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 should be the answer?
In my opinion, the first two shall be mandatory documents. Since the Constitution, itself mentions the Annual Financial statement has to be laid before parliament and without demands for grants money can not be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.
The rest two are presented in the budget but it's not mandatory for the government to presents them.
However, I am not sure of this and need options to eliminate and arrive at the answer.
Wts the final answer?
» hide previous quotes
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.
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?
Sorry I misread.
Article 17 is not absolute. So, C should be correct.
Obviously not if question is picked up from the popular book. They say it is absolute.
It's very gray actually because not much discussion has been done on this Article.
However, the SC in many judgements has iterated that fundamental rights are not absolute. So, it applies to Article 17 as well.
The framing of the question is ambiguous. As far as statement 1 is concerned it is indeed a gray area so I will not comment about it.
However Article 17 is self executory in nature. The constitution itself mentions Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. Only quantum of punishment is to be decided by law. So it has to be self executory in nature. Isnt it?
mhs11,
In my opinion, the first two shall be mandatory documents. Since the Constitution, itself mentions the Annual Financial statement has to be laid before parliament and without demands for grants money can not be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.
The rest two are presented in the budget but it's not mandatory for the government to presents them.
However, I am not sure of this and need options to eliminate and arrive at the answer.
Wts the final answer?
Answer given is ' all of the above'. 3&4 are mandated by FRBM act
Thinker,
» hide previous quotes
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.
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?
Sorry I misread.
Article 17 is not absolute. So, C should be correct.
Obviously not if question is picked up from the popular book. They say it is absolute.
It's very gray actually because not much discussion has been done on this Article.
However, the SC in many judgements has iterated that fundamental rights are not absolute. So, it applies to Article 17 as well.
The framing of the question is ambiguous. As far as statement 1 is concerned it is indeed a gray area so I will not comment about it.
However Article 17 is self executory in nature. The constitution itself mentions Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. Only quantum of punishment is to be decided by law. So it has to be self executory in nature. Isnt it?
If I'm not wrong (correct me), in the Sabarimala case it was pointed out that theenforcementof Article 17 has beenmade operative by PoCR Act. The context was that whether exclusion based on menstruation constitute a form of untouchability.
If we declare a certain action as an offence, without defining as to how it is to be implemented for punitive purposes, can a mere endorsement enough to have it enforced?
Um, I personally don't think so. (Please correct me)
On the contrary, if a mere symbolism is done in the manner of a weak legislation like 100/- fines for practicing untouchability, it would tantamount to diluting the essence of Article 17. Wouldn't it?
I think a legislation, wherever necessary, is equally important to bring such kind of fundamental rights to life.
If I'm not wrong (correct me), in the Sabarimala case it was pointed out that theenforcementof Article 17 has beenmade operative by PoCR Act. The context was that whether exclusion based on menstruation constitute a form of untouchability.
If we declare a certain action as an offence, without defining as to how it is to be implemented for punitive purposes, can a mere endorsement enough to have it enforced?
Um, I personally don't think so. (Please correct me)
On the contrary, if a mere symbolism is done in the manner of a weak legislation like 100/- fines for practicing untouchability, it would tantamount to diluting the essence of Article 17. Wouldn't it?
I think a legislation, wherever necessary, is equally important to bring such kind of fundamental rights to life.
I think the word "absolute" in the manner they are using it in the question simply means that it is not subject to any restrictions.
In that sense, the text is quite clear: "Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden." No ifs or buts. Further, enforcement of untouchability"shall"be an offence punishable by law. Both these things show that the prohibition is of a mandatory and absolute nature.
To answer your specific question, an enabling legislation such as PoCRA is not necessary to enforce the right. A person who has the benefit of the right under A. 17 has two specific rights: 1. Against untouchability being practiced against him by any person; 2. That practice of untouchability shall be an offence punishable by law.
If either of these two aspects are violated, he has a remedy under A. 32 against a) The person/agency which practiced untouchability as in (1) above; b) Against the State if the State has not penalised the practice of untouchability and made it an offence punishable under criminal law. These rights are absolute and subject to no restrictions whatsoever.
The remedy to the right against untouchability is not to be found in PoCRA, but in Article 32 since it is a Fundamental Right. The punishment for practices of untouchability can be found in PoCRA, but that only gives further teeth to the Fundamental right. Again, on the example you have given, if it is made punishable with a nominal fee, the right is rendered illusory and a matter of fiction. In such cases again, the remedy would be under Article 32 and this remedy is not subject to any restrictions. The Parliament's law under PoCRA cannot limit or circumscribe the absolute nature of the right guaranteed under A. 17.
chamomile,Also, about the Sabarimala judgement, even though J. Indu Malhotra's judgement took a narrow view on Untouchability, J. Chandrachud's judgement gave it an expansive meaning.
chamomile,
How come no confidence motion in rajya Sabha ?? Plz clarify this news 
Is making laws on Fundamental rights exclusively vested in Parliament?
Is making laws on Fundamental rights exclusively vested in Parliament?
You would be getting confused with Verbatim of Article 35 which says that "certain" laws can be done by parliament. But the important thing is You don't need a separate law to enforce FRs except those mentioned in Article 35(16, 32, 33, 34). So, Yes it is vested only in the parliament.
Thinker,
Tetsuko,
Official answer key is (A). I have 2 queries -
1) 1813 Act as per Spectrum - "EIC was to retain possessions and revenue for 20 more yearswithoutprejudice to the sovereignty of the Crown". How is this different from the term "asserting the sovereignty of the British Crown over Indian territories" mentioned in the question ?
2) Also under which Act, the 3rd statement would fall? Will it be 1858 Act as Indian territories came directly under the British Crown ?
Official answer key is (A). I have 2 queries -
1) 1813 Act as per Spectrum - "EIC was to retain possessions and revenue for 20 more yearswithoutprejudice to the sovereignty of the Crown". How is this different from the term "asserting the sovereignty of the British Crown over Indian territories" mentioned in the question ?
2) Also under which Act, the 3rd statement would fall? Will it be 1858 Act as Indian territories came directly under the British Crown ?
-3rd i guess shld fall in 1833 act when eic's commercial functions were ceased completely
-I guess 20 year term was made to assert the dominance of the crown over Indian subjects, and therefore sovg. over eic, both convey the same thing imo
-3rd i guess shld fall in 1833 act when eic's commercial functions were ceased completely
-I guess 20 year term was made to assert the dominance of the crown over Indian subjects, and therefore sovg. over eic, both convey the same thing imo
Even I thought 1833 but this one confused me
- Sorry I could not understand what you meant. Isn't "without prejudice to the sovereignty of the Crown" contradicting it ?
Write your comment…
