Gk. History of Assam 2
GK. OF ASSAM 30 MCQ (1)
Here, is the guys the important 30 MCQ on general knowledge of Assam.
this questions are very important for all the competitive exams especially conducted by the Govt. of Assam . Please download this pdf from the link given below thank you.
CLICK HERE => 30 MCQ GK ASSAM
LIFE IN LAW SCHOOL
Life in Law School
Hello my friends,
you might have been searching in the internet, what kind of environment that you are going to have in your law school than I must tell you my friend that you are in the right place. So I will assure you that by the end of this post you will get the total overview of a law school or college, whatever you call it. I will tell you everything with my experiences of law school.
Well my friend if you are like me who has not planned me for future or if have not decided what to do in life after your +2 or after your graduation and than suddenly you join law course, than trust me you are definitely going to enjoy a lot your law school journey. Because, the way you have been studying so far is completely going to be different and I know you will going to love it.
Your opinion about your teachers is going to be changed. You are going to love the way of teaching of your teachers. And the most importantly the friends that you are going to get will be the best kind of , you will find them more ambitious and focused on their carrier, which will help you to find your goals as well. You will see all of your classmates are very confident and sophisticated and by seeing them, being with them eventually, you would end up trying hard to fit into their zone and you will start learning various soft skills from your classmate. Gradually you will notice a good change in your personality, you will see yourself as a better person than ever.
Regarding curriculum you will definitely find all the law papers interesting. You will end up loving the subject that you are studying , the thought which students generally have while they see the voluminous book, which will be contrary in your case. Earlier we you used to say that we don't feel like studying or find studies boring will be converted to I love studying. Studies will become your habit, your daily life which you will enjoy a lot.
Trust me when you get ready for your college you are going to look awesome on your new uniform. Everyone will start seeing you as a good person, and that will make you feel good about yourself and that is the development of your personality.
In law college you are going to attend various seminars and debates that will make you more confident it just that you need to come forward for that without thinking twice. and once you speak in front of your friend and faculty you will develop your good image in the college and that will make you more happy. As a result you will see a drastic change in your character as well.
The moot court class and competition is also very fun things to be done in your law school.
TO conclude this I will your life will be very different after your law school you will turn out to be more confident and ambitious person like never before. YOU WILL HAVE YOUR AIM OF YOUR LIFE AND YOU WILL GET TO KNOW YOUR CAPACITY ,STRENGTHS.
SO don't think too much go for it. It's a really worthy degree to be pursued.
JUDICIAL PROUNCEMENT HAVE UPLIFTED THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF ART.21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (scope of article 21 of the constitution of India)
JUDICIAL PROUNCEMENT
HAVE UPLIFTED THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF ART.21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (scope of article 21 of the constitution
of India)
Introduction: Art. 21 of the constitution of India guaranteed the fundamental right to life and personal liberty
to citizens as well as to non-citizens (Chairman,
Railway Board v. Chandrima Das). The object of the fundamental right of
Art. 21 is to prevent infringement upon personal liberty and deprivation of
life except according to the procedure established by law must be strictly
followed.
Art.21 of the constitution reads
as “No person shall be deprived of his
life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”.
Prior to the Maneka Gandhi’s decision Art. 21 guaranteed the right to life
and personal liberty to citizens only against the arbitrary action of the
executive and not from legislative action. The state could interfere with the
liberty of citizens if it could support its action by a valid law.
Scope of Art.21- meaning and
scope:
The scope of Art.21 was bit
narrow till 50s. The meaning of the words “personal liberty” came up for
consideration of the Supreme Court for the first time in A.K. Gopalan v. union of India AIR 1950 SC 27. In this case
the petitioner, A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader was detained under the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The petitioner challenged the validity of the
detention under the Act on the ground that it was violative of his right to
freedom of movement U/Art.19 (1) (d) which is the very essence of personal liberty
is guaranteed by Art.21. But the court held that the ‘personal liberty’
contained in art.21 means nothing more than the liberty of the physical body,
that freedom from arrest and detention without the authority of law.
But this restrictive
interpretation of the expression personal liberty in A.K. Gopalan’s case has
not been followed by the SC in its later decisions. In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. AIR1963 SC1295 the SC held
that the personal liberty is not only limited to bodily restraint or
confinement to prisons only, it is used as compendious term including within
itself all the varieties of rights which going to make up personal liberty of a
man other than those dealt within Art.19 (1).
After Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC597 case the SC
not only overruled Gopalan’s case but has widened the scope of the words ‘personal
liberty’ considerably. Bhagwati, J. observed:
“The expression ‘personal liberty’
in art. 21 is of widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to
constitute personal liberty of man and some of them have risen to the status of
distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under art.19.” Further
held that “The attempt of court should be to expand the reach and ambit of the
fundamental rights rather than to attenuate their meaning and content by a
process of judicial restriction.”
The court lays down great stress
on the procedural safeguard. The procedure must satisfy the requirement of
natural justice, it must be just, fair and reasonable.
In Francis Coralie v. Delhi Administration (AIR1981 SC746),
held that the word personal liberty is of widest amplitude and it includes the ‘right
to socialize’ (by detenu) with members of family and friends subject to
reasonable prison regulations. Detenu’s right to have interview with his lawyer
and family members is part of his personal liberty guaranteed by art 21. Right to
‘live’ is not confined to physical existence but it includes within its ambit
the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely
the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter,
and facilities for reading, writing, and expressing ourselves in diverse forms,
freely moving and mixing with fellow human beings.
The scope of art21 is further
widened in the case of Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India AIR 1984,SC 802 in respect of the bonded labour
and weaker section of the society. The state is under constitutional obligation
to see that there is no violation of fundamental right of any person,
particularly when he belongs to the weaker section of the community and is
unable to wage a legal battle against a strong and powerful opponent, who is
exploiting him. As art.21 assures the right to live with human dignity, free
from exploitation, the central and the state govt. therefore bound to ensure
observance on the various social welfare and labour laws enacted by Parliament
for the purpose of securing to the workman a life basic human dignity in
compliance with the Directive Principles of State Policy.
It was observed in the case of Unni Krishnan that Art.21 is the
heart of the fundamental rights and it has extended the scope of this Art. by
observing that the right to life includes the right to education too. (By the 86th constitutional
amendment act 2002, right to education has been inserted under Art.21-A of the
constitution).
The Apex Court in the case of S.S. Ahuwalia v. Union of India and
others it was held that in the expanded meaning attributed to Art.21 of the
constitution, it is the duty of the state to create a climate where member of
the society belonging to the different faith, caste and creed live together and
therefore the state has a duty to protect their life, liberty, dignity and
worth of individual which should not be jeopardized.
Further in the case of Subhas Kumar vs. State of Bihar the apex court held that Public Interest
Litigation is maintainable for ensuring enjoyment of pollution free water and
air which is included in the ‘right to live’ under Art. 21.
Right to privacy as a part of Art.21 : In R.
Rajagopal v. State of T.N. (1994) popularly known as “Auto Shankar case”
the supreme court has expressly held the “right to privacy”, or the right to be
let alone is guaranteed by Art.21 of the Constitution.
In Surjit Singh Thind vs Kanwaljit Kaur, the Punjab and Haryana
HC has held that allowing medical examination of a woman for her virginity amounts
to violation of her right to privacy and personal liberty enshrined under Art.21.
Conclusion: To sum up the above discussion it is clear
that the provision of Art.21 was constructed narrowly at the inception but the
law in respect of life and personal liberty of a person was developed
gradually. New dimension have been added to Art.21 from time to time. The interpretation
which has been given to the word life and personal liberty in various decisions
of the apex court, it can be said that the protection of life and personal liberty
has got multidimensional meaning and any arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful act
of the state which deprived life or personal liberty of a person would be against
that provision of Art.21 of the constitution.
Rule of Absolute liability and strict liability
Is generally known as THE RULE OF RYLANDS V. FLETCHER or Rule of strictl Liability. Because of various exception to the applicability of this rule ,it would be preferable to call it the rule of strict liability.
Basis of the liability in the above case was the following rule propounded by the Blackburn,J.:
" We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes bring on his lands and collects and keeps there anything legally to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie and answerable for all the damages which his the natural consequences of it escapes".
(A) escape from one land to another
(B) non-natural use of land
(A) default of the plaintiff;
(B) act of God ;
(C) consent of the plaintiff;
(D)act of stranger ;
(E) statutory authority
If anyone of above stated exceptions or defence is in application in any kind of mishap or dange than the defendant will not be liable to pay the damages to the plaintiff.
If an industry or enterprise is engaged in some inherently dangerous activity from which it is deriving commercial gain and that activity is capable of causing catastrophic damage than the industry officials are absolutely liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved parties. The industry can't pead that all safety measures were taken care of by them and that there was no negligence on their parts. They will not be allowed any exception neither can they taken up any defend like that of 'act of stranger' or 'act of God'.
The following doctrine of Absolute liability that prevents the defendants from laking of any defence against payment of damages__
(1)If an industry or enterprise is involved in any inherently dangerous activity, than for any damage arising out of the conduction of the activity, the defendants will have no access to any defence or exception and will be absolutely liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff.
(2) The enterprise will be held responsible for all possible damage on consequences resulting from the activity. This will make such industries to provide safety equipments to its workers to prevent any mishap. Therefore, this will safeguard to the intrest of the worker and will give them a refined, safe working atmosphere.
(3) The element of escape which is an essential in strict liability and it may be ignored here as this restricts the application of this doctrine of Absolute liability as after incident may arise where escape of the dangerous thing like poisonous fumes may not take place outside in industry premises but may damage the workers inside. In this case, the worker's right to compensation will not be ignored. Therefore, the extent of this principle is to be applied in a wider context ruling out the elements of escape.
(4) In case where strict liability applies, compensation paid is according to the nature and quantum of damage caused but in cases of Absolute liability, compensation on damage to be paid is exemplary in nature. The amount decided upon should be more than the damage caused as industrial hazardous accidents generally caused mass death and destructin of property and environment.
Privity of contract (stranger to a contract can't sue) under Indian Contact Act 1872
The rule that a stranger to a contract can't sue but in India, a person who is stranger to a consideratin can sue, because according to Indian law, consideration may be given either by Promisee or by a third party ,so, that doesn't affect the rule of privity of conrtact.
Thus it is clear that a third person can't take an action into a contract, however there are some exceptions under this rule where a stranger to a contract can sue. So those exceptions are as follows-
(i) Trust or Charge: A well recognized exception to this rule is that that a trust or Charge created in some property in favour of third person.
In Narayani Devi v. Tagore Commercial Corp. Ltd. A had various share of the value of ₹40500. It was agreed that A would sell his shares in favour of B and in return B would pay to A ₹500 per month and after his death would pay ₹250 per month to A's widow during her life if she survived after her husband. C stood a surety for B. Some payments were made by C to A and after his death to A's widow. Thereafter the payments were stopped. A's widow brought an action against B and C to recover the amount. One of the defence pleaded was that since the plaintiff was not a party to the said agreement which was entered into by her husband and the defendants, she was not legally entitled to sue in respect of the agreement. Rejecting the contention of the defendants, the Calcutta H.C. held that from the facts and the circumstances of the case, an obligation in the nature of trust could be inferred in favour of the plaintiff and an equity having been created in her favour , accordingly she was entitled to sue even when she was not party to the contract. A decree was passed in her favour for the arrears of the amount due.
In the same aforesaid case i.e., Narayani Devi, when there was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendants but the defendants in their agreement with the plaintiff's husband had agreed to pay a certain amount to the plaintiff's husband during his lifetime and thereafter to the plaintiff, the question of the right of the plaintiff to sue the defendants had made arisen. It was established that the defendants hd made certain payments to the plaintiff and after her husband's death, in pursuance of the agreement and had thereafter asked for the extension of the time to pay. Apart from that it was found that the defendants, by their admission had earlier called upon the plaintiff to execute certain documents in this connection,which imples that they considered the plaintiff by their conduct to certain rights. It was therefore held that the defendants had created such privity with the plaintiff by their conduct and by acknowledgement and by admission that the plaintiff was entitled to her action even though there was no privity to contract but the plaintiff and the two defendants, when the said contract was entered into.
Scope,procedure,and limitation of the Article 368 of the Constitution of india, whether the basic structure of the Constitution can be amended.
In any event, we couldn't make this constitution so rigid that is can't be adopted to changing conditions. When the word is in a period of transition what we may do today may not be wholly applicable tomorrow."
Thereby the Constitution makers has adopted the middle course to balance between rigidity and flexibility in respect of the amendment of the Constitution. Some of its provisions may be amended by parliament by a simple majority while some of its provisions can be amended only by special majority and ratification of at least 1/2 of the state legislature.
Modes of the amendment of the Constitution:
The provisions of the Constitution of India may, be amended in the following manner:-
(a) By simple majority:-Some articles e.g., Art. 5, 239-A, 312etc. May be amended by parliament by simple majority as like ordinary law. They can, thus, be amended by parliament by ordinary legislative process There are excluded from the preview of the procedure laid down by Art.368.
(b) By special majority:- Articles that can be amended by special majority and laid down in Art.368. All constitutional amendments, other than those referred to above,come within this category and must be effected by a majority of the total membership of each house of Parliament as well as by a majority of not less then 2/3 of the members of that house present and voting.
(C) By special majority and ratification by states:- The following provisions can be amended only when the bill for that purpose is passed in each house of Parliament by a majority of the total membership to that house and by a majority of not less than two third of the members that house present and voting and is ratified by the legislatures of not less than one half of the states by resolution before the Bill is presented to the President for assent:-
1. Election of the President - Art. 54,55
2. Extent of the executive power of the union - Art. 73
3. Extent of the executive power of the state- Art.162
4. High court for union territories-Art.241
5. Distribution of powers between union and states - Art. 245-255
6. Any of the list in the 7th schedule.
7. Article 368 itself.
In the case of Keshwanand Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973) the Supreme Court has made it clear that parliament can amend any provisions of the Constitution but it can't alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
Procedure for amendment: The bill to amened the Constitution may be introduced in either house of Parliament. It must be passed by each house by a majority of total membership to that house and by a majority of not less than 2/3 of the members of that house present and voting. When a bill is passed by both houses it shall be presented to the President for his assent who shall give assent to bill and there upon the Constitution shall stand amended. But a bill which seek to amend the provisions mentioned in Art.368 requiere in addition to the special majority mentioned above the ratification by the 1/2 of the states.
Art.368, however doesn't constitute the complete code. The process of amending the Constitution is the legislative process governed by the rule of that process. Thus, it is clear that most of the provisions of the Constitution can be amended by an ordinary legislative process. Only a few provisions which delt with the federal principle require a special majority plus ratification by the states.
Amendment of Fundamental Rights :- The questions whether Fundamental Rights can be amended under Art. 368 came for consideration of the Supreme Court in SANKARI PRASHAD V. UNION OF INDIA, in this case the validity of the Constitution (1st amendment) Act,1951, which inserted inter alia, Articles 31-A and 31-B of the Constitution was challenged. The amendment was challenged on the ground that it purported to take away the rights conferred by Part III which fall within the prohibition of Art.13(2) and hence,was void. It was argued that the "state" in Art. 12 included parliament and the word "law" in Art.13(2), therefore, must include constitution amendment. The Supreme Court, however, rejected the above argument and held that the power to amend the Constitution including the fundamental rights is certain in Art.368, and that the word "Law" in Art.13(2) includes only an ordinary law, made in exercise of the legislative power and doesn't include Constitutional amendment wich is made in exercise of constitutional power. Therefore, a constitutional amendment will be valid even if it violates or takes any of the fundamental rights.
In Sajjan singh vs. State of Rajasthan, the validity of the Constitution (17th amendment) Act, 1964 was challenged. The Supreme Court approved the majority judgement given in SANKARI PRASHAD's case and held that the word "Amendment of the Constitution" means amendment of all the provisions of the Constitution. Justice Gajendra Gadkar said that if the Constitution makers intended to exclude the fundamental rights from the scope of the amending power they would have made a clear provision in behalf.
In the case of Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that the word "law" in Art.13(2) includes the constitutional law also and therefore a constitutional amendment can't take away or violates any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part-III of the Constitution. The validity of the Constitution (7th amendment) Act,1964, which inserted certain state Acts in 9th schedule was agian challenged. The Supreme Court by majority of 6:5 prospectively overruled its earlier decision in SANKARI PRASHAD and Sajjan Singh cases and held that Parliament had no power from the date of this decision to amend Part-III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights.
In Waman Rao vs. Union of India the Supreme Court held that all amendment to the Constitution which were made before April 24,1973 ( i.e.,the date on which the judgement of Keshwanand Bharti was delivered) including those by which the 9th schedule to the Constitution was amended from time to time were valid and constitutional but amendment to the Constitution made on or after that date by which the 9th schedule was amendment were left open to challenge on the ground that they were beyond the Constitution power of Parliament because that damage the basic structure of the Constitution.
In M. Nagraj vs. Union of India AIR 2007 S.C 71. The court has held that the basic structure are systematic principle underlying and connecting provisions of the Constitution. They give coherence and durability to the Constitution. This principles are part of the Constitutional law even if not expressly stated. The theory of basic structure is basic on the principle that a change in a thing doesn't involved its destruction of a thing is a matter of substance and not of form.
In M. Nagraj vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court had made it clear that the theory of basic structure is the only theory to judge the validity of the Constitutional amendments.
In I.R. Celho vs. State of Tamilnadu AIR2007 the court has made it clear that use of the expression constituent power shouldn't be taken ti mean that Parliament is original constituent assembly limitation of the basic structure theory will continue to apply. The power to amend the Constitution can't be equated with the power to frame the Constitution.
In Kuldeep Nayyar vs. Union of India, AIR 2006 S.C 312, the doctrine of basic structure applies to the Constitutional amendments under Art.368 and therefore, the Constitutional amendments can be challenged on the ground of violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Conclusion: From the above discussion at the conclusion we can say that Art.368 of the Constitution of India give powers to the Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure, but it can't destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. It may be said that the final word on the issue of the basic structure of the Constitution has not been pronounced by the Supreme Court a scenario that is unlikely to challange in near future. While the idea that there is such a thing as a basic structure to the Constitution is well established its contents can't be completely determined with an measure of finally until a judgement of the Supreme Court spells it out.
-
Introdu ction :- According to sec.182 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 " an agent is a person employed to do any act for another or t... -
L egal history and historical Jurisprudence both the term look similar but there are some distinction between them they are as follows... ...
-
Intro duction :- Every person, who is aware of the commission of an offence or of the intention of any other person to commit an offence,...
Gk. History of Assam 2
Thank you for clicking on it Here is the link of the pdf Click here Gk. History of assam 2 All the best for the exam.
