Consider the following dynasties: ...Read more
Consider the following dynasties: [2023]
1. Hoysala
2. Gahadavala
3. Kakatiya
4. Yadava
Statement 1 is incorrect because, as per Article 71(2) of the Indian Constitution, the actions performed by a person in the capacity of President or Vice-President remain valid even if their election is declared void by the Supreme Court. Article 71(2) explicitly states that such acts shall not be iRead more
Statement 1 is incorrect because, as per Article 71(2) of the Indian Constitution, the actions performed by a person in the capacity of President or Vice-President remain valid even if their election is declared void by the Supreme Court. Article 71(2) explicitly states that such acts shall not be invalidated due to the court’s declaration. It reads: “If the election of a person as President or Vice-President is declared void by the Supreme Court, acts done by him in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the office of President or Vice-President, as the case may be, on or before the date of the decision of the Supreme Court shall not be invalidated by reason of that declaration.”
Statement 2 is also incorrect. The Constitution of India does not have any provision allowing for the postponement of the Presidential election due to the dissolution of some Legislative Assemblies. The election must be held within the prescribed time, regardless of such dissolutions.
Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 111 of the Constitution, which outlines the process of granting or withholding assent to bills, does not impose a specific time limit for the President to act on a bill. Article 111 states: “When a Bill has been passed by the Houses of Parliament, it shall be presented to the President, and the President shall declare either that he assents to the Bill, or that he withholds assent therefrom.” There is no mention of a time frame within which the President is required to make this decision. The President may, however, return a non-Money Bill for reconsideration by Parliament, but even here, the Constitution does not set a specific deadline for the President’s assent.
See less
The onset of the 13th century heralded the fragmentation of the once-mighty Chola and Chalukya empires, paving the way for the emergence of four distinct kingdoms within the region. To the south, the Pandyas and Hoysalas rose to prominence, while the northern territories saw the ascendance of the KaRead more
The onset of the 13th century heralded the fragmentation of the once-mighty Chola and Chalukya empires, paving the way for the emergence of four distinct kingdoms within the region. To the south, the Pandyas and Hoysalas rose to prominence, while the northern territories saw the ascendance of the Kakatiyas and Yadavas as influential powers. Simultaneously, the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty was effectively eradicated from the political arena by the invading Ghaznavids in the early 11th century.
Following the disintegration of the Gurjara-Pratihara empire, no single state emerged to fill the void. Instead, a tapestry of smaller, independent powers took root, including the Gahadavalas in Kannauj, the Paramaras in Malwa, the Chalukyas in Gujarat, the Chauhans in Ajmer, the Tomars in Delhi, and the Chandellas in Bundelkhand, each vying for control and influence.
The timelines of these dynasties are noteworthy: the Hoysala dynasty thrived from the 10th to the 14th centuries, the Gahadavala rulers reigned during the 11th to 12th centuries, the Kakatiya rulers held power from the 12th to the 14th centuries, and the Yadava rulers dominated from the 12th to the 14th centuries.
See less