Doubt Clearance Thread: UPSC 2021 - ForumIAS

Doubt Clearance Thread: UPSC 2021

The photo is from March Factly. 

Doubt is regarding Rule 256 of Rajya Sabha. According to Rule 256, the power to suspend is with the Chairman or the Council ? What i understand is Chairman initiates(by naming) and then the House takes up the motion as in Lok Sabha rule 374. Am i reading the rule correctly ? Is there a mistake in factly? 

1.9k views

The photo is from March Factly. 

Doubt is regarding Rule 256 of Rajya Sabha. According to Rule 256, the power to suspend is with the Chairman or the Council ? What i understand is Chairman initiates(by naming) and then the House takes up the motion as in Lok Sabha rule 374. Am i reading the rule correctly ? Is there a mistake in factly? 

@Neyawn @Thinker 

1.9k views

The photo is from March Factly. 

Doubt is regarding Rule 256 of Rajya Sabha. According to Rule 256, the power to suspend is with the Chairman or the Council ? What i understand is Chairman initiates(by naming) and then the House takes up the motion as in Lok Sabha rule 374. Am i reading the rule correctly ? Is there a mistake in factly? 

Yes, your interpretation is right:

1) In Lok Sabha speaker can directly suspend the member.

2) In Rajya Sabha Chairman can name a member to be suspended and then the house decides upon the suspension via motion.

@Thinker Sir, but according to Rule 374 of Lok Sabha, Speaker can name a member and then House decides on it via a motion.. Speaker can.t directly suspend, right ? 

1.7k views


This question is from a Vision Test. Answer given was 'D'. 

Shouldn.t it be 'B' as Option 2 should be correct ? 

1.7k views

mhs11said


This question is from a Vision Test. Answer given was 'D'. 

Shouldn.t it be 'B' as Option 2 should be correct ? 

Statement 2 is correct. What is the explanation given?

Here's the explanation that is provided. Going by the explanation provided i don.t think they had the recent announcements in mind.@upsc2020 

Anyway thanks@upsc2020  @mhs11 

1.7k views

mhs11said

mhs11said


This question is from a Vision Test. Answer given was 'D'. 

Shouldn.t it be 'B' as Option 2 should be correct ? 

Statement 2 is correct. What is the explanation given?

Here's the explanation that is provided. Going by the explanation provided i don.t think they had the recent announcements in mind.@upsc2020 

Anyway thanks@upsc2020  @mhs11 

I just skimmed the act. It says 1971 census only. But the number of seats reserved for SCs &STs will be revised on the basis of 1991 census.

87th CAA, 2003 says 1971 census ? .. 

1.7k views

mhs11said

mhs11said

mhs11said


This question is from a Vision Test. Answer given was 'D'. 

Shouldn.t it be 'B' as Option 2 should be correct ? 

Statement 2 is correct. What is the explanation given?

Here's the explanation that is provided. Going by the explanation provided i don.t think they had the recent announcements in mind.@upsc2020 

Anyway thanks@upsc2020  @mhs11 

I just skimmed the act. It says 1971 census only. But the number of seats reserved for SCs &STs will be revised on the basis of 1991 census.

87th CAA, 2003 says 1971 census ? .. 

No. 84th CAA. 87th CAA for rationalising territorial constituencies of a state based on 2001 census instead of 1991

Yeah so eventually it should be 2001 census only na, based on 87th CAA. And as that.s the last amendment it should be 2001 census only for territorial constituencies.

Hence, statement 2 should be correct only. Right ?

1.6k views

mhs11said

» show previous quotes

Yeah so eventually it should be 2001 census only na, based on 87th CAA. And as that.s the last amendment it should be 2001 census only for territorial constituencies.

Hence, statement 2 should be correct only. Right ?

Yes you are right. I was just confirming from the original act 

Yeah, in your earlier msg you didn.t mention which Act so got confused. :P 

There can.t be a more reliable source that checking the original copy of an Act. :)

1.6k views

Can a Union Territory approach the Supreme Court under Article 131 (original jurisdiction) ? 

The doubt arises as the article only mentions "states" but Delhi did approach SC in 2016 as stated here -

https://thewire.in/law/how-a-trivial-non-dispute-between-two-states-has-engaged-the-supreme-courts-attention-38-times-since-2006


2.1k views

ssver2said

Can a Union Territory approach the Supreme Court under Article 131 (original jurisdiction) ? 

The doubt arises as the article only mentions "states" but Delhi did approach SC in 2016 as stated here -

https://thewire.in/law/how-a-trivial-non-dispute-between-two-states-has-engaged-the-supreme-courts-attention-38-times-since-2006


That petition was withdrawn and never decided. 


imo, UT can't, since Art 131 doesn't mention it. Further Art 366 (26B) fails to include Art 131. (State with reference to articles 246A, 268, 269, 269A and article 279A includes a Union territory with Legislature.) There is nothing in Art 239AA either.

The petition was withdrawn because the Delhi govt had parallel cases pending in Delhi HC, if i remember clearly.

Anyway, i feel the same. That UT can.t. + the articles that you mentioned, they point to the same thing. Thanks for the inputs. And i read your P.S. as well, and i agree. :) 

1.9k views

Rewl1said

After non extension of provision to nominate 2 anglo indians to the lok sabha , has the maximum strength of Lok Sabha reduced from 552 to 550?

Yes, i guess it has reduced to 550. Because Constitution never directly mentioned 552 or 550 as maximum strength. In article 81, it only mentions no. of seats for states and UTs. + Read with article 334 that was actually amended by the 104th CAA .. 


2.9k views

 download (2).pdf - Introduction

download (1).pdf - Content List


2.6k views
Write your comment…