Legal Reasoning...

Passage - 2

Europe 's top court said on Thursday that individual countries can order Facebook to take down posts, photographs and videos not only in their own countries but elsewhere, in a ruling that extends the reach of the region 's internet-related laws beyond its own borders. The European Court of Justice said Facebook could be forced to remove a post globally by a national court in the European Union 's 28-member bloc if the content was determined to be defamatory or otherwise illegal. Its decision cannot be appealed.

The decision sets a new benchmark for the purview of European laws that govern the internet, giving European countries the power to apply takedown requests internationally. That foreshadows future disputes over Europe 's role in setting rules on the internet, especially as other nations increasingly pass their own laws to deal with privacy, hate speech and disinformation. "There is this impulse in Europe that is trying to set global regulatory standards,"said Ben Wagner, director of the Privacy and Sustainable Computing Lab at Vienna University. The effort, he said, is a "pushback against the self-regulatory impulses of these platforms."Facebook said in a statement that the European court 's decision "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country."It added that the judgment raised questions about freedom of expression and "the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country."The court said on Thursday that while Facebook wasn 't liable for the disparaging comments posted the company had an obligation to take them down after an Austrian court found them defamatory. Facebook, the court said, "did not act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that information."The court left to national court systems in each European Union country to decide what cases merit forcing an internet company to take down content in foreign countries. That raised questions about what other laws Facebook and other internet platforms can be forced to comply with by governments in Europe.

Q. Based on the passage, decide : A person posted hate speech on facebook, and a EU country asked to take it down, what is the liability of facebook in here?

Passage - 2

Europe 's top court said on Thursday that individual countries can order Facebook to take down posts, photographs and videos not only in their own countries but elsewhere, in a ruling that extends the reach of the region 's internet-related laws beyond its own borders. The European Court of Justice said Facebook could be forced to remove a post globally by a national court in the European Union 's 28-member bloc if the content was determined to be defamatory or otherwise illegal. Its decision cannot be appealed.

The decision sets a new benchmark for the purview of European laws that govern the internet, giving European countries the power to apply takedown requests internationally. That foreshadows future disputes over Europe 's role in setting rules on the internet, especially as other nations increasingly pass their own laws to deal with privacy, hate speech and disinformation. "There is this impulse in Europe that is trying to set global regulatory standards,"said Ben Wagner, director of the Privacy and Sustainable Computing Lab at Vienna University. The effort, he said, is a "pushback against the self-regulatory impulses of these platforms."Facebook said in a statement that the European court 's decision "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country."It added that the judgment raised questions about freedom of expression and "the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country."The court said on Thursday that while Facebook wasn 't liable for the disparaging comments posted the company had an obligation to take them down after an Austrian court found them defamatory. Facebook, the court said, "did not act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that information."The court left to national court systems in each European Union country to decide what cases merit forcing an internet company to take down content in foreign countries. That raised questions about what other laws Facebook and other internet platforms can be forced to comply with by governments in Europe.

Q. Which of the following principles were undermined in the judgement :

Passage - 2

Europe 's top court said on Thursday that individual countries can order Facebook to take down posts, photographs and videos not only in their own countries but elsewhere, in a ruling that extends the reach of the region 's internet-related laws beyond its own borders. The European Court of Justice said Facebook could be forced to remove a post globally by a national court in the European Union 's 28-member bloc if the content was determined to be defamatory or otherwise illegal. Its decision cannot be appealed.

The decision sets a new benchmark for the purview of European laws that govern the internet, giving European countries the power to apply takedown requests internationally. That foreshadows future disputes over Europe 's role in setting rules on the internet, especially as other nations increasingly pass their own laws to deal with privacy, hate speech and disinformation. "There is this impulse in Europe that is trying to set global regulatory standards,"said Ben Wagner, director of the Privacy and Sustainable Computing Lab at Vienna University. The effort, he said, is a "pushback against the self-regulatory impulses of these platforms."Facebook said in a statement that the European court 's decision "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country."It added that the judgment raised questions about freedom of expression and "the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country."The court said on Thursday that while Facebook wasn 't liable for the disparaging comments posted the company had an obligation to take them down after an Austrian court found them defamatory. Facebook, the court said, "did not act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that information."The court left to national court systems in each European Union country to decide what cases merit forcing an internet company to take down content in foreign countries. That raised questions about what other laws Facebook and other internet platforms can be forced to comply with by governments in Europe.

Q. Which of the following statements is correct?

Passage - 2

Europe 's top court said on Thursday that individual countries can order Facebook to take down posts, photographs and videos not only in their own countries but elsewhere, in a ruling that extends the reach of the region 's internet-related laws beyond its own borders. The European Court of Justice said Facebook could be forced to remove a post globally by a national court in the European Union 's 28-member bloc if the content was determined to be defamatory or otherwise illegal. Its decision cannot be appealed.

The decision sets a new benchmark for the purview of European laws that govern the internet, giving European countries the power to apply takedown requests internationally. That foreshadows future disputes over Europe 's role in setting rules on the internet, especially as other nations increasingly pass their own laws to deal with privacy, hate speech and disinformation. "There is this impulse in Europe that is trying to set global regulatory standards,"said Ben Wagner, director of the Privacy and Sustainable Computing Lab at Vienna University. The effort, he said, is a "pushback against the self-regulatory impulses of these platforms."Facebook said in a statement that the European court 's decision "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country."It added that the judgment raised questions about freedom of expression and "the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country."The court said on Thursday that while Facebook wasn 't liable for the disparaging comments posted the company had an obligation to take them down after an Austrian court found them defamatory. Facebook, the court said, "did not act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that information."The court left to national court systems in each European Union country to decide what cases merit forcing an internet company to take down content in foreign countries. That raised questions about what other laws Facebook and other internet platforms can be forced to comply with by governments in Europe.

Q. If the report of Donald Trump 's removal on Facebook is posted, what remedy does he have?

Passage - 3

One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/ the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said:
"It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, the Judge recuses from hearing the case.
A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that:
"... I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws."
Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive.
The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding.
Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one 's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.

Q. Which of the following is the main point of the author in the given passage?

Passage - 3

One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/ the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said:
"It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, the Judge recuses from hearing the case.
A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that:
"... I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws."
Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive.
The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding.
Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one 's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.

Q. If a Judge recused from hearing the review petition of four death row convicts in the gang rape-murder case after finding the name of his/her nephew, in the orders of the review petitions. Is the recusal consistent with the essence of recusal provided in the passage?

Passage - 3

One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/ the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said:
"It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, the Judge recuses from hearing the case.
A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that:
"... I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws."
Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive.
The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding.
Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one 's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.

Q. As per the passage if right-minded persons entertain a feeling that there is any likelihood of bias on the part of the Judge, he must recuse. Does the passage also mentions about the recourse to be taken if there is mere possibility of such a feeling is

Passage - 3

One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/ the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said:
"It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, the Judge recuses from hearing the case.
A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that:
"... I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws."
Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive.
The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding.
Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one 's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.

Q. Suppose a situation arises where a recusal by a Judge is used as a means to allow a party to choose its own bench, will it be axiomatic from the passage that such a recusal is proper, morally or/and constitutionally?

Passage - 3

One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/ the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said:
"It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, the Judge recuses from hearing the case.
A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that:
"... I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws."
Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive.
The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding.
Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one 's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.

Q. If a judge reflects a predisposition so strong that it seems he had already made up his mind as to the outcome of the case, will it be according to judicial norms to ask for a recusal by the litigants?

Passage - 3

One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/ the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said:
"It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, the Judge recuses from hearing the case.
A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that:
"... I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws."
Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive.
The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding.
Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one 's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.

Q. What kind of institution the judiciary is referred to in the passage?