1.. With reference to Right To Information Act, 2005 consider the following statements:
- The information seeker is required to give reason for requesting the information.
- Non-governmental bodies are not covered under the ambit of the act.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
- Section 6(2) of the RTI Act specifically says “an applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.” This salutary provision is important to ensure that the there is no subjective evaluation of the request, ordenial on specious ground. Hence, statement 1 is not correct.
- Under the Act, a non-governmental body needs to be substantially financed by government to be categorized as a public authority under the Act. There is however no definition of “substantially financed. Hence, statement 2 is not correct.
(d) President of India
- The President of India can appoint a duly qualified person as an acting judge of a High Court when a judge of that High Court (other than the Chief Justice) is:
1. unable to perform the duties of his office due to absence or any other reason; or 2. appointed to act temporarily as chief justice of that High Court.
- An acting judge holds office until the permanent judge resumes his office.
1. Presence of a written Constitution.
2. Incorporation of fundamental rights in the Constitution.
3. Veto powers of the President.
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
(d) 1, 2 and 3
- The doctrine of ‘sovereignty of Parliament’ is associated with the British Parliament.
- Sovereignty means the supreme power within the State. That supreme power in Great Britain lies with the Parliament. The Indian Parliament, on the other hand, cannot be regarded as a sovereign body in the similar sense as there are ‘legal’ restrictions on its authority and jurisdiction.
- Several factors limit the sovereignty of the Indian Parliament:
- Written Constitution: The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land in our country. It has defined the authority and jurisdiction of all the three organs of the Union government and the nature of interrelationship between them. Hence, the Parliament has to operate within the limits prescribed by the Constitution. There is also a legal distinction between the legislative authority and the constituent authority of the Parliament. Moreover, to effect certain amendments to the Constitution, the ratification of atleast half of the states is also required. Hence, statement 1 is correct.
- Fundamental Rights: The authority of the Parliament is also restricted by the incorporation of a code of justiciable fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. Article 13 prohibits the State from making a law that either takes away totally or abrogates in part a fundamental right. Hence, a Parliamentary law that contravenes the fundamental rights shall be void. Hence, statement 2 is correct.
- Federal System of Government: India has a federal system of government with a constitutional division of powers between the Union and the states. Both have to operate within the spheres allotted to them. Hence, the law-making authority of the Parliament gets confined to the subjects enumerated in the Union List and Concurrent List and does not extend to the subjects enumerated in the State List (except in special circumstances and that too for a short period).
- System of judicial review: The adoption of an independent Judiciary with the power of judicial review also restricts the supremacy of our Parliament. Both the Supreme Court and high courts can declare the laws enacted by the Parliament as void and ultra vires (unconstitutional), if they contravene any provision of the Constitution or amend its basic structure.
- The President is a part of the Parliament itself; therefore his/her veto powers are not a limitation upon Parliamentary sovereignity. Hence, statement 3 is not correct.
4.. Consider the following statements with reference to the speaker of Lok Sabha:
- The resolution for removal of Speaker has to be passed by special majority.
- The work and conduct of the Speaker cannot be discussed or criticised in the Lok Sabha except on a substantive motion.
- The powers of Speaker regarding maintenance of order in the House are not subject to jurisdiction of any court.
Which of the statements given above is/are not correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 2 and 3 only
- The Speaker is provided with a security of tenure. He can be removed only by a resolution passed by the Lok Sabha by an absolute majority (ie, a majority of the total members of the House). This motion of removal can be considered and discussed only when it has the support of at least 50 members. Hence, statement 1 is not correct.
- The work and conduct of Speaker cannot be discussed and criticised in the Lok Sabha except on a substantive motion. His powers of regulating procedure or conducting business or maintaining order in the House are not subject to the jurisdiction of any Court. Hence, statements 2 and 3 are correct.
(a) If member of one House gets elected to other House, his seat in first House becomes vacant.
(a) If a sitting member of one House is also elected to the other House, his seat in the first House becomes vacant.
- answer is (d).
456 total views, 4 views today