Doubt Clearance Thread: UPSC 2021
"When in doubt, observe and ask questions. When certain, observe at length and ask many more questions."
Created this thread as a one stop solution for all members so that all the doubts wherein any conceptual clarification is required can be solved here.
@sstarrrin determining constitutionality of a law , SC may take help of preamble. Thats when preamble has a legal effect imo
Yeah. Even I get that. We have to look broadly , SC might take help of the preamble for determining constitutionality.
AyeRamadhir,please explain the reason behind answer.
Preamble is not independently justifiable, (for example preamble provides for economic justice but it is not justifiable and hence a poor person may not be able to sue government for this)however if there is a situation wherein preamble is used with some other justifiable provision of the constitution, then the preamble will also have a legal effect.
for example if provisions of preamble is used along with fundamental rights , then whatever is given in that particular case in the preamble will also be deemed to be justifiable.
This was established by Supreme Court in a judgement which I don't really remember now. I hope this clears something.
Oh. So it was because of SC judgement. I was going through the Lakshmikant's version and hence got it wrong.
Yeah, i read it somewhere else.
sstarrr,Article 112 of the Constitution provide that the President shall in respect of every financial year cause to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure of the GOVERNMENT OF INDIA for that year, which referred to as the "annual financial statement" is also called as 'Union Budget' in general language.
A Member of Parliament (MP) who is not a Minister in the Union Cabinet is called a Private Member.
As far as my reasoning goes, Union Cabinet represents the government for all practical purposes. And since introduction of budget(any money bills) is the prerogative of the "govt", hence, private members don't introduce it.
This is what I understood, I might be wrong ..
Doubt related to money bill.
Can a private member introduce money bill in lok sabha? I know in lakshmikant it says only ministers can. But are they (pvt members) explicitly barred by any rule of Lok Sabha?
Article 112 of the Constitution provide that the President shall in respect of every financial year cause to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure of the GOVERNMENT OF INDIA for that year, which referred to as the "annual financial statement" is also called as 'Union Budget' in general language.
A Member of Parliament (MP) who is not a Minister in the Union Cabinet is called a Private Member.
As far as my reasoning goes, Union Cabinet represents the government for all practical purposes. And since introduction of budget(any money bills) is the prerogative of the "govt", hence, private members don't introduce it.
This is what I understood, I might be wrong ..
My doubt still remains. :/
sstarrr,
sator,
@sator private members are not barred, that’s right. No provision says they cannot introduce.
just to add to the discussion , separate government bills with those of private members. This will give more clarity to the doubt.
@sjerngalBut money bills can be independent of budgets also, right? Eg. Aadhar Bill. I got this particular doubt while discussing it with a friend. He did magna carta of Atish Mathur, who told pvt members are not explicitly barred. Albeit, due to provisions like the prior permission of Prez. and budget being prerogative of Govt, it may not be possible for them to introduce money bill.
My doubt still remains. :/
True. There is no such provisions. Money bills do not constitute only budgets but as mentioned under article 110, many other bills. As you have said there are many other conditions, which might not lead to money bills passing, but they are not explicitly banned for private members to introduce.
sator,
Lakshmikant says that it is judicial, but in so many test series I have seen that it is an executive power because President does not act as court of appeal and moreover, the power of clemency is based on the aid and advice of council of ministers..
Please clarify
sstarrr,necromancer
sstarrr,sjerngal
Is the NCSC still required to discharge functions with regard to Other Backward Castes?Since now that NCBC has been constituted as a constitutional body, has this position changed?
I don't think they would have to do now. As its a constitutional body, whatever functions that NCSC was performing would be performed by the NCBC.
necromancer,
Write your comment…
