RAJAT SIR

Consider the following statements:

1. Anti-defection law or the 10th Schedule of the constitution was added by the 54th amendment act,1985.
2. Law allows political parties to merge with or into another party provided at least 2/3rd of its legislators in favour.
3. President of India has absolute power in deciding anti-defection cases.
4. The final decision of the anti-defection cases is not subjected to Judicial review.

Once it appears to the judge that he cannot deliver justice in an impartial manner, ethically he is expected to recuse.

ORIGIN:-This trend of recusal of judges started from a case in 1852 where Lord Cottenham recused himself from the case of Dimes V Grand Junction Canal, because he possessed some of the shares in the company involved in the case.

Principle behind Recusal:-Not only must Justice be done, it must also be seen to be done.( Ashok Kumar  Yadav Vs state of Haryana)

Procedure for Recusal:

👉Automatic Recusal:  This may occur when a judge recognizes a conflict of interest or perceives the possibility of bias. It is a voluntary decision made by the judge, and no party can compel them to withdraw from the case.

👉Recusal based on Plea: The other type of recusal occurs when a party raises a plea for recusal, highlighting the potential bias or personal interest of the judge in the case. However, it is the judge who will decide whether to recuse or not.

J and K Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination 2024 Extension of date for filling up of online Application Forms thereof. 11_11_2024.pdf

Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination 2024 Postponement of examination reg. 10_11_2024.pdf

JKAS AGE RELAXATION

Happy diwali to everyone❤️

Conduct of Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination 2024 21_10_2024.pdf

IR FULL NOTES 2024 BY RAJAT SIR.pdf

Background: Government brought IT Rules to regulate Intermediaries who publishes content on social media platforms.Matter was petitioned in the court in Kunal Kamra case that Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Rules of 2021 as being ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, and also being in violation of the principles of natural justice.

What is this rule?
Ans: Under rule 3(1)(b)(v) once the information is flagged, the intermediary on whose platform such information is present is required to remove such information so as to retain the “safe harbour”     protection accorded by section 79(1) of the IT Act. Safe harbour protection means the intermediaries will not be responsible for content by the host and no legal action will be taken against them. But after this rule, intermediaries are being made responsible for the content and they may loose this protection.

Actually, The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, designated the FCU as a statutory body under the Press Information Bureau (PIB) as per the amendment made to Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 in 2023.
FCU has been tasked with flagging content deemed to be false information related to the central government and its agencies on social media platforms. So If the fact-checking unit identifies any information as false, online intermediaries will be obligated to remove it. Failing to do so could result in the loss of their safe harbour protection, which shields them from legal action regarding third-party content.

Court's verdict:

1. The amended Rule attempts to identify “information” in respect of any business of the Central Government as fake or false OR VAGUE, BUT THESE WORDS ARE SUBJECTIVE.

2. Absence of any guidelines under the Rules of 2021 as amended to indicate the scope and applicability of the expression “fake or false or misleading” is worrisome.

3. The test of proportionality as laid down in Anuradha Bhasin case is not satisfied by the Rule.

4.  The court said that in Shreya Singhal, the Court expressly linked Section 69A with the grounds provided under Article 19(2). The blocking orders were mandated to be recorded in writing and were made available under Article 226. However, no such safeguards exist in this amended rule.

6.  A delegated legislation (IT Rules 2021) if found to be ultra vires of the parent act (IT Act 2000) cannot be given effect. Delegation is only of ancillary or subordinating legislative functions and if a rule supplants any provision (Section 79) for which power has not been conferred, it is invalid.

Context: Split in NCP and party symbol is with Ajeet Pawar as directed by ECI on the basis of Legislative majority test (Testing the majority only among elected MPs and MLAs.)as per Election Symbols(Reservation and Allotment) Order was enacted in 1968.

Sharad Pawar is in SC against the ECI and court said:

1.  By applying the 'legislative majority' test, the ECI validates a defection by way of a 'split' which no longer exists as a defence under the 10th Schedule.

2. CJI in Shiv sena case orally observed that the Speaker's reliance on the test of legislative majority was contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment in Subhash Desai(2023).

3. 'Legislative majority' was not an appropriate test to determine the real party when two rival factions have emerged after a split.

4. Court suggested for organisational test (Majority of party delegates/office bearers, MPs and MLAs ) rather than legislative majority test.

EXTRA INFORMATION

EC analysed three tests in Shiv Sena split mentioned in the Sadiq Ali case:

1. Test of Aims and Objects of the Party Constitution
2. Test of Party Constitution
3. Test of Majority

👉EC held that the Test of Party Constitution for determining the present dispute case will be undemocratic, because party constitution was changed in 2018 which made party control centralised.

👉 The details of organisational structure was not mentioned by any of the faction, therefore second test does not make any sense.

👉 The third  test showed qualitative superiority to the Shinde faction which has support of 40 out of 55 Sena MLAs and 13 out of 18 Sena MPs

When you have indomitable will anything is achievable 😊

GS2 Marks

✅Polity and Constitution : 125
✅Governance Social Justice: 75
✅International Relations: 50

✅Polity and Constitution : 
5 Questions (10 marks), 5 questions (15 marks)
✅Governance social justice:
3 Questions (10 marks) ,  3 Questions (15 marks)
✅International Relations: 2 questions(10 marks), 2 Questions (15marks)

Those who attended my polity, Governance and recent international relations classes.. They can easily attempt this paper .. (UPSC MAINS 2024 GS 2)