61.
The answer is: E
Explanation
The correct option is E: There is a presence of 'disability' in the Court of law to try the President of India for an offence of corruption.
According to the principle given, jural correlatives indicate concepts that are logically consistent and where one necessarily implies the other. The presence of 'immunity' with one party implies the presence of 'disability' with the other party. Immunity means the exemption from legal liability or obligation, while disability means the restriction or limitation of legal rights or powers.
In this case, charges of corruption are brought against A, the president of India. The president is found to enjoy immunity against those charges. This means that the president is exempted from being prosecuted or punished for the offence of corruption. This immunity is granted by Article 361 of the Constitution of India, which states that the president shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.
The presence of immunity with the president implies the presence of disability with the court of law. This means that the court of law is restricted or limited in its power to try or convict the president for the offence of corruption. The court of law cannot take cognizance of any case against the president unless he resigns from his office or is removed by impeachment.
Therefore, option E is correct, as it reflects the logical implication of jural correlatives between immunity and disability.
Option A is incorrect because there is no presence of disability in the office of the president, and hence, A can function as president so long as A is relying on immunity. The immunity granted to the president does not affect his powers and duties as the head of state and the executive. The immunity only protects him from legal proceedings and liability for his official acts or omissions. The president can continue to perform his functions as long as he holds office, unless he resigns or is impeached.
Option B is incorrect because there is no absence of disability in the office of the president as there is a presence of immunity in the office of the president. As explained above, the immunity granted to the president implies the presence of disability in the court of law, not in his own office. The disability does not apply to his powers and duties as the president, but to the power of the court to try him for any offence.
Option C is incorrect because there is no absence of disability in the court of law to try the president of India for an offence of corruption. As explained above, there is a presence of disability in the court of law to try the president for any offence, as long as he enjoys immunity under Article 361. The court cannot take cognizance of any case against him unless he resigns or is impeached.
Option D is incorrect because there is no presence of disability from prosecution in the office in an immunity from prosecution for an offence of corruption. This option is confusing and illogical, as it mixes up immunity and disability in both parties. The immunity from prosecution belongs to the president, not to his office. The disability from prosecution belongs to the court, not to his office. Therefore, this option does not
make sense.