Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
The highest law officer in India is the
पर्याय
Attorney General
Advocate General
Solicitor General
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India
उत्तर
Attorney General
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rules A: The State shall not discriminate, either directly or indirectly, on the grounds of sex, race, religion, caste, creed, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, pregnancy, place of birth, gender orientation or any other status.
Rule B: Direct discrimination occurs when for a reason related to one or more prohibited grounds a person or group of persons is treated less favourably than another person or another group of persons in a comparable situation.
Rule C: Indirect discrimination occurs when a provision, criterion or practice which is neutral on the face of it would have the effect of putting persons having a status or a characteristic associated with one or more prohibited grounds at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons.
Rule D: Discrimination shall be justified when such discrimination is absolutely necessary in order to promote the well-being of disadvantaged groups, such as women, dalits, religious minorities, sexual minorities or disabled persons.
Facts: On 2"° October 2010, the Governor of the state of Bihar ordered the release of all women prisoners who were serving a sentence of less than one-year imprisonment to mark the occasion of Mahatma Gandhi's birthday. Assume that the Governor also made a second order requiring the release of all persons under the age of 25 and over the age of 65 who were serving a sentence of less than one year's imprisonment. Under the Rules, this order is:
Dyarchy as the form of Government at the provincial level was introduced by the
In the event of non-enforcement of Directive Principles of the State by the Government, a citizen of India can move the
The purpose of the Ilbert Bill was
A member elected to Lok Sabha as a candidate of a party crosses the floor of the House. In such a case,
Mark the best option:
Principle:
- Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally bound as such public servant not to engage in trade, engages in trade, shall be punished.
- Any officer serving in the Indian Forest Service (IFS) is barred from trading in timber.
Facts: Surya, an IFS officer was appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forests of the district of MP. After serving for a few years she came to know that his father owned a plot of land dotted with a good number of trees adjoining the highway and adjacent to an industrial complex in the same district. Surya wanted to sell this plot of land so he got the trees on the plot cut and decided to sell the timber thus obtained. While he was negotiating the price of timber with few interested parties; the police appeared on the scene and arrested him based on the information given by one of Surya's seniors.
What will be Surya's liability?
India’s Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (‘Bill’) starts encouragingly, seeking to protect “the privacy of individuals relating to their personal data”. But by the end, it is clear it is not designed to deliver on the promise. For, even as it rightly requires handlers of data to abide by globally-accepted rules — about getting an individual’s consent first — it disappointingly gives wide powers to the Government to dilute any of these provisions for its agencies.
Recently, messaging platform WhatsApp said that some Indian journalists and rights activists were among those spied on using technology made by an Israeli company, which by its own admission only works for government agencies across the world.
Importantly, one of the first to raise a red flag about Bill’s problematic clauses was Justice B.N. Srikrishna, whose committee’s report forms the basis of the Bill. He has used words such as “Orwellian” and “Big Brother” in reaction to the removal of safeguards against actions of Government agencies. In its report last July, the committee noted that the dangers to privacy originate from state and non-state actors. It, therefore, called for exemptions to be “watertight”, “narrow”, and available for use in “limited circumstances”. It had also recommended that the Government bring in a law for the oversight of intelligence-gathering activities, the means by which non-consensual processing of data takes place. A related concern about the Bill is regarding the constitution of the Data Protection Authority of India (‘DPA’), which is to monitor and enforce the provisions of the Act. It will be headed by a chairperson and have not more than six whole-time members, all of whom are to be selected by a panel filled with Government nominees. This completely disregards the fact that Government agencies are also regulated under the Bill; they are major collectors and processors of data themselves. The sweeping powers the Bill gives to the Government render meaningless the gains from the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case, which culminated in the recognition that privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty, and therefore a basic right. That idea of privacy is certainly not reflected in the Bill in its current form.
The Bill is amended, and the Government’s powers to provide exemptions for its agencies are removed. In such a situation, according to the author:
Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported.
This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of-pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies.
Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point.
An essential medicine, ‘Formula A’, is used to treat cancer, and there is only one company engaged in its manufacture. If this is true, then, based on the author’s reasoning in the passage above:
The design does not include
Recently, the Supreme Court allowed _______________ euthanasia and right to give advance medical directives, _____________ stating that human beings have the right to die with dignity as part of fundamental right to life.
