b. Procedural grounds are where the way in which a law is enforced is unconstitutional.
#Thread on farm Act and all its controversies.
Let us start with the controversies-
Is this act unconstitutional as it is being preached by many political parties?
There are two ways in which a law can be declared unconstitutional: substantive and procedural.
b. Procedural grounds are where the way in which a law is enforced is unconstitutional.
I. If this act against the Federalism structure of India.
Federalism in India refers to relations between the Centre and the States of the Union of India.
I can bet that supreme court will not even waste a second to deny the challenge based on this point.
Before discussing this, lets know something about ordinance. Legally, an ordinance is the equivalent of an Act; but is not passed by the legislature initially. It is a temporary law till its expiry or till it is repealed or
Farm ordinance was introduced on 5th june 2020 and first session of parliament was held b/w 14-sept to 1st oct.
For individual voting, all member requires to sit at their allotted seats which was not possible due to covid 19 situation and social distancing was mandatory.
Can the process of passing bill, decided by the speaker be challenged in any court?
Hence, one can question on the morality of the procedure but, there is nothing wrong with this act legally.
Loksabha has 543 members and rajyasabha has rajyasabha 242 members. Total members are 785.
However, congress is now talking to use Article 254/2 to override the act, which states-
Modi govt. had promised to double the wedges of farmers till 2022 and for that major reforms are required.
If we see the acts, they are actually a very major reforms in the agriculture sector.
What is the guarantee of the success of farm Act?
Well, Bihar did such reforms in 2006 and according to an article of "the print" itself-
link of full article-
https://t.co/TGwKdg9Zr7
More from हठयोगी
More from India
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
