In the context of the legislative process in India, a Bill becomes an Act when it receives a specific approval. The options provided outline various stages and approvals that can occur in the legislative process. Here’s a breakdown:
1. Both the houses of the Parliament pass with simple majority: This stage involves both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha passing the Bill with a simple majority. However, this alone does not make a Bill an Act.
2. Both the houses of the Parliament pass with absolute majority: Passing a Bill with an absolute majority indicates broader support but still does not result in the Bill becoming an Act.
3. When the Prime Minister of India gives his approval: The Prime Minister's approval is influential but not a constitutional requirement for a Bill to become an Act.
4. When the President of India gives the Assent: The Constitution of India mandates that for a Bill to become an Act, it must receive the assent of the President. This is the final step in the legislative process, making option 4 the correct one.
Conclusion: In India, a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament becomes an Act only after receiving the President's assent.
Based on the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, any form of malpractice, including indirectly assisting a candidate through hints on questions, is punishable. The pertinent details from the Act specify:
Therefore, the correct implication for the service provider in this scenario is that they would be liable to be punished with imposition of a fine up to 1 crore and the entire cost of conduct of the examination.
To determine who among the options is not a service provider in the context of a public examination, we need to evaluate the role each option plays in the examination process as per the legal context provided.
Based on the roles described, the "Coaching Centre which prepares students for passing in the public examination" does not qualify as a service provider in the context of the public examination, as it offers preparatory support rather than operational services essential to the examination process.
From a very early age, I knew that when I grew up, I should be a writer. I had the lonely child's habit of making up stories and holding conversations with imaginary persons, and I think from the very start my literary ambitions were mixed up with the feeling of being isolated and undervalued. I knew that I had a facility with words and a power of facing unpleasant facts, and I felt that this created a sort of private world in which I could get my own back for my failure in everyday life. I wanted to write enormous naturalistic novels with unhappy endings, full of detailed descriptions and arresting similes, and also full of purple passages in which words were used partly for the sake of their sound. I give all this background information because I do not think one can assess a writer's motives without knowing something of his early development.
His subject-matter will be determined by the age he lives in — at least this is true in tumultuous, revolutionary ages like our own — but before he ever begins to write he will have acquired an emotional attitude from which he will never completely escape. It is his job to discipline his temperament, but if he escapes from his early influences altogether, he will have killed his impulse to write. I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They are: (i) Sheer egoism: Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood; (ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm: Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed (iii) Historical impulse: Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity (iv) Political purpose: Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people's idea of the kind of society that they should strive after.
[Extracted with edits from George Orwell's "Why I Write"]