Channel address:
Categories:
Loans, Taxes and Laws
Language: English
Subscribers:
5.59K
Description from channel
Channel only for UPSC, State PCS & Judiciary Aspirants.
Contact Admin @Virat122
Ratings & Reviews
Reviews can be left only by registered users. All reviews are moderated by admins.
5 stars
1
4 stars
2
3 stars
0
2 stars
0
1 stars
0
The latest Messages 60
2021-09-27 10:56:32
SILENT FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTION
The Indian Constitution is unique in its contents and spirit. Though borrowed from almost every Constitution of the world, the Constitution of India has several salient features that distinguish it from the Constitutions of the other countries.
It should be noted at the outset that a number of original features of the Constitution (as adopted in 1949) have undergone a substantial change, on account of several amendments, particularly 7th, 42nd, 44th, 73rd, 74th, 97th and 101st Amendments.
Join US @Law4CivilServices
996 views07:56
2021-09-23 06:21:58
SUO MOTU
Suo motu, meaning "on its own motion," is a Latin legal term, approximately equivalent to the term sua sponte. For example, it is used where a government agency acts on its own cognizance, as in "the Commission took suo motu control over the matter."
Join US @Law4CivilServices
1.4K viewsedited 03:21
2021-09-18 04:57:48
Vutukuru Lakshmaiah Vs. State of A.P
S.302 ot S. 304 Pt. I - Considering the nature of injuries on deceased and previous animosity, it is not a fit case where offence under S. 302 IPC should be converted to S. 304 Pt. I IPC - Hence, held, Conviction of all appellants under Ss.302 and 148 IPC, Confirmed.*_
_Dying declaration found reliable - Preaence of witnesses at place of occurrence, established - Testimony of witnesses, trustworthy - Presence of prime accused at scene of occurrence, clearly established by prosecution- His plea of alibi hence, rightly rejected -Acquittal of co - aacused by High Court, held no ground to discard reliable evidence,vividly showing involvement of all appelant -accused - Evidence Act, 1872,Ss. 32(1) and 11( para 17 to 26)
Join & Share @Case_Law_India
1.2K views01:57
2021-09-11 06:46:32
Important Environment Rules
Bergmann's rule: Populations and species of larger size are found in colder environments, while populations and species of smaller size are found in warmer regions.
Allen's rule: Animals adapted to cold climates have shorter limbs and bodily appendages than animals adapted to warm climates.
Gloger's rule : with in a species of endotherms , more heavily pigmented forms tend to be found in more humid environments, e.g. near the equator.
Rensch's rule :After controlling for confounding factors such as evolutionary history, an increase in average body size makes the difference in body size larger if the species has larger males, and smaller if it has larger females.
Join US @Law4CivilServices
1.8K viewsedited 03:46
2021-09-11 06:27:47
Forty-Second Amendment Act, 1976
Amended Provisions of the Constitution
Added three new words (i.e., socialist, secular and integrity) in the Preamble.
Added Fundamental Duties by the citizens (new Part IV A).
Made the president bound by the advice of the cabinet.
Provided for administrative tribunals and tribunals for other matters (Added Part XIV A).
Froze the seats in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies on the basis of 1971 census till 2001.
Made the constitutional amendments beyond judicial scrutiny.
Curtailed the power of judicial review and writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and high courts.
Raised the tenure of Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies from 5 to 6 years.
Provided that the laws made for the implementation of Directive Principles cannot be declared invalid by the courts on the ground of violation of some Fundamental Rights.
Empowered the Parliament to make laws to deal with anti-national activities and such laws are to take precedence over Fundamental Rights.
Added three new Directive Principles viz., equal justice and free-legal aid, participation of workers in the management of industries and protection of environment, forests and wild life.
Facilitated the proclamation of national emergency in a part of territory of India.
Extended the one-time duration of the President’s rule in a state from 6 months to one year.
Empowered the Centre to deploy its armed forces in any state to deal with a grave situation of law and order.
Shifted five subjects from the state list to the concurrent list, viz, education, forests, protection of wild animals and birds, weights and measures and administration of justice, constitution and organisation of all courts except the Supreme Court and the high courts.
Did away with the requirement of quorum in the Parliament and the state legislatures.
Empowered the Parliament to decide from time to time the rights and privileges of its members and committees.
Provided for the creation of the All- India Judicial Service.
Shortened the procedure for disciplinary action by taking away the right of a civil servant to make representation at the second stage after the inquiry.
NOTE: The most comprehensive amendment made so far to the Constitution; it is known as “Mini-Constitution’; it gave effect to the recommendations of Swaran Singh Committee.)
Background : In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court declared the second provision of Article 31C as unconstitutional and invalid on the ground that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and hence, cannot be taken away. However, the first provision of Article 31C was held to be constitutional and valid.
Article 31C
a. No law which seeks to implement the socialistic Directive Principles specified in Article 39 (b) 22 and (c) 23 shall be void on the ground of contravention of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Articles 14, 19, 31.
b. No law containing a declaration for giving effect to such policy shall be questioned in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such a policy.
The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) extended the scope of the first provision of Article 31C by including within its protection any law to implement any of the Directive Principles and not merely those specified in Article 39 (b) and (c).
Join US @Law4CivilServices
1.6K viewsedited 03:27
2021-09-11 06:25:51
Section 66A of the IT Act
Why in news : Shreya Singhal Judgement
It empowered police to make arrests over what policemen, in terms of their subjective discretion, could construe as “offensive” or “menacing” or for the purposes of causing annoyance, inconvenience, etc.
It prescribed the punishment for sending messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet, and a conviction could fetch a maximum of three years in jail.
The court struck down the provision as unconstitutional and a violation of free speech in 2015 in the Shreya Singhal Case.
The IT Act, 2000 provides for legal recognition for transactions through electronic communication, also known as e-commerce. The Act also penalizes various forms of cyber crime.
Discuss Section 66A of IT Act, with reference to its alleged violation of Article 19 of the Constitution.[2013
Join US @Law4CivilServices
1.1K views03:25
2021-09-09 06:33:16
Article 32
Supreme Court discourages the use of Article 32.
Article 32deals with the Right to Constitutional Remedies‘, i.e. the right to move the Supreme Court for the
enforcement of the rights conferred in Part III (Fundamental Rights) of constitution.
It states that the Supreme Court ―shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, for the enforcement of
any of the rights conferred by this Part.
It includes writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate.
The right guaranteed by this Article ―shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution (during the period of Emergency).
An individual can approach the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court directly under Article 32.
There are large numbers of Petitions under Article 32 coming to Supreme Court.SC feels that high courts, under Artilce 226, are well-equipped to deal with such matters.
In civil or criminal matters, the first remedy available to an aggrieved person is that of trial courts, followed by an appeal in the High Court and then the Supreme Court.
When it comes to violation of fundamental rights, an individual can approach the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court directly under Article 32. Article 226, however, is not a fundamental right like Article 32.
Cases related to Article 32
The Supreme Court has been inconsistent with its position regarding Article 32.
Journalist Siddique Kappan Case - The court asked why the petitioners could not go to the High Court and waits responses from the Centre and the UP government.
Nagpur-based man defamatory case - The same Bench directed him to approach the High Court first.
Poet Varavara Rao Case - In a relief petition under Article 32, the Supreme Court directed the Bombay High Court to expedite the hearing on a bail plea filed on medical grounds.
Here, it also observed that once a competent court had taken cognisance, it was under the authority of that court to decide on the matter.
Arnab Goswami Case - The court had then said that the right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right.
It also observed that ―there is no doubt that if a citizen of India is deterred in any case from approaching this Court in exercise of his right under Article 32, it would amount to a serious and direct interference in the administration of justice in the country.
Romesh Thappar vs State Of Madras Case(1950) - Supreme Court observed that it is the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights, and it cannot refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringements of such rights.
Jabalpur vs S S Shukla (1976) - Supreme Court had said that the citizen loses his right to approach the court under Article 32.
Constitutional experts say that it is eventually at the discretion of the Supreme Court and each individual judge to decide whether an intervention is warranted in a case, which could also be heard by the High Court first.Join US @Law4CivilServices
1.2K views03:33
2021-09-09 06:32:49
Free Speech
Why in news: Kerala has promulgated a draconian ordinance to curtail free speech.
The ordinance amends Section 118A in the Kerala Police Act giving uncontrolled powers to the police to curtail free speech.
Now, the police can arrest anyone expressing or disseminating any matter deemed threatening, abusive,
humiliating or defamatory to a person or a class of persons in any manner making it an cognizable offence.
The new law is vaguely defined and is made cognizable whereas criminal defamation under the IPC is non-cognisable.
Section 118A lays down a three-year prison term whereas it is two year term under the IPC.
The present ordinance contravenes with earlier Supreme Court judgement -A police officer cannot register an FIR for the offence & they can only be prosecuted by a private complaint.
However, Centre‘s assent is mandatory as it is in conflict with central laws & the ordinance itself required prior presidential assent.
It is regrettable that the State sought to equip with extraordinary powers to deal with a problem that can be dealt with other provisions relating to stalking, harassment, criminal intimidation and verbal abuse.
State Government‘s Arguments: It indicates that law targets only defamatory social media posts.
It will not curb reportage, political satire or expression of opinion.
However, in the Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) case, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act which criminalised sending of any message through a computer resource that was grossly offensive, menacing, or caused annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, injury and intimidation.
The court cited that act brought innocent and offensive messaging under its ambit.Join US @Law4CivilServices
1.1K views03:32
2021-09-09 06:32:23
Powerless MPs, MLAs: Lawmakers don’t question laws in part because anti-defection rules snuff out all dissent
Synopsis: Anti-defection rule was passed with the right intent of checking dissent. However, it is now choking the freedom of speech and expression in Parliament.
Functioning of Parliament: Laws badly drafted by bureaucrats escape lawmakers’ scrutiny. Rush job legislations are becoming a problem to the judiciary also as bills are not properly discussed by legislators or properly scrutinized by the house committees. There are also frequent disruptions in the functioning of the house.
For example:
During 1st Lok Sabha (LS), there was an average of 135 sittings a year, while 16th LS has averaged 66 sittings.
This problem is even bigger for State Legislative Assemblies.
According to PRS Legislative Research, UP, Bengal, Kolkata annually-averaged 24, 40, 53 assembly sittings and 100, 122 and 306 functional hours between 2017 and 2019 respectively
The more worrying thing is that state assemblies pass hugely consequential laws, for example, on inter-faith marriage that is subject to no legislative interrogation.
Reasons behind lack of discussion
The root cause of this problem is the 1985 Anti- defection law that obliges MP/MLA’s to obey the party whip. Governing party MPs and MLAs cannot question bills drafted by the executive, even if they want to.
This practice is very much different from the legislative functioning in the UK & the US. There, individual legislators have the discretion to dissent over the bills, policies of their party leadership & even can force change them. They played a meaningful role in contrast to India where the legislator’s role is reduced to a yes or no.
Way Forward: Dissent and defection are not the same. Adequate space should be provided for dissent in the Parliament
Join US @Law4CivilServices
1.3K views03:32
2021-08-28 04:08:18
SOURCE OF THE CONSTITUTION :
Government of India Act, 1935 : Federal Scheme, office of the Governor, power of Federal Judiciary, Public Service Commission, Emergency provisions.
USA Constitution : Fundamental Rights, written constitution, Supreme Court,
Independence of Judiciary and Judicial Reviews, President as the Executive
Head. The Vice- President, Impeachment of the President, Removal of Supreme
Court and High Court Judges, Preamble.
British Constitution : Parliamentary system, Rule of law, legislative procedure, Prime Minister, Cabinet System, Single Citizenship, Prerogative writs, Bicameral Parliament, Nominal head- President, provision of speaker
Australian Constitution : The concurrent list, centrestate Relationship, Freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, Joint sitting of the two Houses of the Parliament, Language of the preamble.
Soviet (USSR) Constitution : Fundamental Duties and ideal of justice, Five
year Plan.
German/Weimar Constitution : Emergency provisions and their effect on the Fundamental Rights.
Japan Constitution : Procedure established by the law.
Canadian Constitution : Appointment of state Governor by the centre, Advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Federation with a strong centre, vesting of residuary powers in the centre.
South African Constitution : Procedure of Amendment of the constitution, Election of the Members of Rajya Sabha.
Irish Constitution : Directive principles of state policy, Nominations of Members of Rajya sabha, method of Election of President.Join US @Law4CivilServices
2.3K views01:08
L
