theoryofabrogation

Opening Hours Mon - Sat 09 : 30 am - 8 : 00 pm

+91 9971399324

+91 8840961324

[email protected]

13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi- 110025

Menu
Register For New Batch

Author: toahostinger

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Posted on By toahostinger No Comments on S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) – Limits on President’s Rule & Strengthening Federalism This landmark case placed important checks on the misuse of President’s Rule under Article 356, reinforcing the principles of secularism and federalism as part of the Constitution’s basic structure. Background: Article 356 of the Constitution allows the President to impose President’s Rule in a state if there’s a breakdown of constitutional machinery. However, over the years, this provision had been frequently misused by the central government to dismiss state governments—often for political reasons. In 1989, the Janata Dal-led government in Karnataka was dismissed by the Centre, which claimed that the state had lost its majority. Similar dismissals happened in Meghalaya, Nagaland, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh. S.R. Bommai, the dismissed Chief Minister of Karnataka, challenged the decision. This led to a pivotal case in Indian constitutional law. Legal Issues Raised: Can the President’s decision under Article 356 be reviewed by the courts? What constitutes a “breakdown of constitutional machinery” in a state? Can the President dismiss a state government without testing its majority on the floor of the Assembly? Supreme Court’s Key Observations: Judicial Review Allowed: The Court ruled that the President’s proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. Courts can strike down such proclamations if they are found to be mala fide or unconstitutional. Floor Test is Mandatory: The majority of a state government must be tested on the floor of the Assembly, not decided by the Governor or Centre. A government cannot be dismissed solely based on subjective reports. Secularism is a Basic Feature: The Court reaffirmed that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. If a state acts against secular values, the Centre can intervene. However, the ground must be constitutionally valid. Federalism Strengthened: The judgment emphasized federal principles—states have their own sphere of governance and cannot be arbitrarily dismissed. Restoration of Government Possible: If the dismissal is found invalid, the dismissed state government can be reinstated, even after fresh elections have been conducted. Impact of the Judgment: This case set clear constitutional boundaries on the use of Article 356. It curbed political misuse of President’s Rule and strengthened democracy at the state level. Reinforced the idea that India is a Union of States, not a unitary system. It remains a safeguard for state governments against unjust interference by the Centre.

Constitution Landmark Cases

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

Posted on By toahostinger No Comments on I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) – Judicial Review Cannot Be Taken Away Summary:This judgment reaffirmed that any law—even if placed in the Ninth Schedule—is open to judicial review if it violates the basic structure of the Constitution. Background: The Ninth Schedule was originally introduced by the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) to protect land reform laws from being struck down by courts for violating Fundamental Rights. Laws placed in this schedule were shielded from judicial review under Article 31B. Over the decades, however, Parliament began placing all kinds of laws—many unrelated to land reforms—under the Ninth Schedule. Critics argued that this was being misused to bypass the Constitution, avoid scrutiny, and suppress Fundamental Rights. In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court was asked to decide: Can Parliament put any law in the Ninth Schedule and make it immune from judicial review, even if it violates fundamental rights? Legal Issues Raised: Are laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) immune from judicial review? Can laws that violate Fundamental Rights be protected by simply adding them to the Ninth Schedule? Is judicial review part of the basic structure of the Constitution? Supreme Court’s Key Observations: Judicial Review is Part of the Basic Structure: The Court ruled that judicial review—the power of the courts to examine laws for their constitutionality—is an essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be removed or diluted. Ninth Schedule Not a Safe Haven: Any law placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) must pass the basic structure test. If it violates core constitutional values, it can be struck down. Protection Is Not Automatic: Just because a law is in the Ninth Schedule doesn’t mean it’s automatically valid. It will be tested for compliance with Fundamental Rights and basic structure principles like equality, freedom, and rule of law. Impact of the Judgment: This ruling placed a constitutional check on Parliament’s power. It sent a clear message: no law can escape judicial scrutiny, even if shielded by the Ninth Schedule. The decision upheld the sanctity of Fundamental Rights and strengthened the role of the judiciary as the protector of the Constitution. It also put an end to the trend of misusing the Ninth Schedule to give unconstitutional laws blanket protection, ensuring a balance between legislative intent and constitutional values.

Constitution Landmark Cases

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

Posted on By toahostinger No Comments on Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) – Elections, Equality & the Basic Structure Summary:This case highlighted the importance of free and fair elections in a democracy and reaffirmed that even constitutional amendments cannot override the basic structure of the Constitution. Background: The case arose from one of the most politically charged moments in Indian history. In 1971, Indira Gandhi won a sweeping majority in the Lok Sabha elections. Her opponent in the Rae Bareli constituency, Raj Narain, challenged her victory, alleging electoral malpractices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In 1975, the Allahabad High Court found Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral misconduct and declared her election void. This verdict disqualified her from holding office and triggered a political crisis. Just days later, Indira Gandhi declared a state of Emergency in India. During this period, Parliament passed the 39th Constitutional Amendment, inserting Article 329A, which: Declared that elections of the Prime Minister and Speaker could not be questioned in any court. Retrospectively validated Indira Gandhi’s election, overruling the High Court judgment. This amendment was directly challenged before the Supreme Court. Legal Issues Raised: Can Parliament pass a constitutional amendment that places certain elections beyond judicial scrutiny? Does such an amendment violate the basic structure of the Constitution? Is the right to free and fair elections part of the Constitution’s core principles? Supreme Court’s Key Observations: Violation of Basic Structure: The Court struck down Clause 4 of Article 329A, stating that placing the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial review violated the basic structure of the Constitution. Free and Fair Elections as a Constitutional Guarantee: The Court ruled that free and fair elections are an essential feature of democracy and part of the basic structure. Any law or amendment that damages this principle is unconstitutional. Limitation on Parliament’s Amending Power: Although Parliament has wide powers under Article 368, it cannot destroy essential constitutional values, including equality, rule of law, and judicial review. Retrospective Validation Is Unjust: The amendment, made solely to protect one individual’s seat of power, was seen as a misuse of constitutional authority. Impact of the Judgment: This case stands as a strong reminder that no one—not even the Prime Minister—is above the Constitution. It reinforced the judiciary’s role as the guardian of democratic values, and further cemented the Basic Structure Doctrineestablished in Kesavananda Bharati. The judgment also deepened public understanding of constitutional supremacy and set a precedent that constitutional amendments are not immune from judicial review if they breach the core values of the Constitution.

Uncategorized

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

Posted on By toahostinger No Comments on Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) – Parliament Cannot Amend Fundamental Rights Summary:This case declared that Fundamental Rights are beyond the reach of Parliament’s amending power, marking a significant moment in protecting individual liberties from legislative overreach. Background: The Golaknath family owned a large stretch of agricultural land in Punjab. Under state land reform laws, some of their land was declared “surplus” and taken away by the government. They challenged this move, arguing that it violated their Fundamental Rights, particularly: Right to property (Article 19(1)(f)) Right to equality (Article 14) The central question became: Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368? Legal Issues Raised: Does Parliament have the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights? Can Fundamental Rights be limited or taken away using constitutional amendments? Supreme Court’s Key Observations: Fundamental Rights are Sacrosanct: The Court ruled by a narrow majority (6:5) that Parliament cannot amend or abridge Fundamental Rights. Amendment vs. Law: The judgment treated a constitutional amendment as a “law” under Article 13(2). This meant any amendment that violated Fundamental Rights would be void. Article 368 Not an Absolute Power: The Court held that Article 368 only lays down the procedure for amendment, not the power itself. The power must still respect the limitations of Article 13. Impact of the Judgment: Temporary Freeze on Amendments to Fundamental Rights: Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights was significantly limited. Prompted the 24th Constitutional Amendment (1971): In response, Parliament amended the Constitution to clarify that it does have the power to amend any part, including Fundamental Rights. This set the stage for the Kesavananda Bharati case, where the basic structure doctrine was born. Debate on Legislative Power and Individual Rights: This case started a constitutional tug-of-war between the legislature’s powers and judiciary’s role as guardian of Fundamental Rights.

Constitution Landmark Cases

Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

Posted on By toahostinger No Comments on Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) – Reinforcing the Balance Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles Summary:This landmark case reaffirmed that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot destroy its basic structure. It struck a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, ensuring neither dominates the other. Background: The Minerva Mills Ltd. case emerged during the post-Emergency period, when questions about the extent of Parliament’s amending power came under sharp scrutiny. In 1975, the government took over Minerva Mills, a sick industrial firm, under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act. The owners challenged this move, leading to a broader constitutional debate. At the heart of the case were two major constitutional amendments passed during the Emergency: 42nd Amendment, which: Gave supremacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights. Stated that amendments could not be questioned in court. Expanded Parliament’s powers under Article 368. Legal Issues Raised: Can Parliament use its power to amend the Constitution in a way that eliminates or reduces judicial review? Can Directive Principles override Fundamental Rights? Do such sweeping changes violate the basic structure of the Constitution? Supreme Court’s Key Observations: Parliament’s Power is Limited: The Court struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment that gave Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution. It ruled that judicial review and Fundamental Rights are essential features of the Constitution and form part of its basic structure. Balanced Coexistence: The Court emphasized a harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. They are both essential to India’s constitutional framework, and neither can be sacrificed for the other. Struck Down Sections of 42nd Amendment: Section 4 and Section 55, which curtailed judicial review and made Directive Principles superior, were held unconstitutional. Impact of the Judgment: Reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine first laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati case. Prevented the misuse of constitutional amendments to suppress individual liberties. Cemented the judiciary’s role as a guardian of the Constitution. Preserved the delicate balance between welfare goals (Directive Principles) and personal freedoms (Fundamental Rights).

Constitution Landmark Cases

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Posted on By toahostinger No Comments on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Expanding the Meaning of Personal Liberty Summary:This case transformed the interpretation of Article 21, holding that personal liberty is not just physical freedom but includes a wide range of rights—and any procedure restricting it must be fair, just, and reasonable. Background: Maneka Gandhi, a journalist and the daughter-in-law of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was issued a passport. Shortly after, the government ordered her to surrender it without giving any reason, under the Passport Act, 1967. When she asked for an explanation, it was denied “in public interest.” Maneka Gandhi filed a writ petition under Article 32, claiming this action violated her Fundamental Rights. Legal Issues Raised: Can the government restrict a citizen’s right to travel without giving proper reasons or following due process? What is the true scope of Article 21—the right to life and personal liberty? Can laws under Article 21 be arbitrary, or must they follow fair procedure? Key Observations by the Supreme Court: Redefined Article 21: The Court declared that the term “procedure established by law” in Article 21 cannot be arbitrary. It must be just, fair, and reasonable, aligning with the principles of natural justice. Link Between Fundamental Rights: The judgment emphasized that Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Freedoms), and 21 are not isolated. They are interlinked and must be read together. Right to Travel Abroad: The right to travel is part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. Any restriction on it must meet strict constitutional standards. Procedural Fairness is Mandatory: Simply having a law isn’t enough. The process it lays down must protect the individual’s dignity and fairness. Impact of the Judgment: Broadened the scope of Article 21, influencing countless future cases involving privacy, dignity, environment, and more. Shifted Indian constitutional law closer to due process, as practiced in the United States. Made arbitrary executive actions more challengeable in court.

Uncategorized

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Posted on By toahostinger No Comments on Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – The Case That Drew the Line for Parliament’s Power 🟠 Summary:This landmark judgment laid the foundation of the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot change its core principles such as democracy, rule of law, and fundamental rights. 📖 Background of the Case: In the early 1970s, the Indian government introduced land reform laws to promote social and economic justice by redistributing land. These reforms often came into conflict with the right to property. Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a Hindu religious mutt in Kerala, challenged these laws when the state tried to take over the mutt’s land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Initially a property rights case, it soon became a constitutional crisis: Could Parliament make changes to the Constitution that undermine individual freedoms? ⚖️ Key Legal Questions: Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368? Can Parliament amend or take away fundamental rights like the right to property, equality, or liberty? Is there any part of the Constitution that is beyond the reach of Parliament’s amendment power? 🧠 Court’s Observation & Verdict: A 13-judge bench, the largest in Indian judicial history, heard the case. In a close 7-6 majority, the Court ruled: Yes, Parliament can amend the Constitution. But it cannot destroy or alter its ‘basic structure’. This means that while laws can change with time, the fundamental identity of the Constitution must remain intact. The Court didn’t give an exhaustive list of what constitutes the “basic structure,” but it identified essential features like Supremacy of the Constitution, Rule of law and Separation of powers.  📌 Why This Case Matters: It saved the Constitution from being rewritten at will by those in power. It created a balance between amendability and stability. It reinforced the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution. It later helped courts strike down unconstitutional amendments, such as those affecting elections or weakening courts. 📚 Legacy: Even decades later, the Kesavananda Bharati judgment remains the cornerstone of constitutional law in India. It has been cited in numerous rulings and continues to act as a shield against authoritarian misuse of power.

Uncategorized

Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)

Posted on By toahostinger No Comments on Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)

Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) – Landmark Judgment on Involuntary Administration of Scientific Tests This case addresses the validity of involuntary scientific techniques such as narcoanalysis, polygraph examinations, and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) tests, questioning their impact on individual rights in criminal investigations. Summary:The Supreme Court ruled that the involuntary use of narcoanalysis, polygraph tests, and BEAP tests violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. It emphasized the need to protect individual liberties during criminal investigations while balancing the interests of justice. Key Observations: Violation of Self-Incrimination Rights: The Court affirmed that forced administration of these scientific techniques violates Article 20(3), which protects individuals from self-incrimination during investigations. Voluntary Administration with Safeguards: While voluntary tests are allowed, they must be accompanied by clear consent and safeguards. Involuntary tests are inadmissible as evidence. Testimonial Nature of Evidence: Results from these techniques are treated as personal testimony and not material evidence, meaning they are inadmissible unless voluntarily provided. Infringement on Personal Liberty: The compulsory administration of these tests violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21, as it involves an unjustified intrusion into mental privacy. International Human Rights Concerns: The Court noted that forced use of these tests could be seen as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under international human rights norms. NHRC Guidelines: The National Human Rights Commission guidelines must be followed rigorously, ensuring informed consent, legal counsel, and appropriate safeguards. Conclusion:This case reinforces that personal liberty and constitutional rights must be upheld in the face of criminal investigations, setting critical limits on the use of involuntary scientific techniques.

Uncategorized

Rajasthan Judicial Services (RJS) 2025: Examination Scheme & Syllabus

Posted on By toahostinger No Comments on Rajasthan Judicial Services (RJS) 2025: Examination Scheme & Syllabus

The Rajasthan Judicial Services (RJS) Examination for 2025 is a comprehensive multi-stage recruitment process, consisting of a Preliminary Examination, a Main Examination, and an Interview. Below is a clear and detailed explanation of each stage, followed by the syllabus to help candidates understand the requirements. 1. Examination Stages The recruitment process for the position of Civil Judge is structured into three major stages: Preliminary Examination (Objective Type) Main Examination (Subjective Type) Interview (Viva-Voce) Important Notes: The marks obtained in the Preliminary Examination will not be counted for the final merit. 15 times the vacancies (category-wise) will be shortlisted from the Preliminary Examination to appear for the Main Examination. However, in case of a tie on the last cut-off, all candidates with the same marks will be admitted. Candidates must secure a minimum percentage in the Preliminary Examination to qualify for the Main Examination: SC/ST/PWD/Ex-servicemen: 40% in Prelims. Other categories: 45% in Prelims. 2. Preliminary Examination The Preliminary Examination is a 2-hour objective type paper with 100 questions, totaling 100 marks. The examination tests candidates on both Law and Language Proficiency (English and Hindi). There is no negative marking for wrong answers. Weightage:  70% weightage will be given to the subjects prescribed in syllabus for Law Paper-I and Law Paper-ll, prescribed in the Main Examination syllabus. 30% of the questions assess proficiency in Hindi and English language. The Preliminary Exam syllabus includes: Law: Same as the syllabus for Law Paper-I and Law Paper-II in the Main Examination. English Proficiency: Tenses Articles and Determiners Phrasal Verbs and Idioms Active & Passive Voice Co-ordination & Subordination Direct & Indirect Speech Modals Expressing Various Concepts, including – (Obligation, Request, Permission, Prohibition, Intention, Condition, Probability, Possibility, Purpose, Reason, Companions, Contrast) Antonyms and Synonyms. Hindi Proficiency: शब्द रचना: संधि एवं संधि विच्छेद, समास, उपसर्ग, प्रत्यय शब्द प्रकार:(क) तत्सम, अर्धतत्सम, तद्भव, देशज, विदेशज(ख) संज्ञा, सर्वनाम, विशेषण, क्रिया, अव्यय (क्रिया विशेषण, संबंध सूचक, विस्मयादिबोधक, निपात) शब्द ज्ञान: पर्यायवाची, विलोम, शब्द युग्मों का अर्थ भेद, वाक्यांश के लिए सार्थक शब्द, समश्रुत भिन्नार्थक शब्द, समानार्थी शब्दों का विवेक, उपयुक्त शब्द चयन, संबंधवाची शब्दावली शब्द शुद्धि व्याकरणिक कोटियाँ: कारक, लिंग, वचन, पुरुष, काल, विधि (Mood), पक्ष (Aspect), वाच्य (Voice) वाक्य रचना, वाक्य शुद्धि, विराम चिह्नों का प्रयोग मुहावरे/लोकोक्तियाँ पारिभाषिक शब्दावली: प्रशासनिक, विधिक (विशेषतः) 3. Main Examination The Main Examination is subjective and consists of three papers: Law Paper-I Law Paper-II Language Paper (Hindi and English Essays) LAW                         Law Paper-I (Civil Law) 100 Marks 3 hours LAW                           Law Paper-II (Criminal Law) 100   Marks 3 hours LANGUAGE Paper-I (Hindi Essay) 50 Marks     2 hours LANGUAGE Paper-II (English Essay) 50 Marks 2 hours Interview Personal Interview 35 Marks Syllabus for Law Paper-I: This paper covers Civil Law subjects, including: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 Indian Contract Act, 1872 The Constitution of India Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Limitation Act, 1963 Specific Relief Act, 1963 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 The Interpretation of Statutes Hindu Laws: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 Partnership Act, 1932 Sale of Goods Act, 1930 The Registration Act, 1908 Mohammedan Law (Relating to Marriage, Divorce, Succession, Maintenance & Adoption) Order/Judgment Writing Syllabus for Law Paper-II: This paper focuses on Criminal Law and Procedural Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 The Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita) Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Indian Evidence Act, 1872  The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 The Information Technology Act, 2000 Framing of Charge and Judgment Writing Syllabus for Language Paper: The Language Paper consists of two sections: Hindi Essay: Candidates will write an essay in Hindi. English Essay: Candidates will write an essay in English. 4. Interview (Viva-Voce) The Interview assesses candidates on their personality, general knowledge, current affairs, and suitability for the judicial service. Candidates will also be evaluated on their proficiency in Rajasthani dialects and their knowledge of social customs of Rajasthan. The interview is intended to gauge the candidate’s overall personality and their understanding of societal issues, including contemporary challenges. 5. Final Merit List The final merit list is prepared based on the aggregate marks from the Main Examination and the Interview. In case of a tie in aggregate marks, the following tie-breaking procedure will be followed: Higher marks in Interview will be the deciding factor. Age: If the Interview marks are also tied, preference will be given to the older candidate. Minimum Marks for Appointment: SC/ST/PWD candidates: Minimum 35% in Written Exam + Interview. Ex-servicemen candidates: Minimum 35% in Written Exam + Interview. Other candidates: Minimum 40% in Written Exam + Interview. Summary of Important Points: Preliminary Examination: Objective-type paper on Law (70%) and Language Proficiency (30%). Main Examination: Subjective papers on Law (Civil and Criminal) and Language (Hindi & English essays). Interview: Personality, general knowledge, and proficiency in Rajasthani dialects. Final Selection: Based on the aggregate marks in the Main Examination and Interview. You can now start your preparation for Judicial Services with us. For more details ask here : https://wa.me/message/KQFV6VUK5AIWB1 Our YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@theoryofabrogation?si=scV-M5gisXmJmZCf

Uncategorized

Assam Judicial Services Notification 2025 Out!

Posted on By toahostinger No Comments on Assam Judicial Services Notification 2025 Out!

Hello Everyone! Since Assam Judicial Services Notification 2025 Out, you can check the notification for Assam Judicial Services Notification 2025 here: https://ghconline.gov.in/Recruitment/Notification-07-02-2025-1.pdf Syllabus for Assam Judicial Services 2025 The Assam Judicial Service Examination is conducted by the Gauhati High Court to recruit candidates for Grade III positions within the state’s judiciary. The selection process comprises three stages: Preliminary Examination: Objective-type questions. Main Written Examination: Descriptive papers. Viva Voce (Interview): Assessment of personality and suitability. Preliminary Examination Syllabus: Preliminary Examination (Screening test) shall consist of objective type questions of 100 marks, out of which 90 marks will cover General Knowledge, Aptitude, English, Constitution of India, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Transfer of Properlry Act, Indian Contract Act, Indian Penal Code, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Indian Evidence Act, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), Law of Torts and remaining 10 marks to test the proficiency in the official Language(s) of the State of Assam (Assamese). The remaining 10 marks assess proficiency in the official language of Assam (Assamese). Main Written Examination Syllabus: Paper-I: English- 100 arks (a) Essay Writing (b) Precis Writing (c) Grammar etc. Paper-II: General Knowledge- 100 marks (a) Objective type (b) Aptitude Test Paper-III: Law Paper-I- 100 marks (a) Constitution of India (b) Code of Civil Procedure (c) Transfer of Property Act (d) Indian Contract Act Paper-IV: Law Paper-II- 100 marks (a) Indian Penal Code (b) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (c) Criminal Procedure Code (d) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (e) Indian Evidence Act (D Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) (g) Law of Torts Paper-V: Paper to test the Proficiency in the Official Language(s) of the State of Assam- (Assamese) (Qualifying in nature)-50 marks INTERVIEW- 50 marks. Candidates must secure a minimum of 60% aggregate marks in the main examination, with at least 45% in individual papers 1 to 4, and a minimum of 35% in the language paper to qualify for the Viva Voce. For SC/ST candidates, the required aggregate is 50%, with at least 40% in individual papers. The language paper is qualifying in nature and its marks are not counted towards the aggregate for final selection. Viva Voce (Interview): The interview carries 50 marks and assesses: Personality Academic knowledge Communication skills Candidates must secure a minimum of 60% marks in the interview to be considered for final selection. For detailed and updated information, candidates are advised to refer to the official notifications released by the Gauhati High Court. Since Assam Judicial Services Notification 2025 Out, you can now start your preparation for Judicial Services with us. For more details ask here : https://wa.me/message/KQFV6VUK5AIWB1

Uncategorized