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.
What exactly is meant by the 1st statement, anyone? Executive power on matters in concurrent list resides with states. So is it possible to explicitly say that executive power of one is superior to another? Or am I interpreting the statement incorrectly?
Article 365 , emergency lag sakti hai as it may be construed as breakdown of constitutional machinery
What exactly is meant by the 1st statement, anyone? Executive power on matters in concurrent list resides with states. So is it possible to explicitly say that executive power of one is superior to another? Or am I interpreting the statement incorrectly?
257. Control of the Union over States in certain cases
(1) The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.
I feel they based it on this?
I don't think the provision would mean what shankar interpreted.
Haan, I kinda agree they seem to have taken too much liberty in framing of options
Archand,
Why is 2nd statement correct?
Anyone explain this. This is not mentioned in the act imo. There is no condition for whip.
There are three different types of whip. As far as I know, this is the second type of whip (talks about presence/absence in the house). Usually, political parties only issue the third kind of whip (which basically guides MPs on what side to vote on).
As far as I know, whip is not defined in the act and therefore parliamentary conventions are followed.
captainhaddock,» show previous quotesYes, but there was a very specific reason he wanted to stay away from the company. Just staying away from the company doesn't make sense. A/c to wikipedia article(I know, not the most reliable but this statement was not pointed out for incorrect citation), Mir Qasim moved his company to Munger to raise his army by streamlining taxes and improving finances.
Would love for others to jump in and give their views.
I answered A because from whatever I had read it seemed that Mir Kasim wanted some breathing space from the British. Both options can be true, but A seemed more probably because remodelling the army is a second order effect. What I mean is, first he wanted to be away from EIC and then later he would be able focus on building his army as a result of being away from Calcutta.
I think both the options can be correct, Spectrum mentions that the reason behind the move was to "allow a safe distance from the Company at Calcutta"
Villanelle,ArchandThere are three different types of whip. As far as I know, this is the second type of whip (talks about presence/absence in the house). Usually, political parties only issue the third kind of whip (which basically guides MPs on what side to vote on).
As far as I know, whip is not defined in the act and therefore parliamentary conventions are followed.
SC in Kihoto Holohan vs Zachillhu case, 1992 held that the application of the Tenth Schedule is limited to a vote on “motion of confidence” or “no-confidence” in the government or where the motion under consideration relates to a matter which was an integral policy and programme of the political part.
So if it applicable only in such crucial times, then I don't think mere violating of the two line whip would lead to dis qualification.
Archand,
» show previous quotesYes, but there was a very specific reason he wanted to stay away from the company. Just staying away from the company doesn't make sense. A/c to wikipedia article(I know, not the most reliable but this statement was not pointed out for incorrect citation), Mir Qasim moved his company to Munger to raise his army by streamlining taxes and improving finances.
Would love for others to jump in and give their views.
I answered A because from whatever I had read it seemed that Mir Kasim wanted some breathing space from the British. Both options can be true, but A seemed more probably because remodelling the army is a second order effect. What I mean is, first he wanted to be away from EIC and then later he would be able focus on building his army as a result of being away from Calcutta.
I think both the options can be correct, Spectrum mentions that the reason behind the move was to "allow a safe distance from the Company at Calcutta"
https://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Mir_Qasim
"He next began to raise a force of disciplined troops, and to secure himself from undue interference from Calcutta he transferred his capital from the riverine Murshidabad to the hilly district of Monghyr."
Yep. Both the options seem correct.
MaeveWiley,yes thats what i have read. Though it has been a suggestion that ADL be restricted to important matters where the future of govt itself is at stake like NCM.Okay, so the law is not only applicable in situation of voting but also in the situation of presence at assembly?
sstarrr,
Yes impeachment is not be used loosely. But i think even Prez cant remove him as he doesnt hold office at the pleasure of Prez@D503 Impeachment word is used only for President. Be careful with this, we normally use impeachment for SC/HC judges and CAG, CEC but according to Constitution this is wrong because it uses "removal" for these. Constitution uses impeachment ONLY for president. Secondly, Govt here means the President, and the President has a role to remove the CEC if he is removed according to the procedure of Judges Inquiry Act. If the statement had been "Govt by itself cannot remove CEC" that would have been correct.
remembered another thing. A member doesnt have to actually resign from the party, even his conduct can be used to deduce that for all practical purpose he has ceased to be a member. so not attending meetings and acting like Shatrughan Sinha may also constitute defection, i think» show previous quotesyes thats what i have read. Though it has been a suggestion that ADL be restricted to important matters where the future of govt itself is at stake like NCM
sstarrr,
in that case there's no one in the country who cant be removed by govt. what would be the point of asking this question then ?@D503 Thats true, but to say Govt "cannot" remove CEC is wrong. It would mean President has no power to remove CEC but in reality it is quite the opposite. By the Constitution, the person isnt removed Until President issues the order. Ultimately it is the President who issues the order, so it is actually the Govt which has removed him. The whole parliamentary thing is the procedure, the ultimate order is of the president. Removal is incomplete until President gives the order. So, Govt "can" remove CEC.
MikeWozniak,
Write your comment…
