position that
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?
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?
In which one of the following cases, the Supreme Court had observed that if the Supreme Court and the High Court both were to be thought of as brothers in the administration of justice, the High Court has larger jurisdiction but the Supreme Court still remains the elder brother?
Consider the following statements:
1. Supreme Court's power to issue writs is narrower than that of High Court
2. A citizen is free to approach High Court or Supreme Court's as he choose, whenever his fundamental rights are violated
3. The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts throughout India
Which of the above statements(s) is/are correct?