1. Can prez use pocket veto in case of const. amend. Bill?
2. Prez has abosolute veto power in case of Money bills??
No in the first case, he/she has to give assent to the CA bill. But for money bill, President can either give assent or withhold its assent (absolute veto).
In 1991, the Salary, Allowances, and Pension of Members of Parliament (Amendment) Bill was rejected by the president by absolute veto, but I have doubt, this was a money bill or not?
I guess it is, but please somebody enlighten.
Should be, as money would be appropriated out of Consolidated Fund.
Q. Which of the following features ensures constitutionalism in India?
1. Rule of law
2. Separation of power
3. Judicial reviewAns is 1,2,3
But India has Division of Powers right ?
Or Am I mixing things ?
Division of powers is w.r.t. division between Union & States(like 7th schedule).
Separation of powers is between the different organs viz Legislature, executive and judiciary
Can states in India raise loans from outside India?Article 293 states the following:
Subject to the provisions of this article, the executive power of a State extends to borrowing within the territory of India upon the security of the Consolidated Fund of the State within such limits, if any, as may from time to time be fixed by the Legislature of such State by law and to the giving of guarantees within such limits, if any, as may be so fixed.
So the answer to your question would be that state governments can NOT raise loans outside India.
That being said, I think state governments can directly borrow from from bilateral financing agencies abroad for infrastructure projects with the central government providing a counter-guarantee. That is, if the state government fails to pay back the loan, the Centre would pay them back.
What if a state govt wants to borrow but not upon the security of consolidated fund of the state? Would such a limitation then apply? I don't think so.
The infrastructure example is regarding the state 'entities' and not the govt per se, i.e. state govt autonomous bodies or undertakings can borrow directly for infrastructure projects(otherwise they would have to depend on budgetary allocation or local borrowings). In this example too, guarantee is provided by state govt itself and counter guarantee by Central govt.
@sstarrrboth I guess since wildlife protection is a concurrent list subject after 42 CAA
I don't think it would work like that since the lists are for law making & not executive functions. Like if WPA had the provision that only Centre could declare then states would be deprived of that power. Yes, but the rationale behind keeping this proviso could have been the same
D?
I did (d). Vajiram and drishti had (a) as an answer. I don't know why?
Prima facie, even I would have gone for (d). But if I re-read the last sentence properly, I can see that they have mentioned two roles for a state. A)To abstain from bla bla blah and B) Regarding private players..
Now if I look at these two(which one will get only after reading and re-reading very properly), then I will go with option 1 and 2..
I wonder what Upsc has mentioned in its own answer key though. Because only then will we be able to know whether. We need to read sentences on the face value , or should we read between the lines..
What is the upsc answer?
The reason I didn't go for A is because of the word 'institution.' There is no mention of institution or anything in the paragraph. If they had said 'mechanism' I might have gone for A. I would still go with D unless of course UPSC says its A
Availability of security? Role of state? Will all this not require 'some institutions'for enforcement? Since some valid assumptions have to be made, should we not read the passage in entirety rather than looking for specific words?
@Newton981jab log borrow kam krega toh money multiply kese hoga.Monetary policy transmission works both ways , if rate on deposits increase then banks will increase loan rate as well to keep their profit intact. What explanation have they given in the test?
Even by their explanation the answer should be (a). They messed up b/w cdr & deposit rates..
Does SLR affect the money multiplier?Higher slr will decrease the m.m. as less money will be available to offer as credit
But when banks buy SLR, banks give money to the govt , if govt spends money, there would be increase in money supply.
I am not sure how will that work because these both are opposing actions and there are chances that this might lead to increase in Money supply.
Yes, but we should not mix m.m. and money supply in here. Money supply could increase in form of m0 to m4 which have diff relations with m.m.
On the other hand, when banks can't lend a part of their deposits, they are able to create less credit(that's the whole point of having reserve ratios in first place!). And yes, when govt spends money that might just be an increase in currency circulation or investment which would not have impact on loans created by banks or the m.m.
which of the following about ryotwari areas is correct?
a. large amount of land passed into hands of moneylenders, rich peasants , who utilised the service of tenants
b. landless laborers became land owners
c. it ended the practice of lasing out land to tenants at high orices
d. landlordism was totally destroyed
for this qsn every coaching has given b as answer but this is what i found. I marked (a) as i remembered vaguely that during deccan riots one of the grievance was debt bondage to moneylenders
Source of this? I too went with (a) thinking that the Britishers could not be so good to provide land to landless labourers(doing what even our own govts could not). Besides, is not Ryotwari just a direct settlement with farmers? The farmers given patta could already be landowning? Coachings are doing customary google search and posting whatever they find first. But I am still not sure of the answer.
Since UPSC thinks Chief Secretary is "appointed" by "Chief Minister" (not Governor, UPSC-2016), I think it is safe to assume on these lines that Cabinet Secretary, all other Central secretaries are appointed by Prime Minister and not the President?
Yes, because they are appointed by ACC headed by the PM. Similarly, for appointment of Chief Secretary the Government Order is issued by the concerned dept(generally headed by CM). There is no specific order/notification/signature from Governor.
Appointment by Prez=>Prez appoints(such as initial appointment to service of AIS/CCS officers & only he can remove them)
Appointment by ACC=>ACC headed by PM appoints to a post & no authority below this can remove the concerned officer
Appt. By Govt=>Some officer in the govt(as notified in rules) will be the appointing authority- generally contractual emp in Central govt are appointed by senior officers.
@Caesar Yes got it. A further clarification....laxmi writes president appoints chiefs of army, navy, air force. But they are appointed by ACC (Google and other orders). Similarly CDS is appointed by ACC. So what is correct here?
Then ACC it should be!
This is what I got from net.
It does show states are regularly failing to comply with the targets and I am not sure what has been done about them. This graph tells post covid times.
Each state have their different FRBM Act, the central one only applies to the Central Govt. They either have some extra deficit clause or bring amendments to the targets if required.
And for Central govt, CAG is empowered to ensure compliance. No idea about states though.
