Question Discussion & Solution

The Correct answer is Justice Fazl Ali.

Key Points

• The creation of the Andhra state intensified the demand from other regions for the creation of states on a linguistic basis.
• This forced the Government of India to appoint (in December 1953) a three-member States Reorganisation Commission under the chairmanship of Fazl Ali to re-examine the whole question. Its other two members were K M Panikkar and H N Kunzru.
• It submitted its report in September 1955 and broadly accepted language as the basis of the reorganisation of states. But, it rejected the theory of ‘one language-one state’. Its view was that the unity of India should be regarded as the primary consideration in any redrawing of the country’s political units. It identified four major factors that can be taken into account in any scheme of the reorganisation of states:

1. Preservation and strengthening of the unity and security of the country.
2.  Linguistic and cultural homogeneity.
3. Financial, economic and administrative considerations.
4. Planning and promotion of the welfare of the people in each state as well as of the nation as a whole.

• The commission suggested the abolition of the four-fold classification of states under the original Constitution and the creation of 16 states and 3 centrally administered territories. The Government of India accepted these recommendations with certain minor modifications.
• By the States Reorganisation Act (1956) and the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act (1956), the distinction between Part-A and Part-B states was done away with and Part-C states were abolished. Some of them were merged with adjacent states and some others were designated as union territories. As a result, 14 states and 6 union territories were created on November 1, 1956.
• The States Reorganisation Act of 1956 established the new state of Kerala by merging the Travancore- Cochin State with the Malabar District of Madras state and Kasargode of South Canara (Dakshina Kannada).
• It merged the Telugu-speaking areas of Hyderabad state with the Andhra state to create the Andhra Pradesh state. Further, it merged the Madya Bharat state, Vindya Pradesh state and Bhopal state into the Madya Pradesh state. Similarly, it merged the Saurashtra state and Kutch state into that of the Bombay state.

The Correct Answer is Option 3 i.e Article 23 to 24.

• Fundamental Rights:
  • Articles 12-35 of Part - III of the Indian Constitution deals with Fundamental Rights.
  • Fundamental rights are enforceable in the court of law.
  • There are six fundamental rights as of present, they are:
    • Right to Equality (Article 14-18)
    • Right to Freedom (Article 19-22)
    • Right against Exploitation (Article 23-24)
    • Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25-28)
    • Cultural and Educational Rights (Article 29-30)
    • Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)

The correct answer is November 2020.

• Lok Sabha has given its nod to Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill 2021.
• The bill contains provisions to deal with domestic and international arbitration.
• It defines the law for conducting conciliation proceedings.
• It replaces an Ordinance with the same provisions promulgated on 4th November 2020.

The correct answer is  Habeus corpus.

• The writ that is issued to secure the release of a person under illegal detention is Habeus corpus.
• Article 32  of the Indian Constitution has been described as the ‘heart and soul’ of the Indian Constitution by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.
• It gives a citizen the right to approach the Supreme Court in case of the violation of any of their fundamental rights.
• It is also known as; Right to Constitutional Remedies.

  Article	Consists of
  Article 32	Right to move the Supreme court for the enforcement of fundamental rights including the writs. habeas corpus mandamus prohibition certiorari quo warranto

• Habeas Corpus: This writ is issued to produce a person who has been detained whether in prison or in private custody, before a court and to release him if such detention is found illegal.
• Mandamus: The writ of command is issued by the supreme or high court when any government, court, corporation, or any public authority has to do a public duty but fails to do so.
• Prohibition: It is a writ issued with a view to restraining a person from holding a public office to which he is not entitled.
• Certiorari: The writ of certiorari can be issued by the supreme or high court for quashing the order already passed by an inferior court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority.
• Quo-Warranto: The writ of quo-warranto can be issued by the supreme or high court for asking of by what authority or warrant. It is issued by the court to enquire into the legality of a claim of a person to a public office.

The correct answer is Freedom from attendance as Witness.

Key Points

• Originally the constitution envisaged two types of privileges under Article 105 of the Indian constitution.
• One is freedom of speech in Parliament and the right of publication of its proceedings.
• The concept of parliamentary privilege in the Constitution of India has been taken from the British Constitution.
• The main motive of these privileges is to uphold the supremacy of the office of the Parliament and its members.
• These rights are also given to those individuals who speak and participate in any committee of the Parliament, which includes the Attorney General of India and the Union Ministers.
• The President, even if he is part of Parliament, does not have parliamentary privileges.

Additional Information

• The collective privileges of Members of Parliament are as follows
  • No person (either a member or outsider) can be arrested and no legal process (criminal or civil) can be initiated within the premises of the house without the permission of the presiding officer of the house.
  • No Court has the right to investigate proceedings of the House or any of its committees.
  • Parliament can exclude guests from its proceedings and in some cases of national interest it can also hold a secret meeting on any important matter.
  • Parliament can punish members as well as outsiders for breach of its privileges or its contempt by reprimand, admonition, or imprisonment (also suspension or expulsion in case of members).
• Individual Privileges of Members of Parliament are as follows
  • When the Parliament is in session, a Member of Parliament or a privileged person may refuse to appear in court or to present any evidence in a court.
  • The members of Parliament can’t be arrested during the session of the Parliament and 40 days before the beginning and 40 days after the end of the session. However, this privilege is available in civil cases only not in criminal cases.
  • No member is liable to any proceedings in any given court for anything said or any vote by him/her in the parliament or its committees.