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.
@AlexanderSupertramp principled distance model( u can read about rajeev bhargava)i too would have marked all three in ivc ques..art 17 is absolute..btw can you share pdf if available?
yes, but the question was talking about fundamental rights in general. Toh usme toh they are not absolute as a whole.
no,the question has put forth 3 statements which are true in general, and has asked which of those statements are applicable to art 17.
read the last sentence of the question just now. How ignorant of me!
Sorry for the trouble!
no worries, just don't make these mistakes when it will matter the most
@AzadHindFauz shouldn't statement 1 be correct! Article 156 mentioned that governor can hold a office for five year but it is not fixed.. Even SC also interpreted the same!!
Indus valley script was bidirectional, isn't it?As per many sources, IVC script was written boustrophedonically.(Bidirectional) But this is not certain, and many claim that it was written right to left.
NCERT suggests that it was written from right to left.
Thanks!
Had read somewhere about its bidirectionality. The old NCERT doesn't mention about the direction of the script writing. However, since new ncert mentions it then will follow that fact in future.
It's correct. The answer will be none of the above.
Article 17 can be amended by the Parliament. There's no bar. In case of emergency, only 20,21 cannot be suspended in any case. The enforcement of Article 17 is suspended in such a scenario. So, it's not absolute.
It's also applicable against individuals. Further, it is not self-executory because the Article clearly states that a law to that effect must be made defining it as an offence for the said purpose.
Art 17 is not absolute. So shouldn't the first statement be right?
Art 17 is absolute in the sense that there are no reasonable restrictions on it I guess?
it is 2 only. i guess bp singhal case ( not sure) allowed for removal w/o hearing
art 156 has given 5 year term to gov.
Check last to 2nd para@MarcusA
it is 2 only. i guess bp singhal case ( not sure) allowed for removal w/o hearing
art 156 has given 5 year term to gov.
Check last to 2nd para@MarcusA
156. Term of office of Governor.—(1) The Governor shall hold office during thepleasure of the President.
(2) The Governor may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office.
(3) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this article,a Governor shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office:
Provided that a Governor shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office.
it is 2 only. i guess bp singhal case ( not sure) allowed for removal w/o hearing
art 156 has given 5 year term to gov.
Check last to 2nd para@MarcusA
156. Term of office of Governor.—(1) The Governor shall hold office during thepleasure of the President.
(2) The Governor may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office.
(3) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this article,a Governor shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office:
Provided that a Governor shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office.
@Freakhoto , This is what the constitution says.
it is 2 only. i guess bp singhal case ( not sure) allowed for removal w/o hearing
art 156 has given 5 year term to gov.
Check last to 2nd para@MarcusA
question simply asks whether the constitution has fixed the guv. term or not( not whether he has an absolute 5-year seat ).... in normal cases(when he is not removed) governor has to be reappointed in 5 years or else has to leave the post ( where does this 5-year term comes from.. art 156) . However, this 5 year is subjected to pleasure.
Is it just me or shankar's yesterday's test actually wasn't up to the mark?
It's correct. The answer will be none of the above.
Article 17 can be amended by the Parliament. There's no bar. In case of emergency, only 20,21 cannot be suspended in any case. The enforcement of Article 17 is suspended in such a scenario. So, it's not absolute.
It's also applicable against individuals. Further, it is not self-executory because the Article clearly states that a law to that effect must be made defining it as an offence for the said purpose.
thanks for clarification but doesnt absolute here imply absence of power to take away the aforementioned fr? can parliament take away protection against untouchability?
It could be questioned on the grounds of Article 21. Article 17 is construed as Corollary to the Article 21. So, even without the existence of Article 17, you may get relief under Article 21. One more addition to the ever expanding list of constituents to define a dignified living.
That being said, even if you argue that Article 17 cannot be taken away for 'some' reasons. Technically, Parliament can modify or even abolish Protection of Civil Rights Act that brings the Article 17 to life. Such an action itself will make Article 17 redundant. Since, it is not self-executory.
Obviously, such an arbitrary action can be challenged in the courts and the courts might restore it. That doesn't mean it is unlawful for the Parliament to do so.
chamomile,
Write your comment…
