[Results] Prelims 2020 Over - Gearing for 2021

Biradarsaid
Equalizersaid
» show previous quotes
Rangeelasaid
For that eligible to vote can be made a minister question, SC has given guidelines long back (2001) in Jayalalitha case. Pasting from an article in The Hindu
As a general rule, a person can become a Minister only if he is a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. Article 164(4) states that a person cannot continue as Minister for more than six months if he is not a member of the legislature by that period.

Eligible MLA first, Minister later

Ms. Jayalalithaa filed nominations for four constituencies for the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. On April 24, 2001, three of these nominations were rejected on account of her conviction in the TANSI case and consequent disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The fourth nomination was rejected on the ground that she had filed her nomination for more than two seats. The rejection of her nomination papers had not been challenged by Ms. Jayalalithaa.
After the elections, she was unanimously elected the leader of the party and was sworn in Chief Minister on May 14, 2001. At that time, there was a suggestion that she should not occupy the Chief Minister's office until her appeals were disposed of and she is either acquitted or the sentence reduced to less than two years. She insisted that the mandate of the people was that she should become the Chief Minister. Had she shown a dignified restraint, a healthy convention would have been set.
Article 173 prescribes qualifications for the membership of any State legislature. Briefly, a potential candidate must be at least 25 years of age (30 for the Legislative Council), a citizen of India and must possess such other qualifications as prescribed under any law by Parliament. Article 191 sets out the disqualifications and these are: holding office of profit with the Government of India or any State Government, being of unsound mind, an undischarged insolvent, a foreigner, and, lastly, any disqualification under any law made by Parliament. Ms. Jayalalithaa's case was concerned with disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. With her conviction and two-year sentence, Ms. Jayalalithaa's election nomination papers were rejected. The fact that her appeals were pending and the sentence suspended made no difference. Thus, she could not contest the election and become a member of the Legislative Assembly.
As a general rule, a person can become a Minister only if he is a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. Article 164(4) states that a person cannot continue as Minister for more than six months if he is not a member of the legislature by that period. Ms. Jayalalithaa became Chief Minister on May 14. Her anxiety to get her appeal disposed of was in the hope that if she was acquitted, she could contest a by-election and become a member of the Legislative Assembly on or before November 14, 2001. At the same time, the larger issue that came up for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether a person who is not eligible to stand for election could be appointed as Minister at all. Article 164(4) is completely silent on this issue.
While the Constitution provides for qualification and disqualification for membership to the Assembly, there is no provision as to any qualification or disqualification for a person to be appointed a Minister. This constitutional vacuum has now been filled up by the Supreme Court.
Article 164(4) has now been given a novel interpretation. Hereafter, a non-member of the legislature can be made Chief Minister or Minister only if he has the qualifications prescribed by Article 173 and does not suffer any disqualification as set out in Article 191. Consequently, unless a person is theoretically eligible to be a member of the Legislative Assembly, he cannot be appointed a Minister.
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-miscellaneous/tp-others/eligible-mla-first-minister-later/article27980109.ece

Everybody agree with your inference. However u r not understanding the rationale behind the debate around this question. What u r saying is absolutely correct. Problem arises due to the use of word "a person" in English and any person in hindi version. As per English version answer should be A. As per hindi version D.
Lol what did they write in hindi. Lol max. This is new info for me. UPSC literally should tell hindi people ki bhai apun ko ghanta fark parta. How can they make mistake in 2 3 questions in one simple prelims exam.

U can check urself. In hindi it's "koi bhi vyakti" meaning any person. Off course it's a poor translation.

kartikeybhatt171778said
@Biradar dont lie man , you marked A thats why you are desperate to get it correct. The way you talk to.others on forum shows your frustration
And answer will.be D only whatever you say or do ...

Thanks for having more knowledge than me on what I marked. I have seen enough nautanki on this forum post every prelims to know what is the answer and what isn't.

Now rather shoehorn your brain-dead opinions on AI on this forum

kartikeybhatt171778said
@aadhi_rocz623 desperate people making even genuine straightforward questions doubtful.

Desperate people scoring 105 lurking on question answer discussions even a week after prelims. Hmmmmmm

The_Renaissance_Man,

Equalizersaid
Biradarsaid
Equalizersaid
» show previous quotes
Rangeelasaid
For that eligible to vote can be made a minister question, SC has given guidelines long back (2001) in Jayalalitha case. Pasting from an article in The Hindu
As a general rule, a person can become a Minister only if he is a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. Article 164(4) states that a person cannot continue as Minister for more than six months if he is not a member of the legislature by that period.

Eligible MLA first, Minister later

Ms. Jayalalithaa filed nominations for four constituencies for the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. On April 24, 2001, three of these nominations were rejected on account of her conviction in the TANSI case and consequent disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The fourth nomination was rejected on the ground that she had filed her nomination for more than two seats. The rejection of her nomination papers had not been challenged by Ms. Jayalalithaa.
After the elections, she was unanimously elected the leader of the party and was sworn in Chief Minister on May 14, 2001. At that time, there was a suggestion that she should not occupy the Chief Minister's office until her appeals were disposed of and she is either acquitted or the sentence reduced to less than two years. She insisted that the mandate of the people was that she should become the Chief Minister. Had she shown a dignified restraint, a healthy convention would have been set.
Article 173 prescribes qualifications for the membership of any State legislature. Briefly, a potential candidate must be at least 25 years of age (30 for the Legislative Council), a citizen of India and must possess such other qualifications as prescribed under any law by Parliament. Article 191 sets out the disqualifications and these are: holding office of profit with the Government of India or any State Government, being of unsound mind, an undischarged insolvent, a foreigner, and, lastly, any disqualification under any law made by Parliament. Ms. Jayalalithaa's case was concerned with disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. With her conviction and two-year sentence, Ms. Jayalalithaa's election nomination papers were rejected. The fact that her appeals were pending and the sentence suspended made no difference. Thus, she could not contest the election and become a member of the Legislative Assembly.
As a general rule, a person can become a Minister only if he is a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. Article 164(4) states that a person cannot continue as Minister for more than six months if he is not a member of the legislature by that period. Ms. Jayalalithaa became Chief Minister on May 14. Her anxiety to get her appeal disposed of was in the hope that if she was acquitted, she could contest a by-election and become a member of the Legislative Assembly on or before November 14, 2001. At the same time, the larger issue that came up for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether a person who is not eligible to stand for election could be appointed as Minister at all. Article 164(4) is completely silent on this issue.
While the Constitution provides for qualification and disqualification for membership to the Assembly, there is no provision as to any qualification or disqualification for a person to be appointed a Minister. This constitutional vacuum has now been filled up by the Supreme Court.
Article 164(4) has now been given a novel interpretation. Hereafter, a non-member of the legislature can be made Chief Minister or Minister only if he has the qualifications prescribed by Article 173 and does not suffer any disqualification as set out in Article 191. Consequently, unless a person is theoretically eligible to be a member of the Legislative Assembly, he cannot be appointed a Minister.
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-miscellaneous/tp-others/eligible-mla-first-minister-later/article27980109.ece

Everybody agree with your inference. However u r not understanding the rationale behind the debate around this question. What u r saying is absolutely correct. Problem arises due to the use of word "a person" in English and any person in hindi version. As per English version answer should be A. As per hindi version D.
Lol what did they write in hindi. Lol max. This is new info for me. UPSC literally should tell hindi people ki bhai apun ko ghanta fark parta. How can they make mistake in 2 3 questions in one simple prelims exam.
U can check urself. In hindi it's "koi bhi vyakti" meaning any person. Off course it's a poor translation.

Then it prolly will be D

keephustling .

@Biradar answer of desher katha as per your opinion??

chikuiasbanosaid
@Biradar answer of desher katha as per your opinion??

It's prolly 1n2

keephustling,

@Biradar

I hope you are right with this. In exam hall I remembered the point given in laxmikant where its written ‘’ Further, where the terms used in any article are ambiguous or capable of more than one meaning, some assistance at interpretation may be taken from the objectives enshrined in the Preamble. ‘’

Baaki I dont have deeper understanding of justiciable vs legal affect etc.. so i dont know. If its D its plus 2.67

kartikeybhatt171778 .

@Biradar who said m scoring 105,anyways you dont care about my mains too much, i know how to manage my time .you care about your issues..

pvpkraju .

For Asphalt technology question, copper slag is wrong, it's not 123 but 234...reason being asked is Copper slag is used to lay highways (eg: L&T did it in TN Kerala border) not RURAL ROADS as asked in question.

Infact hot asphalt tech, coconut shells, jute is mixed which makes it environmentally sustainable.

Copper slag is very less produced in India as earlier we were >50% import dependent, now after closure of Sterlite vedanta plant in Tamil Nadu we are 65+ import dependent.

So where is copper slag produced and also to use in rural roads that too...

UPSC Purposely asked RURAL Roads...awesome

keephustling .

@Biradar finger crossed :D what about rukmabai, nalsa question?

chelseaboysaid
@Biradar
I hope you are right with this. In exam hall I remembered the point given in laxmikant where its written ‘’ Further, where the terms used in any article are ambiguous or capable of more than one meaning, some assistance at interpretation may be taken from the objectives enshrined in the Preamble. ‘’

Baaki I dont have deeper understanding of justiciable vs legal affect etc.. so i dont know. If its D its plus 2.67

Kesavanamda Bharati clearly stated objectives laid down in preamble are to be persued by the constitution, and remember secularism is a legit cause to do 356 as per bommai. So it doesn't have any legal effect independently. But equality is perused by art 14 15 16 17 and you can take to courts for infringement of the same.

If you have marked D not even a cause to think otherwise

aadhi_rocz623,

Arsene .

@Percival No doubt in Fort William Colg. EIC officials were called as "Civilians"

@chikuiasbano desher katha is 1&2, Rukhmabai is 2&3. Unless upsc decides to change history..

chikuiasbanosaid
@Biradar finger crossed :D what about rukmabai, nalsa question?

Rukmabhai is 2n3 . Nalsa didn't attempt.

aadhi_rocz623 .

@Biradar bro i was never rude in replying to you.. you are comparing day to day ppl's activity with that of govt formation. Its not that simple. Do you even think that an 18 yr old person will be sworn to oath to become a minister for 6 months?

Amonga,BD

chelseaboysaid
@chikuiasbano desher katha is 1&2, Rukhmabai is 2&3. Unless upsc decides to change history..

Harappan horse rolls in its grave

Amonga,

@visionman I cant believe that this is a doubt 😐. Its D all day long and night...

@Biradar Harrapan Horse is a debated issue. Thats why there was confusion over the same. However upsc picked the exact verbatim from a du book.

However Desher Katha and Rukhmabai are not historical debates.. Open any standard text book and search for age of consent you will probably get the word ‘ debate’ suffixed with it.

Desher katha me the man desukar himself has written about bharat bhoomi its geography, demography (22cr population) , Economic exploitation.

Rukhmabai is picked from Dube again and she clearly writes about age of consent and conjugal rights . Then sekhar bandopadhya mentions same too. These two are very big names in history.

kartikeybhatt171778said
@Biradar who said m scoring 105,anyways you dont care about my mains too much, i know how to manage my time .you care about your issues..

I have every reason to call out a fear mongering mentally ill and cognitively impaired individual. Fcuk off with your 100+ cutoffs mate.

The_Renaissance_Man,