Adult franchise is about equal voting rights for everyone, agreed. But in the context of the given statement, it seems more about the freedom of choice of the people to elect or vote out the representatives.
Can someone explain this?
Idk if this is sound but the way I solved this was, that the concept of UAF stands more for equal rights than it does for freedom of choice to choose representatives. The second statement was an explanation for political sovereignty. So the most appropriate option in my opinion was equal rights, as seldom have I seen a question in GS where the context alters the most appropriate answer.
Hi, I have issues with the following questions:
Q. 17. Qualification to be a judge of a HC- It's given in the answer that he should be a "district judge" for 10 yrs but as per the provision he should be holding a "any judicial office in the territory if India" for 10 years. Though the outcome of this provisions makes the district judge eligible implicitly, however that can't be mentioned while quoting the explicit provision.
Q. 24 As this question is a PYQ, as per UPS official answer key to question no 13 in SET A, the answer should be D.
https://www.upsc.gov.in/sites/default/files/CSP_2020_GS_Paper-1.pdf (question 13)
https://www.clearias.com/up/upsc-cse-prelims-2020-answer-key-paper-1.pdf (A. 13)
Q. 35 Constitutional
amendment inconsistent with FR is void- this is false. Because under Art
13(4) constitutional amendments are kept out of purview of article 13.
Hence, Constitutional amendments violating the basic structure will be
void, but not just the FRs.
Hi, I have issues with the following questions:
Q. 17. Qualification to be a judge of a HC- It's given in the answer that he should be a "district judge" for 10 yrs but as per the provision he should be holding a "any judicial office in the territory if India" for 10 years. Though the outcome of this provisions makes the district judge eligible implicitly, however that can't be mentioned while quoting the explicit provision.
Q. 24 As this question is a PYQ, as per UPS official answer key to question no 13 in SET A, the answer should be D.
https://www.upsc.gov.in/sites/default/files/CSP_2020_GS_Paper-1.pdf (question 13)
https://www.clearias.com/up/upsc-cse-prelims-2020-answer-key-paper-1.pdf (A. 13)
Q. 35 Constitutional amendment inconsistent with FR is void- this is false. Because under Art 13(4) constitutional amendments are kept out of purview of article 13. Hence, Constitutional amendments violating the basic structure will be void, but not just the FRs.
Dear @SFGTeam , I'd posted a query wrt Q. 35 on this thread as well as on the link provided for posting of doubts. However, this hasn't been addressed in the corrigendum. Please clarify, thank you! :)
Please Help me in solving/interpreting this question! The answer according to key is (c)
This question appeared in 2021 Prelims, and I have a doubt with respect to Statement 2 here in terms HC's review power. Whether this line from Laxmikant will be applied here or not - "As a court of record, a high court also has the power to review and correct its own judgement or order or decision, even though no specific power of review is conferred on it by the Constitution. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has been specifically conferred with the power of review by the constitution." Because the statement clearly refers "as the Supreme Court does", how to then attempt this question correctly. While both have the review power, it is not derived similarly?
HC derives the review power from the Civil Procedure Code, while SC derives it from the Constitution. So you're right, they are derived differently, however in essence both possess the review power.
HC derives the review power from the Civil Procedure Code, while SC derives it from the Constitution. So you're right, they are derived differently, however in essence both possess the review power.
Also, I think the power of review is implicit by virtue of it being a court of record - https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/settled-proposition-court-of-record-high-court-review-own-judgments-article-226-kerala-high-court-174922
@theskyisthelimit Thank you. Please tell how to not over/under interpret in Polity questions!! For instance, despite knowing all the facts related to this question, I could not mark it correctly. Any approach on how to interpret better?@Neyawn @theskyisthelimit
Hey, I make the mistake of overanalyzing statements all the time. The one thing I could notice was that you already knew that Laxmikant mentions about HC having a review power as it's a court of record. Whatever followed post this statement wrt the source of the review power was irrelevant to the question. So maybe if we try to prevent overthinking and just stick to the statement, we will perhaps reach the answer easily.
Statement 1: Parliament must meet at least twice a year
Statement 2 : There is no minimum number of days that Parliament is required to meet in a year
Both the statements are true as per solution, but for me one contradicts the other. Can someone throw light on these statements, Am I missing something here?
As per the Constitution, the gap between two sessions needs to be 6 months but the number of days for which the respective sessions are to be held isn't prescribed in it. The Parliament can meet for any number of days in one session.
