Doubt Clearance Thread: UPSC 2021
"When in doubt, observe and ask questions. When certain, observe at length and ask many more questions."
Created this thread as a one stop solution for all members so that all the doubts wherein any conceptual clarification is required can be solved here.
Can governor "pardon" death row??? Means full innocence like the president power?
I'd discuss the judgement first.
Section 433-A of the Cr.P.C.restricts the right of the state to suspend the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on conviction of a person for an offencefor which death is one of the punishments provided by law.So, it pertains to cases where a convict has been sentenced for life (not death)! As pointed out, the article is confusing.
So, Section 433A says that such person shall not be released from prison unless he has served at least 14 years of imprisonment. On the other hand, the power conferred on the Governor (Article 161) is without any restriction of the actual period of imprisonment undergone by the prisoner. Thus, if a convict has undergone more than 14 years of actual imprisonment, the State Government is competent to pass an order of premature release. However, if the prisoner has not undergone 14 years or more of actual imprisonment, the Governor has a power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites and remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person notwithstanding the restrictions imposed under Section 433A.
If someone is on death row, then there's no point keeping him incarcerated for 14 years! In fact, if I remember clearly, the Courts have reverted death sentence to lower grade punishment wherein State has delayed the execution of death sentence.
With respect to the pardoning power of Governor in cases of death sentence-
The pardoning power of President overrides the pardoning power of Governor in certain cases. This idea is expressed through Article 72(3)-
Nothing in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) shall affect the power to suspend, remit or commute a sentence of death exercisable by the Governor* of a State under any law for the time being in force.
This essentially means that, in so far as the exercise of pardoning power is with respect to-
1. Suspension of a death sentence
2. Remission of a death sentence
3. Commutation of a death sentence....
the Governor's pardoning power is not sub-ordinate to that of President's. However, with respect to pardon of a death sentence, the President is the only authority. We understand this from a combined reading of Article 72(1)(c) and Article 72(3). If the objective of the Constitution were to make the power of the President and that of the Governor in all cases where the sentence is sentence of death co-extensive, Article 72(3) would not have saved only the power of the Governor to suspend, remit or commute a sentence of death!
So, the Pardoning power of President and Governor with respect to death sentence is not co-extensive! The President can grant pardon for a death sentence, but the Governor cannot!
I have a very lame doubt. I just read that prolonged exposure to liquid oxygen can be harmful to us, it might even be fatal.
But oxygen is the life and breath of humans, so why does liquid oxygen harm us?
Liquid oxygen or pure oxygen has high affinity for organic compounds.Our body has plenty of them. It would directly interfere with our body metabolism. That's why, pressure at which oxygen is supplied to those needing it is also monitored minutely to avoid any adverse events during medical intervention.
We need a bit of everything in right sizes to survive!
Can unregistered political parties contest election in India?
For contesting elections, the parties would need election symbols. These are alloted by the ECI to registered parties only. For the purpose of elections, parties also need to submit scanned copies of annual audited accounts, contribution reports, statements of election expenditure etc. Unless they are not registered with the ECI, it would be difficult to regulate such entities. Hence, registration is mandatory.
For the purpose of elections, all parties must be registered in accordance with Section 29a of the RPA. Parties which are registered and do not qualify as state/national party areregistered unrecognised parties. If they meet a certain criteria of percentage of votes secured, seats won etc., they are known as recognised parties.
Hope it's clear!
Consider the following statements with respect to land reforms and Green Revolution undertaken by government after 1950s:
1. Both reforms promoted the consolidation of land-holdings.
2. They were largely opposed by the land-owning caste lobbies and the tenants.
3. Unlike Green revolution, the land reforms had limited impact on the rural agrarian structure of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
My answer: a.
As Land consolidation was among the objectives of both land reforms and Green Revolution.
Statement 3 can be wrong considering GR was limited to certain areas and could not change rural agrarian structure of India.
Can any one explain why C is correct?
why prior approval of president mandatory before introduction of money bill not in constitutional amendment bill?
My take: Money bill is prerogative of Govt. And President is the de jure executive power.
Whereas constitutional amendment bill can be introduced by any MP (means it is more of a legislative function) so President's approval is immaterial. In fact, President has limited powers wrt constitutional amendment bill as he cannot pocket it nor return it for reconsideration.
Consider the following statements with respect to land reforms and Green Revolution undertaken by government after 1950s:
1. Both reforms promoted the consolidation of land-holdings.
2. They were largely opposed by the land-owning caste lobbies and the tenants.
3. Unlike Green revolution, the land reforms had limited impact on the rural agrarian structure of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
My answer: a.
As Land consolidation was among the objectives of both land reforms and Green Revolution.
Statement 3 can be wrong considering GR was limited to certain areas and could not change rural agrarian structure of India.
Can any one explain why C is correct?
You can see the data to substantiate. From the green revolution to now, we became a net exporter of grains from net importers of food grains. Small, marginal, large farmers all had consensus regarding the functions and uses.
However, land reforms were not being successful because large farmers were apprehensive and there were many loopholes regarding that like "Benami transfer" etc. Agriculture census exemplifies the same that marginal and small farmers, even though constitute around 90% of farmers, only have around 40-45% of the land with them.
Consider the following statements with respect to land reforms and Green Revolution undertaken by government after 1950s:
1. Both reforms promoted the consolidation of land-holdings.
2. They were largely opposed by the land-owning caste lobbies and the tenants.
3. Unlike Green revolution, the land reforms had limited impact on the rural agrarian structure of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
My answer: a.
As Land consolidation was among the objectives of both land reforms and Green Revolution.
Statement 3 can be wrong considering GR was limited to certain areas and could not change rural agrarian structure of India.
Can any one explain why C is correct?
You can see the data to substantiate. From the green revolution to now, we became a net exporter of grains from net importers of food grains. Small, marginal, large farmers all had consensus regarding the functions and uses.
However, land reforms were not being successful because large farmers were apprehensive and there were many loopholes regarding that like "Benami transfer" etc. Agriculture census exemplifies the same that marginal and small farmers, even though constitute around 90% of farmers, only have around 40-45% of the land with them.
I dint get you. Yes India attained self sufficiency in food grain production. And yes small and marginal farmers constitute the bulk. So what does this say about land consolidation or the rural agrarian structure?
Consider the following statements with respect to land reforms and Green Revolution undertaken by government after 1950s:
1. Both reforms promoted the consolidation of land-holdings.
2. They were largely opposed by the land-owning caste lobbies and the tenants.
3. Unlike Green revolution, the land reforms had limited impact on the rural agrarian structure of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
My answer: a.
As Land consolidation was among the objectives of both land reforms and Green Revolution.
Statement 3 can be wrong considering GR was limited to certain areas and could not change rural agrarian structure of India.
Can any one explain why C is correct?
You can see the data to substantiate. From the green revolution to now, we became a net exporter of grains from net importers of food grains. Small, marginal, large farmers all had consensus regarding the functions and uses.
However, land reforms were not being successful because large farmers were apprehensive and there were many loopholes regarding that like "Benami transfer" etc. Agriculture census exemplifies the same that marginal and small farmers, even though constitute around 90% of farmers, only have around 40-45% of the land with them.
I dint get you. Yes India attained self sufficiency in food grain production. And yes small and marginal farmers constitute the bulk. So what does this say about land consolidation or the rural agrarian structure?
Statement 3rd didn't ask about the land consolidation success. It asked in general about the rural agrarian structure constituting employment or wage or profitability etc.
Consider the following statements with respect to land reforms and Green Revolution undertaken by government after 1950s:
1. Both reforms promoted the consolidation of land-holdings.
2. They were largely opposed by the land-owning caste lobbies and the tenants.
3. Unlike Green revolution, the land reforms had limited impact on the rural agrarian structure of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
My answer: a.
As Land consolidation was among the objectives of both land reforms and Green Revolution.
Statement 3 can be wrong considering GR was limited to certain areas and could not change rural agrarian structure of India.
Can any one explain why C is correct?
You can see the data to substantiate. From the green revolution to now, we became a net exporter of grains from net importers of food grains. Small, marginal, large farmers all had consensus regarding the functions and uses.
However, land reforms were not being successful because large farmers were apprehensive and there were many loopholes regarding that like "Benami transfer" etc. Agriculture census exemplifies the same that marginal and small farmers, even though constitute around 90% of farmers, only have around 40-45% of the land with them.
I dint get you. Yes India attained self sufficiency in food grain production. And yes small and marginal farmers constitute the bulk. So what does this say about land consolidation or the rural agrarian structure?
Statement 3rd didn't ask about the land consolidation success. It asked in general about the rural agrarian structure constituting employment or wage or profitability etc.
Statement 1asked about land consolidation. -->Should have been a true statement a/c to me. It is marked false a/c to keys.
Statement 3talks about rural structure -->This statement is marked as correct in keys. False a/c to me.
I am unable to make sense of the key.
Now, can you please repeat the point you were making?
Write your comment…
