From Anuradha Bhasin judgement of SC. Her contention was that the restrictions imposed in J&K precluded her (a journalist) from exercising her rightunder A. 19(1)(g)through the medium of internet. This contention was upheld. Nothing more was said.
In Faheema Shireen case, Kerala High Court had said that Right to internet was a fundamental right. In this case, the context was that the petitioner was a student staying in the ladies hostel of the college she was studying in. The rules were such that mobile phones (having internet facility) were not permitted to be used past evening hours. Her contention was that this deprived her of her right to life and personal liberty underA. 21.The Court accepted this contention and said that in this day and age, a person should not be arbitrarily deprived of facilities which enable them to achieve their full potential. The internet could well be used as an educational tool, and that was held to be a fundamental right under A. 21.
Thanks bro.
If there is any conflict between the existing privileges of Parliament and the fundamental rights of a citizen, which one shall prevail?Depends on: 1. which Fundamental Right is claimed to be violated; 2. Who claims violation of Fundamental right.
1. In case of a lay person,not being an MP/MLA/MLC,publishes a malicious report on proceedings of parliament, he cannot claim protection of his FR under A. 19(1)(a). It would be a breach of privilege irrespective of his right under A. 19, andsuch a person may be punished for contempt of the legislature notwithstanding his fundamental right.However, substantially true reports of proceedings in Parliament are constitutionally protected. (A. 361A, I think)
2. In case of MLA, MP, MLC, their right to freedom of speech in Parliament extends beyond the confines of A. 19, and is not limited by reasonable restrictions therein.In such cases, parliamentary privileges prevail.However, if an order of arrest is issued by the Speaker against any member for breach of privilege, and the protections under A. 20 and A.21 are violated, the MP/MLA/MLC can claim infringement of fundamental rights.In such cases, fundamental rights will prevail as against parliamentary privileges. (Raja Ram Paul Case)
Tum bht mast kaam krta hai patooti bhai
itna achhe se toh laxmikant ne bhi ni samjhaya tha :-D
Present delimitarion of parliamentary constituencies is based on which census ? 1971 or 2001 ?
1971 fixed the seats but 2001 census provided for internal readjustment??
Help needed!
Present delimitarion of parliamentary constituencies is based on which census ? 1971 or 2001 ?
1971 fixed the seats but 2001 census provided for internal readjustment??
Help needed!
Hey!
So, as per A. 81 (1), the House of the People will have 550 members (530+20 (UT)).
Now, these available seats have to be distributed equitably between the States so as to avoid inequitable distribution between the States. A. 81(2) says that this distribution shall be basis population of each state, in the sense that, the ratio between population and number of seats allotted remains the same for all states.This would avoid underrepresentation or overrepresentation of people belonging to one State.Further, since population is a fluid number, this ratio would keep changing with time and readjustment is necessary. Hence, the provision for readjustment was brought in under A. 82. Every 10 years, after a census, a Delimitation Commission would be appointed to consider and revise this number allotted to each state. (A.82)
Now, as you know, we were going through a population explosion at that time. Some states did better than others in controlling population growth. But according to the prevailing Constitutional scheme, they would be the biggest losers, because they would be underrepresented in Parliament despite better performance in controlling population. Hence, as per the42nd amendment actand later the84th Amendment Act, A. 81(3) and A. 82(3) were amended such that the allocation of seats to each State wasset in stone for the future. It would be limited to the number ascertained in the delimitation carried out by the Delimitation Commission (1972) basis Census numbers of 1971. No readjustment of seats was to take place till2000, as per the 42nd amendmentand as per the84th amendment, this was extended till 2026.
Now comes the question of dividing these States into different single-seat constituencies within each State so that ratio between population and seats allotted remains the same throughout the State (A.82(2)). Here also, there is a need for revision because demography/population of different parts of a State is not constant with the efflux of time. This division was consistently revised, but as of now, has beenfixed as per 2001 censustill the year 2026, by the87th Amendment.
4th Delimitation Commissionappointed in2002submitted its report in 2007(I think) and as per this report (and subsequent approval by Parliament and Presidential order) since 2008, division of each State into Constituencies has been as per 2001 census.
Please note that readjustment of seats and division into constituenciestakes effect only after a Presidential order to that effect.
As it stands, ceterus paribus, the next readjustment will effectively be post 2031 census. The fixing of seats/division may be criticised on the ground that it erodes the idea of one person-one vote-one value.
You may see S. 4 and S. 9 of Delimitation Act for further details!
@Patootie bro you explained very comprehensively , even better than books. Thanks for writing this long explanation . Ab samajh aaya hai thk se ye topic.
So the Chandrabhaga beach has been reported to get blue flag certification. But no govt document or official website source confirms this. Whats the status of the beach?
According to various news sources, including WION, it's the first beach in Asia to get the Blue Flag certification.
Official site says that there is no blue flag certified beach in india and blue flag baeches are already present in asia.
@TabsAndChords membership changed from tropical countries to all UN members. I'm not sure about this but voting rights are still with tropical countries only.
Thanks man !
FIIs have been permitted to invest in unlisted securities.
But the FPI regulations say that FPIs are allowed to invest only in listed or to-be-listed entities.
Isn't this contradiction ?
This is the original question
