Official: SFG / RLG All Tests Discussions in one place
Hello All,
The Group usage here is a little cumbersome, so I am creating this thread to make sure that all questions with doubts stay in one place. Can someone push all the doubts and queries here? I will make this an announcement?
-Faceless, Anonymous "root"
This question is not related to any mistake in answer key but just to add to a point of discussion with respect to
Q24 (sfg test2).
option 2....while parliamentary system was declared a part of basic structure in Kesavanand case (1973) why did the Central government in1975 refer the matter of examining whether parliamentary system in India should be replaced by Presidential system toSwaran Singh Committeeas even if it was recommended by the Committee, it couldn't be put into place due to the basic structure violation.
The constitution is a dynamic document that means it keeps on evolving over the time via amendment of the Constitution. Now Supreme Court is a self-correcting agency meaning that it has the power to change its earlier verdicts. The Parliamentary system was declared as Basic Structure in 1972 (as per contemporary circumstances) but it does not mean that it can never be amended.
The Parliament has the power to amend any provision of the constitution via Article 368 and that includes any provision of the constitution. No suppose, today, Parliament passes a Constitutional Amendment bill changing the Parliamentary system to the federal system in Indian Constitution (the parliament can do that). In such a scenario, the SC again checks the validity of that provision as per the current circumstances. If SC again finds that the Parliamentary system is best suited then it will reaffirm the Kesavanad Bharti case verdict. However, if SC finds that now the Parliamentary system is indeed redundant then it will change the verdict given in the Kesavanada Bharti case and allows for Federal structure to continue.
In a nutshell, if SC declares a particular provision as the basic structure of the constitution then Parliament is not supposed to change it via amendment (but Parliament is not bound by it as article 368 and Article 13 gives power to Parliament to change any provision of the Constitution). It is this particular thin line that executive and legislature enter into time and again and that is what was the intention of the Indira Gandhi government when it constituted Swaran Singh Committee.
ssver2,
Q13 answer is also wrong in the key. answer should be C.Kindly look into it.
On Feb9,2020, SC has noted that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution empowers the state to make reservation in matters of appointment andpromotionin favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes "if in the opinion of state they are not adequately represented in the services of the state". (FEB 9, 2020)
Tetsuko,messiji@Thinker SC has noted that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution empowers the state to make reservation in matters of appointment and promotion in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes "if in the opinion of state they are not adequately represented in the services of the state". (FEB 9, 2020)
Answer key for Q 13 is wrong .kindly look into it
Answer of question 13 of Test 3 should be C
Yes but option gave any backward community,the reservations in promotion is only for sc n sts not obcs.
So 2nd option is wrong
ssver2,Patrick_jane
In Q. 29. (SFG test 3) ; what is the reason for statement A, i.e. Right to adequate means of livelihood for all citizens; being wrong?
All these statements concern Art 39, so shouldn't the answer be D ?
25th CAA introduced 31C where any law that brought for giving effect to Dpsps 39(b) &( c) even it violates art 14 &19 cannot be held as unconstitutional n viod.
In kesavananda bharti case Supreme held validity of 31C provision.
But govt expanded 31C horizon to all DPsps not just to 39(c) &(b).
In Minerva mills case Sc held that only 39b &c are given supermacy over art 14 & 19 not any other.
So 39b&c only crct not 39a
ssver2,Thinker
SFG/RLG Batch 2 : Test 2, Question no. - 27
As asked even earlier by many people -
Can 'Division of powers' be considered a feature of Presidential system ?
Isn't it a federal feature ?
Why should it not be considered as feature of Presidential system? Federal can have both Presidential and Parliamentary system. Division of power is equally a feature of both. Isn't it?
If you have to compare, compare federal vs union. Not federal vs presidential
ssver2,
ssver2,Nidhi1904
Write your comment…
