But I don't understand what that means in context of AG. Why would AG receive this summary and from whom?@sbhati a summary of the facts and legal points in a case given to a barrister to argue in court.As per google😀
I am not a legal expert but common sense tells us this.
See Govt doesn't function in isolation, especially in a complex pluralistic society like India govts developmental works are always under judicial scanner( can we recollect how land acquisition is THE BIGGEST hurdle in ease of doing business?)
Suppose a PSU wants to acquire some land for extension of it's manufacturing units but the farmers of the area are opposing this. They will file a law suit against govt. In this case the arguments of the farmers will be first briefed to AG(or any other person from Govt/ PSU side) to know what laws/ statues the farmers are using. Only after this brief the AG is in a position to argue from govt side.
I am not sure on this but again common sense tells us that there must be specific guidelines by Supreme Court or by any other regulatory authority regarding the manner(written/oral/online/offline) and timing of such briefs. May be a lawyer can talk more about such guidelines.
@Usain_bolt@AzadHindFauzBut shouldn't AG, as a lawyer, prepare these legal arguments herself, rather than accept these, presumably from other lawyers?
Bhai these are just procedural aspects of admistration and they happen in every field. This is just one case of judiciary.
You must have seen in newspapers that PM got briefed on XYZ issue by bureaucrats.
Greater national integration ironically may deepen rather than alleviate stress on the federal system.how?
The simple and straight forward answer to this question is DIVERSITY
But let's try to understand this by comparing USA and Indian freedom struggle.
US freedom struggle was immediately followed by a Civil war on slavery issue. Mainly because their freedom struggle was largely a Political movement fought for economic reasons(" taxation without representation "). They didn't bother about socio-cultural issues of diversity, race and origin. You will be suprised to know that most of their main freedom fighters were absolute beleivers in slavery. George Washington was the largest land owner in the country with most slaves.
Things changed only after Abraham Lincoln. So they tried to create a nation without considering diversity. That is the reason why racism is still a big issue in US. Because of this reason throughout their freedom struggle their states Assembly was stronger than National Assembly. This has manifested in present US constitution also. That is why their states are comparatively stronger than Indian states w.r.t Centre.It is their way of handling diversity.
Now look at India, our approach is completely opposite. Our quest for freedom struggle started from socio religious reforms. Even in Gandhian phase issue of untouchability, dalits representation, women, minorities etc were the most hotly discussed issues. I am not elaborating much on this as you would have already read these things in standard books.
Even if we made a constitution which favours strong centre but after independence we took some major steps that strengthened our federalism(via accomodating diversity).
1. Accomodate linguistic and cultural diversity- States Reorganization Act.
2. Distribution of political power
a) Increased coalition govts after 1967
b) Increased regional parties.
3. Asymmetrical federalism.
Special exemptions to some states like NE.
4. Finance commission allocation.
5. Reservation in public services.
This is our way of handling diversity. One must understand that nations don't accomodate diversity out of their altruism, they do it because they know it is essential for their survival as nation in first place.
So yes excessive national integration puts pressure on federal system because it compermises diversity.
do the nominated Rajya Sabha members count as M.P. for all the intents and purposes of becoming a minister?? if so then do the same also hold true for state legislature?
This info is from Rajya Sabha website. It doesn't clarify wheather nominated RS members can become ministers or not but it says it has not happened till now. 
This is a quora post which gives example of nominated members of lok Sabha who went on to become ministers.
This is The wire article related to Uddhav Thakrey case. It says nominated state council members are not prohibited legally to be ministers but ideally that shouldn't happen. 
So to answer your question:-
At central level ONLY nominated members of Lok Sabha ( not RS) can become ministers.
At state level nominated members of both Councils and Assembly can become ministers.
This info is from Rajya Sabha website. It doesn't clarify wheather nominated RS members can become ministers or not but it says it has not happened till now.
This is a quora post which gives example of nominated members of lok Sabha who went on to become ministers.
This is The wire article related to Uddhav Thakrey case. It says nominated state council members are not prohibited legally to be ministers but ideally that shouldn't happen.
So to answer your question:-
At central level ONLY nominated members of Lok Sabha ( not RS) can become ministers.
At state level nominated members of both Councils and Assembly can become ministers.
Hey, taking all what you said into account, what I concluded is that actually nominated members of both houses could go on to become ministers, because Constitution or any another statute doesn’t specifically exclude them. 😅
The fact that no nominated members have been inducted into the Council til date, or the various reasons on why they are not par with elected members in all aspects - does not negate the fact that they are still perfectly eligible to become ministers.
That is what I was thinking right now😂
But I couldn't find anything concrete on this. May be I assumed things a bit unnecessarily. My fault.
Greater national integration ironically may deepen rather than alleviate stress on the federal system.how?The simple and straight forward answer to this question is DIVERSITY
But let's try to understand this by comparing USA and Indian freedom struggle.
US freedom struggle was immediately followed by a Civil war on slavery issue. Mainly because their freedom struggle was largely a Political movement fought for economic reasons(" taxation without representation "). They didn't bother about socio-cultural issues of diversity, race and origin. You will be suprised to know that most of their main freedom fighters were absolute beleivers in slavery. George Washington was the largest land owner in the country with most slaves.
Things changed only after Abraham Lincoln. So they tried to create a nation without considering diversity. That is the reason why racism is still a big issue in US. Because of this reason throughout their freedom struggle their states Assembly was stronger than National Assembly. This has manifested in present US constitution also. That is why their states are comparatively stronger than Indian states w.r.t Centre.It is their way of handling diversity.
Now look at India, our approach is completely opposite. Our quest for freedom struggle started from socio religious reforms. Even in Gandhian phase issue of untouchability, dalits representation, women, minorities etc were the most hotly discussed issues. I am not elaborating much on this as you would have already read these things in standard books.
Even if we made a constitution which favours strong centre but after independence we took some major steps that strengthened our federalism(via accomodating diversity).
1. Accomodate linguistic and cultural diversity- States Reorganization Act.
2. Distribution of political power
a) Increased coalition govts after 1967
b) Increased regional parties.
3. Asymmetrical federalism.
Special exemptions to some states like NE.
4. Finance commission allocation.
5. Reservation in public services.
This is our way of handling diversity. One must understand that nations don't accomodate diversity out of their altruism, they do it because they know it is essential for their survival as nation in first place.
So yes excessive national integration puts pressure on federal system because it compermises diversity.
@D503 A good article on this topic has come today in the editorial page of The Hindu. You can have a look.
@chamomile True. Booth capturing is given as one of the electoral offences in RPA 1951.
In addition to this pdf a PYQ book has also given (b) as answer. So I just wanted to confirm. Anyways thanks bhai.
"To protect consumer intrest by providing essential agriculture commodities at reasonable rates by PDS"
Is this statement correct w.r.t objectives of Commission for agri cost and prices?
Does CACP get into essential commodities also?
It's official website doesn't say anything like this but a PYQ question marks this statement correct.
@Usain_bolt Essential commodities are generally dealt by the Price Monitoring Division under Dept. of Economic Affairs, and the same is given on the website.
I haven't seen or couldn't find anything linking CACP and Essential Commodities as such.
Which PYQ is this?
Year 1995.
It's answer is given A
@Usain_bolt Essential commodities are generally dealt by the Price Monitoring Division under Dept. of Economic Affairs, and the same is given on the website.3.7k views
@Usain_bolt Maybe by "EssentialAgriculturalCommodities" they wanted to indicate MSP crops??
The wording could've been better though.
Mai bhi wahi socha but then they have emphasized the essential commodities part with 'PDS System '. Confusion wahi se hua.
Let me see, I will let you know if I come across something concrete on this.
@Usain_bolt See the option 4....To ensure "maximum" price for farmers...well, if you read agricultural price policy carefully, they always write "remunerative" price. Because "maximum" price is too extreme. So I saw this and straightaway marked A.
Bhai I guess even if this argument is considered that doesn't make statement 3 correct. The purpose of going through PYQs is not just to arrive at the right answer.
