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.
I have doubt w.r.to. option 3. The dispute b/w GoI and UT like NCT of Delhi gone to SC and in case of Puducherry in Madras HC, are these not come under original jurisdiction of SC, though Laxmikant doesn't have that mention.
The High Court stands at the head of a State's judicial administration. There are 24 High Courts in the country, three having jurisdiction over more than one State. Among the Union Territories Delhi alone has a High Court of its own. Other six Union Territories come under the jurisdiction of different State High Courts.
Now, wrt to the issue with Delhi's case: SC refused to straightaway hear the original suit filed by the Delhi government against the Centre under the article 131 seeking a declaration of changed status from union territory to a state for Delhi.
The bench wanted to delay the hearing because it wanted to hear it along with the Delhi government’s appeal against the Delhi high court’s judgment on August 4 which held that Delhi’s status was that of a union territory.
So first it has to go to HC. SC doesn't have original jurisdiction.
Neyawn,Aragorn001
Correct Answer : c
Your Answer : d
For elections/nomination to the Parliament, which of the following is correct?
Explanation
Exp) Option a is incorrect. Nomination to Rajya Sabha requires a person to have special knowledge or practical experience in matters like literature, science, art and social service. Recently, retired Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi has been nominated to the Rajya Sabha.
Option b is incorrect. A candidate filing for candidature needs one proposer from his/ her constituency when the candidate belongs to a recognized national or State party.
Option c is correct. A candidate gets six year of disqualification if he/ she gets convicted for an offence of bribery under Representation of People’s Act 1951.
Doubt: Is Statement (c) correct? Even the explanation is not in sync with the option asked.
With reference to the position of Leader of Opposition in the Indian Parliamentary system, consider the following statements.
1. The leader of the largest opposition party having not less than one-tenth seats of the total strength of the House is recognised as the Leader of the Opposition in that House.
2. The position was recognised in Parliament for the first time in 1977.
3. The Leader of Opposition holds status equivalent to that of a Cabinet Minister.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
Exp) Statement 1 is correct. The Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977 defines LoP as the leader of the largest opposition party having not less than one-tenth seats of the total the strength of the House
Statement 2 is incorrect. The leader of Opposition was first recognised in 1969 and in 1977 the position got statutory status via Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act.
Statement 3 is correct. The Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977 extends to Leaders of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha the same official status, allowances and perks that are admissible to Cabinet Ministers.
Doubt: I think Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977 is silent about the one-tenth criteria and this criteria was rather given by the speaker of Lok sabha (Referring to statement 1)
Yes, one-tenth numerical strength has been defined by Chairman in the case of RS and Speaker in the case of LS. The answer has to be (B) i.e. 3 only is correct.
camanishagarwal1994355,Who can file for anti defection complaint to presiding officer , against any member of parliament/assembly , is it
1) member of the parliament2) any citizen
This document
http://164.100.47.194/Loksabha/writereaddata/membersbook/Chapter5.pdf
on page 166 says this
The Supreme Court of India in its judgement dated 17 January, 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 469 of 2013 titled Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly Vs. Utkal Keshari Parida held that “....we are not inclined to accept the contention that a member of a Legislative Assembly can alone file the petition.... Therefore, we hold that the disqualification petitions filed by the petitioner, who is the President of NCP, are maintainable under Rule 6 of the Rule
Anyone can file a petition or complain for anti defection to Speaker or Chairman. It is not necessary that only Member of the hose of Whip shall file the complain. Please go through the following para to get more clarity..
Even if a member has committed an act of defection, the Speaker
has no power to initiate action under the Tenth Schedule suo moto.
He has to wait for a petition in accordance with the Members
(Disqualification on Grounds of Defection) Rules, 1985. Paragraph 6
of the Tenth Schedule does not specify the person who is competent
to file the petition for disqualifying the erring member. It simply
provides that "If any question arises as to whether a member has
become subject to disqualification, the question shall be referred for
the decision of the Chairman or the Speaker". Rule 6 (2) of the
Members of Lok Sabha (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules,
1985, however, lays down that a petition seeking disqualification of a
member can be made by "any other member". The relevant rules
made by the UP Speaker make a departure and provide that such a
petition can be filed by "any person".
The photo is from March Factly.
Doubt is regarding Rule 256 of Rajya Sabha. According to Rule 256, the power to suspend is with the Chairman or the Council ? What i understand is Chairman initiates(by naming) and then the House takes up the motion as in Lok Sabha rule 374. Am i reading the rule correctly ? Is there a mistake in factly?
Yes, your interpretation is right:
1) In Lok Sabha speaker can directly suspend the member.
2) In Rajya Sabha Chairman can name a member to be suspended and then the house decides upon the suspension via motion.
cot_ainok,
What is in 5th schedule which have bearing on education except the fact that there should be tribes advisory council and safeguard interest of scheduled Tribes and administer scheduled areas.
W.r.t. 6th schedule, there is specific mention about creation, construction and management of primary schools.
Yes, the answer needs to be D) i.e. all the statements can have bearing on education.
1) Under 5th Schedule areas Governor can decide whether the laws of parliament can apply to the Scheduled areas in the state. Under this provision, various states have tweaked the provisions of the Right to Education Act as far as its applicability to scheduled areas under Scheduled 5 is concerned.
Aragorn001,
The original jurisdiction of SC under article 131 is provided only for dispute between the Center and States. The Union Territories by definition don't fall under the category of states and hence UTs can not approach SC under its original jurisdiction under article 131. However, time and again it is found that Union Territories approach SC against Centre, but such an approach is made under the Special Leave Petition of SC under article 136 and not under the original jurisdiction.
Aragorn001,Correct Answer : c
Your Answer : d
For elections/nomination to the Parliament, which of the following is correct?
Explanation
Exp) Option a is incorrect. Nomination to Rajya Sabha requires a person to have special knowledge or practical experience in matters like literature, science, art and social service. Recently, retired Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi has been nominated to the Rajya Sabha.
Option b is incorrect. A candidate filing for candidature needs one proposer from his/ her constituency when the candidate belongs to a recognized national or State party.
Option c is correct. A candidate gets six year of disqualification if he/ she gets convicted for an offence of bribery under Representation of People’s Act 1951.
Doubt: Is Statement (c) correct? Even the explanation is not in sync with the option asked.
The statement c) here is right. Plz, refer to Section 62 of RPA 1951 and Section 16 of RPA 1950.
http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/04_representation%20of%20the%20people%20act%2C%201951.pdf
Aragorn001,camanishagarwal1994355Correct Answer : d
Your Answer : b
Consider the following statements:
1. Anti-Dumping Duty is a protectionist tariff that a domestic government imposes on foreign imports that it believes are priced below fair market value.
2. Countervailing Duty is imposed in order to counter the negative impact of import subsidies to protect domestic producers.
Which of the statements given above is/are incorrect?
Explanation
Exp) Statement 1 is correct: An anti-dumping duty is a protectionist tariff that a domestic government imposes on foreign imports that it believes are priced below fair market value. Dumping is a process where a company exports a product at a price lower than the price it normally charges in its own home market. For protection, many countries impose stiff duties on products they believe are being dumped in their national market, undercutting local businesses and markets.
Statement 2 is correct: In cases foreign producers attempt to subsidize the goods being exported by them so that it causes domestic production to suffer because of a shift in domestic demand towards cheaper imported goods, the government makes mandatory the payment of a countervailing duty on the import of such goods to the domestic economy.
Doubt: (Statement 2) Countervailing Duty is imposed in order to counter the negative impact of"import subsidies" to protect domestic producers. I think CVD is a measure against export subsidy and not import subsidy.
PS: @Thinker: If you are someone from the ForumIAS could you please ask them to compile mistakes figured out in the test questions at a single place?
Shuaibahmed,+1
It is really get to see your enthusiastically answer the questions, sire!
When I was selected for a certain govt job, long back, I quickly checked who the appointing authority was. It was the Central Govt. The appointment letter was signed by Additional or Under Secy Rural Development.
What does this mean?
This means that anytime the Central Govt wanted , they could remove me with just a letter signed by the Secy, Rural Development.
When you are appointed to the All India Services, the appointment is by the President, who , is also the authority who can remove such officials.
This means that if the govt quickly wants to remove someone, they have send the letter to President. While the President is bound to follow the advice, note that President may apply his mind to such recommendations. Or even sit on it for a long time ( The pocket of Indian President , as you may have read is deeper than the American President ). So it is not easy for central govts to remove someone appointed by the President. If for some reason that President is not happy, he may require additional information from the Govt.
So this makes a lot of difference.
Also, with respect to submission of reports, if a Constitutional Body is there, then it is most likely to submit its report to the President than the Govt. That additional layer of having the President takes away a lot of whims and facies of the govt in effect.
Please also note that when governments are in absolute majority, neither the President not the Supreme Courts are able to withstand executive pressure.
Sir does that mean security of appointment in the ascending order would be (in case of central govt appointments): central govt
Also sir, governor is appointed by President, but his removal depends on whims of the President (cabinet)? How does that mean that appointment by President guarantees more security then?
The High Court stands at the head of a State's judicial administration. There are 24 High Courts in the country, three having jurisdiction over more than one State. Among the Union Territories Delhi alone has a High Court of its own. Other six Union Territories come under the jurisdiction of different State High Courts.
Now, wrt to the issue with Delhi's case: SC refused to straightaway hear the original suit filed by the Delhi government against the Centre under the article 131 seeking a declaration of changed status from union territory to a state for Delhi.
The bench wanted to delay the hearing because it wanted to hear it along with the Delhi government’s appeal against the Delhi high court’s judgment on August 4 which held that Delhi’s status was that of a union territory.
So first it has to go to HC. SC doesn't have original jurisdiction.
One change- 25th HC of Andhra Pradesh
upsc2020,
Doubt is regarding Rule 256 of Rajya Sabha. According to Rule 256, the power to suspend is with the Chairman or the Council ? What i understand is Chairman initiates(by naming) and then the House takes up the motion as in Lok Sabha rule 374. Am i reading the rule correctly ? Is there a mistake in factly?
Yes, your interpretation is right:
1) In Lok Sabha speaker can directly suspend the member.
2) In Rajya Sabha Chairman can name a member to be suspended and then the house decides upon the suspension via motion.
@Thinker Sir, but according to Rule 374 of Lok Sabha, Speaker can name a member and then House decides on it via a motion.. Speaker can.t directly suspend, right ?
+1
It is really get to see your enthusiastically answer the questions, sire!
When I was selected for a certain govt job, long back, I quickly checked who the appointing authority was. It was the Central Govt. The appointment letter was signed by Additional or Under Secy Rural Development.
What does this mean?
This means that anytime the Central Govt wanted , they could remove me with just a letter signed by the Secy, Rural Development.
When you are appointed to the All India Services, the appointment is by the President, who , is also the authority who can remove such officials.
This means that if the govt quickly wants to remove someone, they have send the letter to President. While the President is bound to follow the advice, note that President may apply his mind to such recommendations. Or even sit on it for a long time ( The pocket of Indian President , as you may have read is deeper than the American President ). So it is not easy for central govts to remove someone appointed by the President. If for some reason that President is not happy, he may require additional information from the Govt.
So this makes a lot of difference.
Also, with respect to submission of reports, if a Constitutional Body is there, then it is most likely to submit its report to the President than the Govt. That additional layer of having the President takes away a lot of whims and facies of the govt in effect.
Please also note that when governments are in absolute majority, neither the President not the Supreme Courts are able to withstand executive pressure.
Sir does that mean security of appointment in the ascending order would be (in case of central govt appointments): central govt
Also sir, governor is appointed by President, but his removal depends on whims of the President (cabinet)? How does that mean that appointment by President guarantees more security then?
AIS Appointment by Prez + Art 312 = Best protection for Civil Servants in India
Governor is not a civil servant under Art 312 protection, hence can't be compared. Though ideally it should not be the case !
+1
It is really get to see your enthusiastically answer the questions, sire!
When I was selected for a certain govt job, long back, I quickly checked who the appointing authority was. It was the Central Govt. The appointment letter was signed by Additional or Under Secy Rural Development.
What does this mean?
This means that anytime the Central Govt wanted , they could remove me with just a letter signed by the Secy, Rural Development.
When you are appointed to the All India Services, the appointment is by the President, who , is also the authority who can remove such officials.
This means that if the govt quickly wants to remove someone, they have send the letter to President. While the President is bound to follow the advice, note that President may apply his mind to such recommendations. Or even sit on it for a long time ( The pocket of Indian President , as you may have read is deeper than the American President ). So it is not easy for central govts to remove someone appointed by the President. If for some reason that President is not happy, he may require additional information from the Govt.
So this makes a lot of difference.
Also, with respect to submission of reports, if a Constitutional Body is there, then it is most likely to submit its report to the President than the Govt. That additional layer of having the President takes away a lot of whims and facies of the govt in effect.
Please also note that when governments are in absolute majority, neither the President not the Supreme Courts are able to withstand executive pressure.
Sir does that mean security of appointment in the ascending order would be (in case of central govt appointments): central govt
Also sir, governor is appointed by President, but his removal depends on whims of the President (cabinet)? How does that mean that appointment by President guarantees more security then?
AIS Appointment by Prez + Art 312 = Best protection for Civil Servants in India
Governor is not a civil servant under Art 312 protection, hence can't be compared. Though ideally it should not be the case !
IMO if Sarkaria commission's recomm regarding Governor is implemented then many of the current issues could be resolved, but catch is no one willing to share power only it's usurpation
Greenlove,
Write your comment…
