Loading...
Please wait while we prepare your content
Please wait while we prepare your content
Solutions for History & Civics, Class 10, ICSE
29th March 2023, The Hindu reported:
Opposition MPs, in this case, largely the Congress legislature party, are mooting an idea of a resolution against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla for being “unfair” to the opposition.
What is the consequence when the Lok Sabha moves a resolution against the Speaker? In the above case, do you think the resolution would have led to such a consequence? Why?
If the resolution is passed with majority in the Lok Sabha, the Speaker will have to vacate the office.
In the above case, the resolution would not have passed as the Opposition (Congress) lacked majority.
14th December 2023, The Hindustan Times reported:
Parliament session highlights: Total 13 opposition MPs suspended, SR Parthiban’s suspension revoked.
Who can suspend the members from the Lok Sabha? Mention any one probable circumstance under which he/she can suspend the members.
The Speaker of the Lok Sabha can suspend the members from the Lok Sabha. One probable circumstance for suspension is lack of discipline.
No, the Centre cannot remove High Court judges. They can be removed only by the President through impeachment on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, with a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament. This ensures judicial independence.
Significant Outcomes of the Lucknow Pact 1916 —
Read the excerpt given below and answer the question that follows:
News outlets played a big role in instigating the dispute around the bill, sparking outrage in Britain and India, as the political press "to influence government legislation for India" for the first time. The Gazette, the Times, and other newspapers continued to release statements condemning the bill and criticising the desire to "please the native community at any cost". The widespread news reports invoked more opposition from those in Britain regarding the need to bring in judicial equality.
Source: Wikipedia
Which Bill is being referred to in the above passage? What was its implication on the Indian judicial system?
Ilbert Bill (1883) is being referred to in the above passage. This bill provided for the trial of British or European persons by Indians. By this act, the British tried to introduce equality between British and Indian judges in India.
He led a movement in India that called for the creation of a new social order in which no one would be subordinated to the upper-caste Brahmans. He also fought for women's rights, believing that education was essential to bringing about social change.
Identify the social reformer from the given passage. Name the organisation he established in 1873 with the aim of securing social justice for the weaker sections of society.
The social reformer being talked about is Jyotiba Phule. He established the Satya Shodhak Samaj in 1873 with the aim of securing social justice for the weaker sections of society.
(a) The event associated with the above-mentioned slogan is Simon Commission.
(b) Indian leaders boycotted the Commission because it had no Indian members, which was seen as a denial of self-determination and an insult to the self-respect of the Indians. Major political parties, including the Congress, Muslim League, and Hindu Mahasabha, opposed it.
Two reasons for the acceptance of the Mountbatten Plan were:
"It is our duty to pay for our liberty with our own blood. The Freedom that we shall win through our sacrifice and Exertions, we shall be able to preserve with our own strength."
With reference to the above quote, put forth the slogans given by the great Indian freedom fighter Subhash Chandra Bose.
Some of the slogans given by Subhash Chandra Bose were:
Two functions of UNICEF are:
The big three are:
They led the formation of United Nations Organisation (U.N.O.) on October 24, 1945.
The dictators depicted in the given picture are Benito Mussolini of Italy and Adolf Hitler of Germany. They promoted the ideologies of Fascism and Nazism respectively.
Similarities between the ideologies of Fascism and Nazism —
Read the conversation given below and answer the following questions:
Priscila: The Prime Minister is like a king, he decides everything in our country.
Kiran: Lord Morely described the Prime Minister as ‘primus inter pares’ (first among equals) and ‘keystone of the cabinet arch’. He is the chief executive of the nation and works as head of the Union Government.
Balvinder: The Prime Minister has to consider the expectations of the party members and other support of the government. But after all, the Prime Minister has a greater say in policy-making and in choosing the ministers.
Source(Edited): https://dspmuranchi.ac.in/pdf/Blog/pm.pdf
In light of the above conversation, answer the following.
Do you agree with Priscila's or Kiran's statement? Justify your answer with reference to the position of the Prime minister in our country.
I agree with Kiran's statement.
While Priscila compares the Prime Minister to a king, this is not accurate in a democratic parliamentary system like India’s. The Prime Minister is not an absolute ruler, but functions within the framework of the Constitution and the collective responsibility of the Cabinet.
As Lord Morley rightly described, the Prime Minister is the ‘primus inter pares’ (first among equals) among the Council of Ministers. He or she is the head of the Union Government, leads the Cabinet, coordinates the work of various ministries, and plays a key role in policymaking. However, all decisions are made collectively by the Cabinet, and the Prime Minister must maintain the confidence of the Lok Sabha.
Thus, the Prime Minister of India has a leading role but cannot act unilaterally like a king.
The Madras High Court has accepted a request made on behalf of a Minister’s wife, for an urgent hearing of a Habeas Corpus petition filed by her accusing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) of not having followed due procedure while arresting her husband early on Wednesday. **Reference: https://www.thehindu.com |
In the situation given above, what does the 'Habeas Corpus' mean? Which bodies in our Country are authorised to issue such orders?
'Habeas Corpus' means 'to have the body', i.e., the arrested minister would be presented before the Madras High Court by the Enforcement Directorate. The High Court will justify the legality of the arrest and detention. If the Court finds that the due procedure was not followed, or that the detention is illegal, the detained minister would be immediately released.
The Supreme Court and High Courts are authorised to issue 'Habeas Corpus'.
The picture highlights the problem of delayed justice due to immense workload of the Courts. This problem can be addressed through Subordinate Courts, especially Lok Adalats. Lok Adalats offer speedy justice and cost-effective dispute resolution. They handle a large volume of civil and criminal cases and reduce workload on higher courts.