List of practice Questions

It depends on who is giving the rating: Centre on India's rank in press freedom index
KRISHNADAS RAJAGOPAL, NEW DELHI
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, made light of India's fall to 161st position in press freedom ranking, saying "that depends on who is giving the rating. I can have my own forum and give India the first rating".
The remake was in response to the Supreme Court's observation that India has fallen to the 161st position out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index published by the non-profit organization, reporters Without Borders. In 2022, India was ranked at 150.
India is ranked behind countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. "India is 161 in ranking in journalistic freedom," Justice K.M. Joseph, addressed the Union and Gujarat government, represented by Mr. Mehta during a hearing in the Billkis Bano case.
HEARING ON JULY 10
Change between Justice Joseph and Mr. Meht came while the Supreme Court ordered the publication of a notice giving the details of the case and the next date of court hearing, July 10, in two vernacular papers in Gujarat to alert those unserved among the 11 convicts who were released prematurely from their life imprisonment. They had been found guilty of the gang rape of Ms. Bano and the murder of her family members. Ms. Banop and other writ petitioners have separately challenged their remission. 
The hearing, at one point, saw the Supreme Court wonder whether some of the released convicts were making a "mockery" of or even "playing" with the court by either going incognito to hamper the serving of notice of the case on them or seeking time to file counter affidavits. Previous hearings have been a no go with lawyers for the men seeking adjournment on procedural grounds. 
The court decided to publish the notice in the newspapers so that the convicts would not take the plea of ignorance and the case could go ahead and be heard on merits.
The SC said, "Postings within the state cadre as well as joint cadre of a constituent state shall be made by the government of that state', that is, by the duly elected government. In our case, it shall be the government of NCTD. We, accordingly, hold that references to 'state government in relevant rules of All India Services or joint cadre services, of which NCTD is a part or which are in relation to NCTD, shall mean the government of NCTD."
CJI Chandrachud said this case dealt with the asymmetric federal model of governance in India involving the contest of power between a Union Territory and the Union government. The issue was who would have control over 'services in NCTD a government of the NCTD or the LG acting on behalf of the Union government a question which arose subsequent to a May 21, 2015, notification by the Union ministry of home affairs that gave the upper hand to the centre on 'services' in relation to the government of NCTD.
While ruling that Delhi government had legislative and executive power over services except on land, police and public order, the bench, importantly, said GNCTD being one of its kind (sui generis") Union Territory, parliament would have overriding legislative power over all subjects in list 2 (which are exclusive domains of state legislatures) and Last 3 (Concurrent List subjects on which both parliament and assemblies can legislate with primacy given to parliament enacted laws). This means, if the Delhi assembly enacts any law on any subject, parliament can pass a law "adding, amending and repealing" the legislation passed by the Delhi assembly.
Dwelling on federalism and responsibilities of an elected government, the CJI said, "In a democratic form of government, the real power of administration must reside in the elected arm of the state, subject to the confines of the constitution. A constitutionally entrenched and democratically elected government needs to have control over its administration. If a democratically elected government is not provided with the power to control the officers posted within its domain, then the principle underlying the triple chain of collective responsibility would become redundant." It explained the triple chains as civil service officers being accountable to ministers, ministers being accountable to parliament/legislature and parliament/legislature being accountable to the electorate.
"That is to say, if the government is not able to control and hold to account the officers posted in its service, then its responsibility towards the legislature as well as the public is diluted. The principle of collective responsibility extends to the responsibility of officers, who in turn report to the ministers." the SC said.
Taking into account the AAP government's allegation that bureaucrats were not listening to ministers in the elected government because of the centre's interference, the five- judge bench said, "If the officers stop reporting to the ministers or do not abide by their directions, the entire principle of collective responsibility is affected.
"A democratically elected government can perform only when there is an awareness on the the part of officers of the consequences which may ensue if they do not perform. If the officers feel that they are insulated from the control of the elected government which they are serving, then they become unaccountable or may not show commitment towards their performance."
Explaining the risks of an unaccountable bureaucracy in a democratic form of governance where accountability is well defined under the triple chain of command, the bench said, "An unaccountable and non-responsive civil service may pose a serious problem of governance in a democracy. It creates a possibility that the permanent executive, consisting of unelected civil service officers, who play a decisive role in implementation of government policy, may act in ways that disregard the will of the electorate."