Polity doubts - UPSC 2015

Chomuphilosopher

@adi17
Actually, i have been seeing this since my childhood. Media never presented the real picture of the society. I thought growing that this is the news and happenings, i never took FM more than a source of entertainment, was this my mistake that they decided for me what sells and what not? I mean there are many young people who grow seeing this face of media and this has a long term impact on their minds, influencing their liking flavours. I haven't see media channels (many of them) presenting or covering the story of an instance of paid news, why? because this impacts their image. Anyway, we know what is going on at least. Thank you for clearing my doubts.

jhonnytorrio

Have another doubt..The Supreme Court in U.P Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar case has held that the state must demonstrate backwardness, inadequacy of representation and maintenance of efficiency before providing reservation in promotions. Earlier, in 1992 it had termed such move as unconstitutional.(according to insights)...but as far as I know, this judgement struck down reservations..(if I am not wrong)

Etat

Even law commission recently recommended that Section 309 is a " stumbling block in prevention of suicides and improving the access of medical care to those who have attempted suicide ". How 309 has been removed then ? @ArindamSarkar @anshulforever

Hijacked the discussion from the interview thread. .

Yeah! So what was the exact question?

This is from the Speculation thread -

@ArindamSarkar yaar leave it......main itni der se yahi keh raha hoon.....there is no positive obligation on state to punish for attemt to suicide.....so if they remove it,you can't judicially review it....

Mai bhi to wahi keh raha hoon. )

That obligation would have been there if there was some constitutional 'locha.' There isn't any. That is why repealing it hasn't ticked off the judiciary.

Etat

@ArindamSarkar

Dada, it started with this " do you think right to die is a fundamental right in context of euthanasia? "

I think we have reached a sort of consensus here - http://forumias.com/discussion/comment/257796#Comment_257796

rogerthat

@ArindamSarkar Mai bhi to wahi keh raha hoon. )

That obligation would have been there if there was some constitutional 'locha.' There isn't any. That is why repealing it hasn't ticked off the judiciary.....sir can u elaborate what are u trying to say......i think u r trying to say something else...

Etat

@ArindamSarkar

Quoting you from that discussion ,

" In 1994, the Supreme Court in P Rathinam’s case, subscribing to the above view, struck down Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalising attempt to suicide as unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

Allow me to add further : -

That, however, was set aside by a constitutional bench in 1996, Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab. It ruled that Article 21 cannot be construed to include within it the ‘right to die’ as a part of the fundamental right guaranteed therein, and therefore, it cannot be said that section 309 is violative of Article 21.Thus Section 309 was reinstated in the statute and the ball was thrown back in the hands of the political executive.

Cool . Thank you

Exactly. This matter has been going back and forth in the SC itself. It's still pretty debatable. There is no guarantee that a higher bench would not turn it over again.

Etat

@ArindamSarkar Mai bhi to wahi keh raha hoon. )

That obligation would have been there if there was some constitutional 'locha.' There isn't any. That is why repealing it hasn't ticked off the judiciary.....sir can u elaborate what are u trying to say......i think u r trying to say something else...

I have posted the reply here - http://forumias.com/discussion/comment/257796#Comment_257796

Quoting -

"If there was some constitutional 'locha.' = if it were unconstitutional to do so.

My error - I was giving out the impression that 309 IPC was unconstitutional to begin with and it's removal was constitutional. That came from the import of the original question, "Do you think right to die is a fundamental right in context of euthanasia?"

I believe that it was in a constitutional grey area. Not was not unconstitutional."

rogerthat

it means that there would have positive obligation on state to punish if it were unconstitutional to do so???????????? kya matlab hua??????? isliye bas ek example se clear kar do apni baat .............@arindamsarkar

Etat

it means that there would have positive obligation on state to punish if it were unconstitutional to do so???????????? kya matlab hua??????? isliye bas ek example se clear kar do apni baat .............@arindamsarkar

NO NO!

It means that there would have positive obligation on state to punish suicides if suicides were deemed unconstitutional.

Now, "if suicides were deemed unconstitutional" means - if there was a fixed constitutional prohibition against the practice (as is there for the practice of untouchability). There isn't any.

rogerthat

it means that there would have positive obligation on state to punish if it were unconstitutional to do so???????????? kya matlab hua??????? isliye bas ek example se clear kar do apni baat .............@arindamsarkar

NO NO!

It means that there would have positive obligation on state to punish suicides if suicides were deemed unconstitutional.

Now, "if suicides were deemed unconstitutional" means - if there was a fixed constitutional prohibition against the practice (as is there for the practice of untouchability). There isn't any.

no, no obligation on state to punish even if suicide is not included in right to life.......yehi saare confusion ka base tha matlab ab tak....@arindamsarkar