The legality of the removal of the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commissioner (SEC) is seriously in doubt. That it was the culmination of an open conflict between the Election Commissioner, N.Ramesh Kumar, and Chief Minister ......(1)......makes it a glaring instance of misuse of power. The State government got the Governor to issue an ordinance to cut the SECandlsquo;s tenure from five to three years, and amend the criterion for holding that office from being an officer of the rank of Principal Secretary and above to one who had served as a High Court judge. This automatically rendered Mr. Kumarandlsquo;s continuance invalid. Last month, just days before the local body polls were to be held, the SEC postponed the elections, citing the COVID-19 outbreak. The State government approached the Supreme Court, but the court declined to interfere. Having exhausted its legal remedy, the government should have waited for the ongoing fight against the disease to be over. The State government seems to have gone by legal opinion that cited Aparmita Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007) in which the Allahabad High Court ruled that cessation of tenure does not amount to removal, and upheld the State Election Commissionerandlsquo;s term being cut short. The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against the order, kept open the legal questions arising from the case. Further, the Constitution, under Article .........(2)......., prohibits the variation of any condition of service to the detriment of any incumbent. Even if the State government argues that a change of tenure does not amount to varying the conditions of service, the new norm can only apply to the successor SEC, and not the one holding the office now.Q.Which Article will replace .....(2)..... in the above paragraph and relates to tenure of State Election Commissioner?a)Article 243 (K)b)Article 280c)Article 143d)Article 343Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > The legality of the removal of the Andhra Pra...

The legality of the removal of the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commissioner (SEC) is seriously in doubt. That it was the culmination of an open conflict between the Election Commissioner, N.
Ramesh Kumar, and Chief Minister ......(1)......makes it a glaring instance of misuse of power. The State government got the Governor to issue an ordinance to cut the SEC‘s tenure from five to three years, and amend the criterion for holding that office from being an officer of the rank of Principal Secretary and above to one who had served as a High Court judge. This automatically rendered Mr. Kumar‘s continuance invalid. Last month, just days before the local body polls were to be held, the SEC postponed the elections, citing the COVID-19 outbreak. The State government approached the Supreme Court, but the court declined to interfere. Having exhausted its legal remedy, the government should have waited for the ongoing fight against the disease to be over. The State government seems to have gone by legal opinion that cited Aparmita Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007) in which the Allahabad High Court ruled that cessation of tenure does not amount to removal, and upheld the State Election Commissioner‘s term being cut short. The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against the order, kept open the legal questions arising from the case. Further, the Constitution, under Article .........(2)......., prohibits the variation of any condition of service to the detriment of any incumbent. Even if the State government argues that a change of tenure does not amount to varying the conditions of service, the new norm can only apply to the successor SEC, and not the one holding the office now.

Q. Which Article will replace .....(2)..... in the above paragraph and relates to tenure of State Election Commissioner?

a)
Article 243 (K)
b)
Article 280
c)
Article 143
d)
Article 343

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

The legality of the removal of the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commi...

A is the correct option.Article 243 (K) provides that Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of a State the conditions of service and tenure of office of the State Election Commissioner shall be such as the Governor may by rule determine.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The legality of the removal of the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commissioner (SEC) is seriously in doubt. That it was the culmination of an open conflict between the Election Commissioner, N.Ramesh Kumar, and Chief Minister ......(1)......makes it a glaring instance of misuse of power. The State government got the Governor to issue an ordinance to cut the SEC‘s tenure from five to three years, and amend the criterion for holding that office from being an officer of the rank of Principal Secretary and above to one who had served as a High Court judge. This automatically rendered Mr. Kumar‘s continuance invalid. Last month, just days before the local body polls were to be held, the SEC postponed the elections, citing the COVID-19 outbreak. The State government approached the Supreme Court, but the court declined to interfere. Having exhausted its legal remedy, the government should have waited for the ongoing fight against the disease to be over. The State government seems to have gone by legal opinion that cited Aparmita Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007) in which the Allahabad High Court ruled that cessation of tenure does not amount to removal, and upheld the State Election Commissioner‘s term being cut short. The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against the order, kept open the legal questions arising from the case. Further, the Constitution, under Article .........(2)......., prohibits the variation of any condition of service to the detriment of any incumbent. Even if the State government argues that a change of tenure does not amount to varying the conditions of service, the new norm can only apply to the successor SEC, and not the one holding the office now.Q.Who is present Chief Election Commissioner of India?

View answer

The legality of the removal of the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commissioner (SEC) is seriously in doubt. That it was the culmination of an open conflict between the Election Commissioner, N.Ramesh Kumar, and Chief Minister ......(1)......makes it a glaring instance of misuse of power. The State government got the Governor to issue an ordinance to cut the SEC‘s tenure from five to three years, and amend the criterion for holding that office from being an officer of the rank of Principal Secretary and above to one who had served as a High Court judge. This automatically rendered Mr. Kumar‘s continuance invalid. Last month, just days before the local body polls were to be held, the SEC postponed the elections, citing the COVID-19 outbreak. The State government approached the Supreme Court, but the court declined to interfere. Having exhausted its legal remedy, the government should have waited for the ongoing fight against the disease to be over. The State government seems to have gone by legal opinion that cited Aparmita Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007) in which the Allahabad High Court ruled that cessation of tenure does not amount to removal, and upheld the State Election Commissioner‘s term being cut short. The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against the order, kept open the legal questions arising from the case. Further, the Constitution, under Article .........(2)......., prohibits the variation of any condition of service to the detriment of any incumbent. Even if the State government argues that a change of tenure does not amount to varying the conditions of service, the new norm can only apply to the successor SEC, and not the one holding the office now.Q.Under which of the following articles can Governor promulgate Ordinance?

View answer

It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.Suppose Article 16(5) of the Constitution reads- 16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment (5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.Further suppose that The Government passes a law saying that the Chairmanship of the National Commission of Religious Minorities shall be limited to people from these communities.Is this law violative of Article 16?

View answer

The makers of our Constitution designed the institutions of our republic with great care and attention to detail. The deliberations of the Constituent Assembly bear witness to the extraordinary quality of thought which went into the making of these institutions. They were designed to endure and it was expected that as the republic grew, a body of good practices, conventions and intangible legacies would nourish and sustain them and make them stronger.Instead, we have seen every party in power since Indira Gandhi try to weaken and diminish these institutions. The Parliament, the Supreme Court, the Chief Election Commissioner, the Comptroller & Auditor General, the Union Public Service Commission are among the long list of institutions wherein constant attempts have been made to subdue them, erode their autonomy and authority (sometimes in the guise of reform) and have them subordinated to the will of the political executive, particularly the Prime Minister’s Office. Yet, their structural strength has enabled them to resist these attacks and substantially retain their character although each of them is probably weaker than before.The one institution that has received the maximum battering from every quarter is that of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). In the sixty four years of its existence (it came into existence in 1951 by an Act of Parliament under Article 312 of the Constitution), there have been more than fifty Commissions, Committees, Task Forces etc that have questioned and investigated different aspects of its architecture, tinkered with the recruitment system, and re-engineered it to change the socio-cultural and age profile of the entrants, introduced an OBC quota in addition to the original one for SC and ST, and suggested several other ‘reforms’ which have substantially changed its character.Some changes have been necessitated by major sociological and political developments, for instance, the acceptance of the recommendations of the Mandal Commission. Some others have been motivated by the desire to make the IAS politically and culturally more acceptable. Yet despite these changes in the original architecture — or maybe because of them — the institution remains central to the working of the Government and, in the minds of the public, still exercises disproportionate power in the scheme of things.Q.Does Indian Administrative Services enjoy a constitutional status?

View answer

The Constitution which lays down the basic structure of a nation's polity is built on the foundations of certain fundamental values. The vision of socio-economic change through the Constitution is reflected in its lofty Preamble.The Preamble expresses the ideals and aspirations of a renascent India. By the year 1949, the Constituent Assembly had completed the drafting of the Fundamental Rights Chapter. Fundamental Rights are constitutional guarantees for the human rights of our people. These rights were one of the persistent demands of our leaders throughout the freedom struggle. The founding fathers were conscious of the fact that mere political democracy, i.e., getting the right to vote once in five years or so was meaningless unless it was accompanied by social and economic democracy. Dr. Ambedkar had said:"We do not want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people to come and capture power. The Constitution also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would be forming the government. That ideal is of economic democracy."Our founding fathers, however, were far-sighted people therefore they consolidated the principles of good governance as Directive Principles contradistinguished from issues of rights, government and politics.That is how the vision of our founding fathers and the aims and objectives which they wanted to achieve through the Constitution are contained in the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. These three may be described as the soul of the Constitution and the testament of the founding fathers to the succeeding generations together with the later Part on Fundamental Duties.Q. The state government decided not to charge any amount from lady passengers travelling on state run busses. The move was taken with a view to ensure protection and safety for lady commuters. Inevitably, this caused great rush in busses during peak office hours. Arvind, a daily commuter filed a petition before the High Court stating that the government's decision is violative of fundamental rights as it is discriminatory. Based on the passage, choose the most appropriate option.

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

The legality of the removal of the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commissioner (SEC) is seriously in doubt. That it was the culmination of an open conflict between the Election Commissioner, N.Ramesh Kumar, and Chief Minister ......(1)......makes it a glaring instance of misuse of power. The State government got the Governor to issue an ordinance to cut the SEC‘s tenure from five to three years, and amend the criterion for holding that office from being an officer of the rank of Principal Secretary and above to one who had served as a High Court judge. This automatically rendered Mr. Kumar‘s continuance invalid. Last month, just days before the local body polls were to be held, the SEC postponed the elections, citing the COVID-19 outbreak. The State government approached the Supreme Court, but the court declined to interfere. Having exhausted its legal remedy, the government should have waited for the ongoing fight against the disease to be over. The State government seems to have gone by legal opinion that cited Aparmita Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007) in which the Allahabad High Court ruled that cessation of tenure does not amount to removal, and upheld the State Election Commissioner‘s term being cut short. The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against the order, kept open the legal questions arising from the case. Further, the Constitution, under Article .........(2)......., prohibits the variation of any condition of service to the detriment of any incumbent. Even if the State government argues that a change of tenure does not amount to varying the conditions of service, the new norm can only apply to the successor SEC, and not the one holding the office now.Q.Which Article will replace .....(2)..... in the above paragraph and relates to tenure of State Election Commissioner?a)Article 243 (K)b)Article 280c)Article 143d)Article 343Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
The legality of the removal of the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commissioner (SEC) is seriously in doubt. That it was the culmination of an open conflict between the Election Commissioner, N.Ramesh Kumar, and Chief Minister ......(1)......makes it a glaring instance of misuse of power. The State government got the Governor to issue an ordinance to cut the SEC‘s tenure from five to three years, and amend the criterion for holding that office from being an officer of the rank of Principal Secretary and above to one who had served as a High Court judge. This automatically rendered Mr. Kumar‘s continuance invalid. Last month, just days before the local body polls were to be held, the SEC postponed the elections, citing the COVID-19 outbreak. The State government approached the Supreme Court, but the court declined to interfere. Having exhausted its legal remedy, the government should have waited for the ongoing fight against the disease to be over. The State government seems to have gone by legal opinion that cited Aparmita Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007) in which the Allahabad High Court ruled that cessation of tenure does not amount to removal, and upheld the State Election Commissioner‘s term being cut short. The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against the order, kept open the legal questions arising from the case. Further, the Constitution, under Article .........(2)......., prohibits the variation of any condition of service to the detriment of any incumbent. Even if the State government argues that a change of tenure does not amount to varying the conditions of service, the new norm can only apply to the successor SEC, and not the one holding the office now.Q.Which Article will replace .....(2)..... in the above paragraph and relates to tenure of State Election Commissioner?a)Article 243 (K)b)Article 280c)Article 143d)Article 343Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The legality of the removal of the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commissioner (SEC) is seriously in doubt. That it was the culmination of an open conflict between the Election Commissioner, N.Ramesh Kumar, and Chief Minister ......(1)......makes it a glaring instance of misuse of power. The State government got the Governor to issue an ordinance to cut the SEC‘s tenure from five to three years, and amend the criterion for holding that office from being an officer of the rank of Principal Secretary and above to one who had served as a High Court judge. This automatically rendered Mr. Kumar‘s continuance invalid. Last month, just days before the local body polls were to be held, the SEC postponed the elections, citing the COVID-19 outbreak. The State government approached the Supreme Court, but the court declined to interfere. Having exhausted its legal remedy, the government should have waited for the ongoing fight against the disease to be over. The State government seems to have gone by legal opinion that cited Aparmita Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007) in which the Allahabad High Court ruled that cessation of tenure does not amount to removal, and upheld the State Election Commissioner‘s term being cut short. The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against the order, kept open the legal questions arising from the case. Further, the Constitution, under Article .........(2)......., prohibits the variation of any condition of service to the detriment of any incumbent. Even if the State government argues that a change of tenure does not amount to varying the conditions of service, the new norm can only apply to the successor SEC, and not the one holding the office now.Q.Which Article will replace .....(2)..... in the above paragraph and relates to tenure of State Election Commissioner?a)Article 243 (K)b)Article 280c)Article 143d)Article 343Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The legality of the removal of the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commissioner (SEC) is seriously in doubt. That it was the culmination of an open conflict between the Election Commissioner, N.Ramesh Kumar, and Chief Minister ......(1)......makes it a glaring instance of misuse of power. The State government got the Governor to issue an ordinance to cut the SEC‘s tenure from five to three years, and amend the criterion for holding that office from being an officer of the rank of Principal Secretary and above to one who had served as a High Court judge. This automatically rendered Mr. Kumar‘s continuance invalid. Last month, just days before the local body polls were to be held, the SEC postponed the elections, citing the COVID-19 outbreak. The State government approached the Supreme Court, but the court declined to interfere. Having exhausted its legal remedy, the government should have waited for the ongoing fight against the disease to be over. The State government seems to have gone by legal opinion that cited Aparmita Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007) in which the Allahabad High Court ruled that cessation of tenure does not amount to removal, and upheld the State Election Commissioner‘s term being cut short. The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against the order, kept open the legal questions arising from the case. Further, the Constitution, under Article .........(2)......., prohibits the variation of any condition of service to the detriment of any incumbent. Even if the State government argues that a change of tenure does not amount to varying the conditions of service, the new norm can only apply to the successor SEC, and not the one holding the office now.Q.Which Article will replace .....(2)..... in the above paragraph and relates to tenure of State Election Commissioner?a)Article 243 (K)b)Article 280c)Article 143d)Article 343Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The legality of the removal of the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commissioner (SEC) is seriously in doubt. That it was the culmination of an open conflict between the Election Commissioner, N.Ramesh Kumar, and Chief Minister ......(1)......makes it a glaring instance of misuse of power. The State government got the Governor to issue an ordinance to cut the SEC‘s tenure from five to three years, and amend the criterion for holding that office from being an officer of the rank of Principal Secretary and above to one who had served as a High Court judge. This automatically rendered Mr. Kumar‘s continuance invalid. Last month, just days before the local body polls were to be held, the SEC postponed the elections, citing the COVID-19 outbreak. The State government approached the Supreme Court, but the court declined to interfere. Having exhausted its legal remedy, the government should have waited for the ongoing fight against the disease to be over. The State government seems to have gone by legal opinion that cited Aparmita Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007) in which the Allahabad High Court ruled that cessation of tenure does not amount to removal, and upheld the State Election Commissioner‘s term being cut short. The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against the order, kept open the legal questions arising from the case. Further, the Constitution, under Article .........(2)......., prohibits the variation of any condition of service to the detriment of any incumbent. Even if the State government argues that a change of tenure does not amount to varying the conditions of service, the new norm can only apply to the successor SEC, and not the one holding the office now.Q.Which Article will replace .....(2)..... in the above paragraph and relates to tenure of State Election Commissioner?a)Article 243 (K)b)Article 280c)Article 143d)Article 343Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The legality of the removal of the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commissioner (SEC) is seriously in doubt. That it was the culmination of an open conflict between the Election Commissioner, N.Ramesh Kumar, and Chief Minister ......(1)......makes it a glaring instance of misuse of power. The State government got the Governor to issue an ordinance to cut the SEC‘s tenure from five to three years, and amend the criterion for holding that office from being an officer of the rank of Principal Secretary and above to one who had served as a High Court judge. This automatically rendered Mr. Kumar‘s continuance invalid. Last month, just days before the local body polls were to be held, the SEC postponed the elections, citing the COVID-19 outbreak. The State government approached the Supreme Court, but the court declined to interfere. Having exhausted its legal remedy, the government should have waited for the ongoing fight against the disease to be over. The State government seems to have gone by legal opinion that cited Aparmita Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007) in which the Allahabad High Court ruled that cessation of tenure does not amount to removal, and upheld the State Election Commissioner‘s term being cut short. The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against the order, kept open the legal questions arising from the case. Further, the Constitution, under Article .........(2)......., prohibits the variation of any condition of service to the detriment of any incumbent. Even if the State government argues that a change of tenure does not amount to varying the conditions of service, the new norm can only apply to the successor SEC, and not the one holding the office now.Q.Which Article will replace .....(2)..... in the above paragraph and relates to tenure of State Election Commissioner?a)Article 243 (K)b)Article 280c)Article 143d)Article 343Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The legality of the removal of the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commissioner (SEC) is seriously in doubt. That it was the culmination of an open conflict between the Election Commissioner, N.Ramesh Kumar, and Chief Minister ......(1)......makes it a glaring instance of misuse of power. The State government got the Governor to issue an ordinance to cut the SEC‘s tenure from five to three years, and amend the criterion for holding that office from being an officer of the rank of Principal Secretary and above to one who had served as a High Court judge. This automatically rendered Mr. Kumar‘s continuance invalid. Last month, just days before the local body polls were to be held, the SEC postponed the elections, citing the COVID-19 outbreak. The State government approached the Supreme Court, but the court declined to interfere. Having exhausted its legal remedy, the government should have waited for the ongoing fight against the disease to be over. The State government seems to have gone by legal opinion that cited Aparmita Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007) in which the Allahabad High Court ruled that cessation of tenure does not amount to removal, and upheld the State Election Commissioner‘s term being cut short. The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against the order, kept open the legal questions arising from the case. Further, the Constitution, under Article .........(2)......., prohibits the variation of any condition of service to the detriment of any incumbent. Even if the State government argues that a change of tenure does not amount to varying the conditions of service, the new norm can only apply to the successor SEC, and not the one holding the office now.Q.Which Article will replace .....(2)..... in the above paragraph and relates to tenure of State Election Commissioner?a)Article 243 (K)b)Article 280c)Article 143d)Article 343Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The legality of the removal of the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commissioner (SEC) is seriously in doubt. That it was the culmination of an open conflict between the Election Commissioner, N.Ramesh Kumar, and Chief Minister ......(1)......makes it a glaring instance of misuse of power. The State government got the Governor to issue an ordinance to cut the SEC‘s tenure from five to three years, and amend the criterion for holding that office from being an officer of the rank of Principal Secretary and above to one who had served as a High Court judge. This automatically rendered Mr. Kumar‘s continuance invalid. Last month, just days before the local body polls were to be held, the SEC postponed the elections, citing the COVID-19 outbreak. The State government approached the Supreme Court, but the court declined to interfere. Having exhausted its legal remedy, the government should have waited for the ongoing fight against the disease to be over. The State government seems to have gone by legal opinion that cited Aparmita Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007) in which the Allahabad High Court ruled that cessation of tenure does not amount to removal, and upheld the State Election Commissioner‘s term being cut short. The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against the order, kept open the legal questions arising from the case. Further, the Constitution, under Article .........(2)......., prohibits the variation of any condition of service to the detriment of any incumbent. Even if the State government argues that a change of tenure does not amount to varying the conditions of service, the new norm can only apply to the successor SEC, and not the one holding the office now.Q.Which Article will replace .....(2)..... in the above paragraph and relates to tenure of State Election Commissioner?a)Article 243 (K)b)Article 280c)Article 143d)Article 343Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The legality of the removal of the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commissioner (SEC) is seriously in doubt. That it was the culmination of an open conflict between the Election Commissioner, N.Ramesh Kumar, and Chief Minister ......(1)......makes it a glaring instance of misuse of power. The State government got the Governor to issue an ordinance to cut the SEC‘s tenure from five to three years, and amend the criterion for holding that office from being an officer of the rank of Principal Secretary and above to one who had served as a High Court judge. This automatically rendered Mr. Kumar‘s continuance invalid. Last month, just days before the local body polls were to be held, the SEC postponed the elections, citing the COVID-19 outbreak. The State government approached the Supreme Court, but the court declined to interfere. Having exhausted its legal remedy, the government should have waited for the ongoing fight against the disease to be over. The State government seems to have gone by legal opinion that cited Aparmita Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007) in which the Allahabad High Court ruled that cessation of tenure does not amount to removal, and upheld the State Election Commissioner‘s term being cut short. The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against the order, kept open the legal questions arising from the case. Further, the Constitution, under Article .........(2)......., prohibits the variation of any condition of service to the detriment of any incumbent. Even if the State government argues that a change of tenure does not amount to varying the conditions of service, the new norm can only apply to the successor SEC, and not the one holding the office now.Q.Which Article will replace .....(2)..... in the above paragraph and relates to tenure of State Election Commissioner?a)Article 243 (K)b)Article 280c)Article 143d)Article 343Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The legality of the removal of the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commissioner (SEC) is seriously in doubt. That it was the culmination of an open conflict between the Election Commissioner, N.Ramesh Kumar, and Chief Minister ......(1)......makes it a glaring instance of misuse of power. The State government got the Governor to issue an ordinance to cut the SEC‘s tenure from five to three years, and amend the criterion for holding that office from being an officer of the rank of Principal Secretary and above to one who had served as a High Court judge. This automatically rendered Mr. Kumar‘s continuance invalid. Last month, just days before the local body polls were to be held, the SEC postponed the elections, citing the COVID-19 outbreak. The State government approached the Supreme Court, but the court declined to interfere. Having exhausted its legal remedy, the government should have waited for the ongoing fight against the disease to be over. The State government seems to have gone by legal opinion that cited Aparmita Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007) in which the Allahabad High Court ruled that cessation of tenure does not amount to removal, and upheld the State Election Commissioner‘s term being cut short. The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against the order, kept open the legal questions arising from the case. Further, the Constitution, under Article .........(2)......., prohibits the variation of any condition of service to the detriment of any incumbent. Even if the State government argues that a change of tenure does not amount to varying the conditions of service, the new norm can only apply to the successor SEC, and not the one holding the office now.Q.Which Article will replace .....(2)..... in the above paragraph and relates to tenure of State Election Commissioner?a)Article 243 (K)b)Article 280c)Article 143d)Article 343Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam