Question Description
The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. The directive principles ensure that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order in which social, economic and political justice. A court, ruling on a PIL which was about road safety, has banned the sale of liquor at retail outlets, as also in hotels, restaurants, and bars, that are within 500m of any national or state highway. The order has caused much collateral damage for the state government. For state government, there is a massive loss in the form of revenue collection. Based on the authors reasoning:a)The courts judgement is justified as it is legal matter concerning the safety of citizens.b)The courts judgement is unjustified as it caused damage to the state even though it has improved road safety.c)The courts judgement is justified as it strived to promote the welfare of people as described in the directive principles.d)The courts judgement is unjustified as it missed the problem of road safety and infringed on the States right.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for Class 12 2024 is part of Class 12 preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Class 12 exam syllabus. Information about The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. The directive principles ensure that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order in which social, economic and political justice. A court, ruling on a PIL which was about road safety, has banned the sale of liquor at retail outlets, as also in hotels, restaurants, and bars, that are within 500m of any national or state highway. The order has caused much collateral damage for the state government. For state government, there is a massive loss in the form of revenue collection. Based on the authors reasoning:a)The courts judgement is justified as it is legal matter concerning the safety of citizens.b)The courts judgement is unjustified as it caused damage to the state even though it has improved road safety.c)The courts judgement is justified as it strived to promote the welfare of people as described in the directive principles.d)The courts judgement is unjustified as it missed the problem of road safety and infringed on the States right.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Class 12 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. The directive principles ensure that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order in which social, economic and political justice. A court, ruling on a PIL which was about road safety, has banned the sale of liquor at retail outlets, as also in hotels, restaurants, and bars, that are within 500m of any national or state highway. The order has caused much collateral damage for the state government. For state government, there is a massive loss in the form of revenue collection. Based on the authors reasoning:a)The courts judgement is justified as it is legal matter concerning the safety of citizens.b)The courts judgement is unjustified as it caused damage to the state even though it has improved road safety.c)The courts judgement is justified as it strived to promote the welfare of people as described in the directive principles.d)The courts judgement is unjustified as it missed the problem of road safety and infringed on the States right.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. The directive principles ensure that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order in which social, economic and political justice. A court, ruling on a PIL which was about road safety, has banned the sale of liquor at retail outlets, as also in hotels, restaurants, and bars, that are within 500m of any national or state highway. The order has caused much collateral damage for the state government. For state government, there is a massive loss in the form of revenue collection. Based on the authors reasoning:a)The courts judgement is justified as it is legal matter concerning the safety of citizens.b)The courts judgement is unjustified as it caused damage to the state even though it has improved road safety.c)The courts judgement is justified as it strived to promote the welfare of people as described in the directive principles.d)The courts judgement is unjustified as it missed the problem of road safety and infringed on the States right.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Class 12. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Class 12 Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. The directive principles ensure that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order in which social, economic and political justice. A court, ruling on a PIL which was about road safety, has banned the sale of liquor at retail outlets, as also in hotels, restaurants, and bars, that are within 500m of any national or state highway. The order has caused much collateral damage for the state government. For state government, there is a massive loss in the form of revenue collection. Based on the authors reasoning:a)The courts judgement is justified as it is legal matter concerning the safety of citizens.b)The courts judgement is unjustified as it caused damage to the state even though it has improved road safety.c)The courts judgement is justified as it strived to promote the welfare of people as described in the directive principles.d)The courts judgement is unjustified as it missed the problem of road safety and infringed on the States right.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. The directive principles ensure that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order in which social, economic and political justice. A court, ruling on a PIL which was about road safety, has banned the sale of liquor at retail outlets, as also in hotels, restaurants, and bars, that are within 500m of any national or state highway. The order has caused much collateral damage for the state government. For state government, there is a massive loss in the form of revenue collection. Based on the authors reasoning:a)The courts judgement is justified as it is legal matter concerning the safety of citizens.b)The courts judgement is unjustified as it caused damage to the state even though it has improved road safety.c)The courts judgement is justified as it strived to promote the welfare of people as described in the directive principles.d)The courts judgement is unjustified as it missed the problem of road safety and infringed on the States right.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. The directive principles ensure that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order in which social, economic and political justice. A court, ruling on a PIL which was about road safety, has banned the sale of liquor at retail outlets, as also in hotels, restaurants, and bars, that are within 500m of any national or state highway. The order has caused much collateral damage for the state government. For state government, there is a massive loss in the form of revenue collection. Based on the authors reasoning:a)The courts judgement is justified as it is legal matter concerning the safety of citizens.b)The courts judgement is unjustified as it caused damage to the state even though it has improved road safety.c)The courts judgement is justified as it strived to promote the welfare of people as described in the directive principles.d)The courts judgement is unjustified as it missed the problem of road safety and infringed on the States right.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. The directive principles ensure that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order in which social, economic and political justice. A court, ruling on a PIL which was about road safety, has banned the sale of liquor at retail outlets, as also in hotels, restaurants, and bars, that are within 500m of any national or state highway. The order has caused much collateral damage for the state government. For state government, there is a massive loss in the form of revenue collection. Based on the authors reasoning:a)The courts judgement is justified as it is legal matter concerning the safety of citizens.b)The courts judgement is unjustified as it caused damage to the state even though it has improved road safety.c)The courts judgement is justified as it strived to promote the welfare of people as described in the directive principles.d)The courts judgement is unjustified as it missed the problem of road safety and infringed on the States right.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. The directive principles ensure that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order in which social, economic and political justice. A court, ruling on a PIL which was about road safety, has banned the sale of liquor at retail outlets, as also in hotels, restaurants, and bars, that are within 500m of any national or state highway. The order has caused much collateral damage for the state government. For state government, there is a massive loss in the form of revenue collection. Based on the authors reasoning:a)The courts judgement is justified as it is legal matter concerning the safety of citizens.b)The courts judgement is unjustified as it caused damage to the state even though it has improved road safety.c)The courts judgement is justified as it strived to promote the welfare of people as described in the directive principles.d)The courts judgement is unjustified as it missed the problem of road safety and infringed on the States right.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Class 12 tests.