Q7 of 10 Page 146

Read the following statements: Match them with the different jurisdictions the Supreme Court can exercise - Original, Appellate, and Advisory.

A. The government wanted to know if it can pass a law about the citizenship status of residents of Pakistan-occupied areas of Jammu and Kashmir.


B. In order to resolve the dispute about river Cauvery the government of Tamil Nadu wants to approach the court.


C. Court rejected the appeal by people against the eviction from the dam site.

Original Settles disputes between Union and States and amongst States.

Appellate Tries appeals from lower courts in Civil, Criminal and Constitutional cases.


Advisory Advises the President on matters of public importance and law.


A. Advisory.


Since the government wants to know or seeks an advise regarding the provision.


B. Original


The river dispute concerns the two states, so needs the original jurisdiction.


C. Appellate.


The lower court rejected the appeal of the people, so now they would appeal to the higher judiciary.


More from this chapter

All 10 →
5

Read the following news report and,

A. Identify the governments at different levels


B. Identify the role of Supreme Court


C. What elements of the working of judiciary and executive can you identify in it?


D. Identify the policy issues, matters related to legislation, implementation and interpretation of the law involved in this case.


Centre, Delhi join hands on CNG issue


By Our Staff Reporter, The Hindu 23 September 2001


NEW DELHI, SEPT. 22. The Centre and the Delhi Government today agreed to jointly approach the Supreme Court this coming week… for phasing out of all non-CNG commercial vehicles in the Capital. They also decided to seek a dual fuel policy for the city instead of putting the entire transportation system on the single-fuel mode “which was full of dangers and would result in disaster.’’


It was also decided to discourage the use of CNG by private vehicle owners in the Capital. Both governments would press for allowing the use of 0.05 per cent low sulphur diesel for running of buses in the Capital. In addition, it would be pleaded before the Court that all commercial vehicles, which fulfil the Euro-II standards, should be allowed to ply in the city. Though both the Centre and the State would file separate affidavits, these would contain common points. The Centre would also go out and support the Delhi Government’s stand on the issues concerning CNG.


These decisions were taken at a meeting between the Delhi Chief Minister, Ms. Sheila Dikshit, and the Union Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister, Mr. Ram Naik.


Ms. Dikshit said the Central Government would request the court that in view of the high powered Committee appointed under Dr. R.A. Mashelkar to suggest an “Auto Fuel Policy”’ for the entire country, it would be appropriate to extend the deadline as it was not possible to convert the entire 10,000-odd bus fleet into CNG during the prescribed time frame. The Mashelkar Committee is expected to submit its report within a period of six months.


The Chief Minister said time was required to implement the court directives. Referring to the coordinated approach on the issue, Ms. Dikshit said this would take into account the details about the number of vehicles to be run on CNG, eliminating long queues outside CNG filling stations, the CNG fuel requirements of Delhi and the ways and means to implement the directive of the court.


The Supreme Court had …refused to relax the only CNG norm for the city’s buses but said it had never insisted on CNG for taxis and auto rickshaws. Mr. Naik said the Centre would insist on allowing use of low sulphur diesel for buses in Delhi as putting the entire transportation system dependent on CNG could prove to be disastrous. The Capital relied on pipeline supply for CNG and any disruption would throw the public transport system out of gear.

6

The following is a statement about Ecuador. What similarities or differences do you find between this example and the judicial system in India?

“It would be helpful if a body of common law, or judicial precedent, existed that could clarify a journalist’s rights. Unfortunately, Ecuador’s courts don’t work that way. Judges are not forced to respect the rulings of higher courts in previous cases. Unlike the US, an appellate judge in Ecuador (or elsewhere in South America, for that matter) need not provide a written decision explaining the legal basis of a ruling. A judge may rule one way today and the opposite way, in a similar case, tomorrow, without explaining why.”

8

In what way can public interest litigation help the poor?

9

Do you think that judicial activism can lead to a conflict between the judiciary and the executive? Why?