But in official site of wii india it is not given...
Do you have any idea@AzadHindFauz @dragon_rider ?
Amangarh is the buffer zone of Corbett, but fell in UP after bifurcation. It was notified as a TR in 2012 and is listed on ENVIS by name, but in the same item as Corbett.
Is making laws on Fundamental rights exclusively vested in Parliament?Not as a thumb rule.
1. Parliament has exclusive powers to legislate where it is mentioned explicitly. Eg 33,34,35
2. In all other cases, the legislative jurisdiction follows the principles of Seventh Schedule. Article 12 explicitly mentions that "the State" includes State legislatures as well. State legislatures have made many laws on rights that case a positive obligation on the State.(read as in Article 12)
Laxmikanth unfortunately explicitly states that states cannot legislate on fundamental rights. Gots to be careful.
Laxmikanth unfortunately explicitly states that states cannot legislate on fundamental rights. Gots to be careful.
We must also bear in mind that rights that cast negative injunction on the State (within Article 12) are sole prerogative of the Parliament to legislate for the sake of uniformity of enforcement across the territory (within Article 1) of India. The book might be trying to convey this message.
However, it must be made abundantly clear that unless a state law violates FRs, it cannot be declared void just because it is a legislation concerning FRs! =>Such a state legislation will see light of the day.
We must also appreciate the minds of the makers of the Constitution. Take a look at Article 16. Article 16(3) mentions the word "Parliament" and blah blah. The very next, Article 16(4) uses the word "State" and blah blah.
These words have been carefully weighed up and written. We cannot discount the wisdom inherent in them in a casual manner.
Very true :) thank you for such a detailed answer.
Is 3rd statement wrong?
It is wrong because Delhi has an LG, not an Administrator. Here it looks like administrator isn't used in the general sense of the word, but as one of the two ways UTs are governed (through an Administrator like in Lakshadweep or through LG like in Delhi). They should have probably said "Administrator" with a capital A.
Are there any specific legislative provisions that oversee the creation of a new ministry, or is it merely an executive decision to do so?
Read this yesterday: https://theprint.in/theprint-essential/youth-affairs-in-2000-to-cooperation-in-2021-heres-how-new-ministries-are-formed/691599/
TLDR: it is an executive decision. President creates them on the advice of the PM, under the GoI (Allocation of Business) Rules, as provided for in Article 77. The only legislative provision on the subject is the 15% ceiling on the strength of the Council of Ministers which was imposed through the 91st Amendment of 2003.
Can someone clarify the difference between responsibility and accountability? At some places, it is written that responsibility cannot be assigned to someone while accountability can. But we do sometimes say "I am giving you the responsibility of doing XYZ". Is that an incorrect use of the term?
I think in a general sense both are quite similar and can be used interchangeably sometimes. They are different when we are speaking of institutions and governance.
In that case, responsibility is a general concept that tells you whose job is it is to do a certain task. Accountability is a way of actually enforcing that responsibility - it tells you not only who is responsible, but who can be held responsible.
A person who is accountable for a certain task is dutybound to answer questions about whether it was completed, how it was completed, when it can be expected to be completed etc., and if the answers are not satisfactory, the person may even have to face some penalty. Accountability is usually fixed on a certain person or institution through laws and rules.
Sometimes someone can be responsible for doing a certain task, but not be accountable for it. MPs have the responsibility to debate in the house, but they are not accountable to a court for what they say (of course, ultimately they are accountable to the public opinion - but there is no direct institutional mechanism for enforcing it)
Conversely, someone may not be responsible for something, but is still accountable for it. It isnotexpected of ministers to be responsible for writing every clause of a law that comes out of their ministry, but if some question is asked about it in Parliament, they would still be accountablefor it and have to answer it.
Usually when some process doesn't run properly, the problem isn't that no one is responsible for it, but that no one is accountable for it.
