Policy's a big part of the story, but policy is "the art of the possible"

Another occasion when the Governor could withdraw his pleasure is when the Chief Minister is disqualified from being a member of the House on account of his having been convicted in a criminal case and sentenced to not less than two years of imprisonment

decision draws its legitimacy from the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 25(1) (all persons areequally entitled to freedom of conscienceand the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion) to the effect that “essential practices” of religions are protected from restrictions imposed by the state except to uphold “public order, morality and health”.

A Bill that could alter the mediation landscape R.K. Vij January 10, 2022 00:02 IST Updated: January 10, 2022 00:46 IST R.K. Vij

After the All India Services Act, 1951 came into existence, the IAS cadre rules were framed in 1954.

the Bench pointed out, and wondered if a constituency can be unrepresented in the Assembly for a whole year in the light of this six-month limit.

ny vacancy in the House has to be filled up through a by-election within six months of its occurrence

the House may declare vacant the seat of a member who is absent for 60 days without permission, to wonder whether any suspension could traverse beyond this 60-day limit.

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 was amended and Section 10D was inserted to empower the MCI to conduct NEET. Moreover the review petition against this judgment was allowed in 2016 and the Supreme Court ordered the conduct of NEET from 2016 itself.

In any case, the field is occupied by the central law namely Section 14 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 that provides for NEET.

While medical education is on the Concurrent list (Entry 25), it is subject to the maintenance of standards in higher education which is within the domain of the central government under the Union list (Entry 66).

61st Constitutional Amendment Act of 1988

10th Schedule of the Indian Constitution popularly referred to as the ‘Anti-Defection Law’ was inserted by the 52nd Amendment (1985) to the Constitution.

Reports show that SLPs comprise about 60-70% of the Supreme Court’s docket. Out of this, 80-90% of SLPs are dismissed, which means only 10-20% of such cases raise important questions of law. This takes up a lot of time of the Court. A simple solution would be to do away with immediate oral hearing of SLPs. The Supreme Court Rules could be amended to provide for a structure of pre-hearing of SLPs. Every SLP must be accompanied by an application for oral hearing which must be decided first by the Court, and that too in chambers. To assist the Court for that, a cadre of judicial research assistants made up of qualified lawyers should be created. The research assistants can go through each SLP and cull out the important questions of law as envisioned in Article 136. Thereafter, the Court may or may not allow applications for oral hearings based on whether such questions of law merit its attention. Only such SLPs in which oral hearing is permitted should be listed for hearing. SLPs in which no questions of law are raised, or frivolous ones are raised, should be dismissed without oral hearing and upon imposition of costs. This will ensure that only meritorious SLPs get judicial attention and will deter people from filing frivolous SLPs. It will also reduce pendency exponentially as the system will free up the Court’s time to hear statutory appeals and matters pertaining to interpretation of the Constitution or constitutional validity of laws or executive actions.

Supreme Court Rules, 2013 should amend provisions pertaining to Special Leave Petitions (SLPs). Article 136 of the Constitution enables people to file a petition seeking leave to appeal a decision of any judicial or quasi-judicial authority. The Supreme Court grants leave to appeal if the petition raises a question of law of general public importance, or if the judgment appealed against is especially perverse, which would require interference from the Court. The provision has been abused over the years to only clog the docket of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was never intended to be a court of appeal, barring such appeals which specific statutes provide for. The High Courts are usually meant to be the final courts of appeal. Instead, SLPs are now being treated as the last round of appeal.

Système de Politique Positive