Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<keyword id="10630" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Power-Minister">Power Minister</keyword> <keyword id="6355222" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Piyush-Goyal">Piyush Goyal</keyword> has said that the government's role in business is to facilitate it and not micro management. "We need to do away with government controls. The government's job is not to run businesses but facilitate business. The role of the government is that of an enabler and not to micromanage business. It should provide ease of business," he said at The Economic Times Global Business Summit.<br />
<br />
But he added that both the government and the private sector need to work together as both are crucial to boost the infrastructure sector.<br />
<br />
The minister also said that the government is likely to attract an investment of 250 billion in the next 4-5 years in the power sector. Earlier, Goyal had expressed hope that investments for power generation, coal mining and electricity distribution and transmission would pave the way to increase power generation in the country, and ensure supply of electricity to all households by 2019.<br />
<br /> In order to boost <keyword id="1057947" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="thermal-power-generation">thermal power generation</keyword>, <keyword id="45383" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Coal-India">Coal India</keyword> has been given a production target of one billion tonne by 2019. <br />

Govt's Job Is Not Micro Management, But To Facilitate Business: Power Minister

<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span><a href="https://twitter.com/osoriochong/status/751590876674035714">Twitter/@osoriochong</a></span></p><p class="caption">Mexico's interior minister tweeted this image purporting to show "El Chapo" Guzmán in jail.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>A little over three months after arriving at a prison near the US border, Sinaloa cartel kingpin Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is to be sent back to Altiplano prison in central Mexico, where he pulled off a brazen escape in July 2015.</p><p>A federal judge in Mexico's Chihuahua state <a href="http://www.proceso.com.mx/451423/ordena-juez-federal-regresar-a-chapo-al-penal-del-altiplano" target="_blank">ruled on August 17</a> that prison officials had transferred Guzmán in May without authorization.</p><p>The decision came in response to <a href="http://www.proceso.com.mx/451423/ordena-juez-federal-regresar-a-chapo-al-penal-del-altiplano" target="_blank">injunction </a><span><a href="http://www.proceso.com.mx/451423/ordena-juez-federal-regresar-a-chapo-al-penal-del-altiplano" target="_blank">384/2016</a>, filed by Guzmán's legal team.</span></p><p><span>Guzmán was <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/mexico-moved-el-chapo-guzman-because-of-blackout-2016-5" target="_blank">suddenly transferred</a> in the early hours of May 7 from Altiplano to Cefereso No. 9, a prison just outside Ciudad Juarez, which is across the border from El Paso. The move was allegedly made because a power outage at Altiplano <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/mexico-moved-el-chapo-guzman-because-of-blackout-2016-5" target="_blank">stoked fears that the drug lord was plotting another escape</a>.</span></p><p><span>But the short notice of the transfer and the distance of Cefereso No. 9 from Guzmán's legal team prompted protests, with Guzmán himself saying he wanted to go back to Altiplano. "He asked us that we would file an injunction to return him to Altiplano," <a href="http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/nacion/seguridad/2016/08/17/el-chapo-consigue-amparo-para-regresar-el-altiplano-dicen-sus" target="_blank">said</a> José Refugio Rodríguez, one of Guzmán's lawyers.</span></p><p><span><a href="http://www.proceso.com.mx/451423/ordena-juez-federal-regresar-a-chapo-al-penal-del-altiplano" target="_blank">According</a> to Rodríguez, granting the injunction declares null the transfer orders<span>, "and, as a consequence of that, he will return to Altiplano."</span></span></p><p><span><span><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span><a href="http://www.univision.com/noticias/univision-investiga/el-chapo-guzman-esta-dispuesto-a-declararse-culpable-en-estados-unidos">Univision Investiga</a></span></p><p class="caption">José Refugio Rodríguez, a lawyer for Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán.</p></div><p></p></div></div></span></span></p><p><span><span>"If they insist on the attitude of wanting a change of prison, they should present a request before a judge," <a href="http://www.proceso.com.mx/451423/ordena-juez-federal-regresar-a-chapo-al-penal-del-altiplano" target="_blank">said</a> Refugio Rodríguez, who <a href="http://www.reforma.com/aplicacioneslibre/articulo/default.aspx?id=918263&amp;md5=234fabcdf3c4f8593e684faaa02ce323&amp;ta=0dfdbac11765226904c16cb9ad1b2efe&amp;lcmd5=92e0313dd9216601e1ebb8a9e9cdc6bd" target="_blank">argued</a> that federal penitentiary authorities did not have have the authority or the autonomy to move defendants freely.</span></span></p><p><span><span>While Guzmán's legal team was confident the transfer would be soon, the Mexican government could delay the move for weeks or months.</span></span></p><p><span><span>Federal authorities can still <a href="http://www.reforma.com/aplicacioneslibre/articulo/default.aspx?id=918263&amp;md5=234fabcdf3c4f8593e684faaa02ce323&amp;ta=0dfdbac11765226904c16cb9ad1b2efe&amp;lcmd5=92e0313dd9216601e1ebb8a9e9cdc6bd" target="_blank">request</a> a review of the judge's decision by another tribunal, which could delay a ruling that would finalize the matter for at least two months.</span></span></p><p>"They still haven't told us the date [of the move], for reasons of security, but already there is movement in Ciudad Juarez, it can be at any moment," Rodríguez <a href="http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/nacion/seguridad/2016/08/17/el-chapo-consigue-amparo-para-regresar-el-altiplano-dicen-sus" target="_blank">said</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/nacion/seguridad/2016/08/17/el-chapo-consigue-amparo-para-regresar-el-altiplano-dicen-sus" target="_blank">According</a> to El Universal, over the last two days, airplanes and helicopters belonging to the federal government have appeared at Ciudad Juarez's <keyword id="6356001" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="international">international</keyword> airport, and the roads connecting the airport to Cefereso No. 9 have been patrolled by personnel from the Mexican army and federal police.</p><p>The facility was already <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/1-year-the-rise-and-fall-of-worlds-most-ambitious-drug-lord-2016-7" target="_blank">guarded by hundreds of agents</a> deployed after Guzmán's transfer there.</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span><a href="http://expansion.mx/nacional/2016/08/18/refuerzan-las-medidas-de-seguridad-en-el-penal-donde-esta-el-chapo?hootPostID=c5b266a9c819dd71d362bef9974f1607">Expansion/CNN</a></span></p><p class="caption">Soldiers stationed outside Cefereso No. 9, where "El Chapo" Guzmán has been held since May.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>The transfer order comes at an inopportune moment for the Mexican government. While the increased security presence around Cefereso No. 9 may be related to an impending transfer, it's also <a href="http://expansion.mx/nacional/2016/08/18/refuerzan-las-medidas-de-seguridad-en-el-penal-donde-esta-el-chapo?hootPostID=c5b266a9c819dd71d362bef9974f1607" target="_blank">reportedly tied to</a> the recent <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/el-chapo-guzmans-son-kidnapped-at-gunpoint-in-mexico-video-2016-8" target="_blank">kidnapping of one of Guzmán's sons</a> in Puerto Vallarta by the Jalisco New Generation cartel (CJNG).</p><p>The kidnapping has raised concern that Guzmán's Sinaloa cartel and the CJNG - Mexico's most powerful cartels - <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/el-chapo-guzmans-son-kidnapped-at-gunpoint-in-mexico-video-2016-8" target="_blank">are in conflict</a>. If the cartels are warring, then Guzmán's transfer would no doubt present a target for the CJNG, which has in the past downed an army helicopter and ambushed federal police.</p><p>In a separate event earlier this week, <span>Leonor García, </span>the former security director at Altiplano prison, who was arrested with many others in the wake of Guzmán's July 2015 escape, was <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/08/13/mexico-frees-official-jailed-in-drug-lord-el-chapo-escape.html" target="_blank">released on orders</a> of a Mexican court.</p><p>Investigations after the breakout found security protocols weren't followed, and the Mexican attorney general's office has <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/08/13/mexico-frees-official-jailed-in-drug-lord-el-chapo-escape.html" target="_blank">said</a> it would consider whether to refile charges against García.</p>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/el-chapo-prison-trial-escape-2016-7">1 YEAR LATER: Here's what may come next for 'El Chapo' Guzmán</a></h3>        <div>            <div>        <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="9uNHFiMDE6td4oylHRK5vULaW2Ksv3pv" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div>        </div>        </div>            </div>

The world's most powerful drug lord may be headed back to a prison he's already broken out of

<ul class="summary-list"><li>EXCLUSIVE: Boris Johnson's nomination of disgraced Tory donor <keyword id="985238" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Peter-Cruddas">Peter Cruddas</keyword> to the <keyword id="77060" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="house-of-Lords">House of Lords</keyword> faces a legal challenge.</li><li>The <keyword id="4365353" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="good-law-project">Good Law Project</keyword> is challenging Johnson's decision, saying it was unlawful.</li><li>Cruddas gave £500,000 to the Conservatives just days after Johnson overruled official advice not to do so.</li><li>"Handing out peerages to Party donors who couldn't even pass the vetting process makes a mockery of our democracy," the Good Law Project's <keyword id="4365356" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="jolyon-maugham">Jolyon Maugham</keyword> tells Insider.</li></ul><p>Boris Johnson's decision to overrule a move to block his nomination of a disgraced Conservative Party donor to the House of Lords faces a legal challenge, Insider can reveal.</p><p>Johnson forced through the nomination of Peter Cruddas, who resigned as Conservative co-treasurer in 2012 after offering undercover reporters access to then Prime Minister David Cameron, despite objections from the <keyword id="762370" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="House-of-Lords-Appointments-Commission">House of Lords Appointments Commission</keyword> (HoLAC).</p><p>Cruddas then <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/disgraced-tory-lord-backed-by-boris-johnson-gives-conservatives-500k-2021-6">handed Johnson's party a further £500,000</a> just days after Johnson forced through his peerage.</p><p>Now that decision is being challenged by the Good Law Project, who have instructed the solicitors Bindmans to send a letter before claim as part of a proposal for a judicial review of Johnson's decision to nominate Cruddas to the peerage.</p><p>Jo Maugham, a barrister and director of the Good Law Project, told Insider: "Despite the House of Lords Appointments Commission advising against it, Boris Johnson made Peter Cruddas a Lord. Just days later, Peter Cruddas donated half a million pounds to the Conservative Party. He threw his money around and now gets to shape laws that affect all of our lives.</p><p>"Handing out peerages to Party donors who couldn't even pass the vetting process makes a mockery of our democracy. We can't allow it to continue."</p><p>In their letter, seen by Insider, the Good Law Project say that the nomination "was unlawful because of apparent bias. A fair-minded and informed observer, presented with the facts of the matter, would conclude that there was a real possibility or danger of bias in the Defendant's decision making.</p><p>"Of particular significance in this regard is the timing of major donations by Peter Cruddas. In particular, in January 2020, one month before it became public knowledge that he was to be nominated, he made a £250,000 donation. Three days after he became a peer, he made a further £500,000 donation, the single largest donation he has made to date."</p><h2>Johnson accused of unlawfully rewarding disgraced peer</h2><div type="image" title="Boris Johnson" height="1240" width="2480" msid="83456295" hostid="261"></div>The Good Law Project, which has won a <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/michael-gove-coronavirus-contract-dominic-cummings-b1862426.html">series of victories</a> against the government in recent months, says that when vetting nominees, HoLAC takes into consideration "the credibility of individuals who have made significant political donations, loans or credit arrangements".<p>They say the "obvious inference is that the past donations and the prospects of future donations were taken into account when [the Prime Minister] decided to grant the peerage. A decision taken in whole or in part on the basis of such a consideration is unlawful."</p><p>Should the case go ahead, the Good Law Project "will be seeking a declaration that the decision to nominate Peter Cruddas for a peerage was unlawful."</p><p>They will be seeking Johnson to recognize this, and then to "undertake to consider what steps should flow from that confirmation".</p><p>Rather than challenging Johnson's exercise of the prerogative power to grant honours, the Good Law Project say they are seeking a judicial review of his use of a power under the Life Peerages Act 1958. </p><p>Prerogative powers have recently been the subject of judicial review, including a case against Johnson's government and his advice in 2019 to the Queen which led to the prorogation of Parliament, which was found by the UK Supreme Court to be "null and of no effect" - as if it had never happened.</p><h2>The man winning legal victories against the UK government</h2><div type="image" title="Jolyon Maugham" height="2630" width="5260" msid="83456299" hostid="261"></div><p>Maugham and the Good Law Project have become a "target" for government ministers, due to their string of successful legal challenges against the UK government, the <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9655369/Fox-clubbing-QC-Jolyon-Maugham-faces-questions-crowdfunding-legal-cases.html">Mail on Sunday reported</a>.</p><p>On Wednesday, legal action brought by the Good Law Project against senior Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove led to the High Court ruling Gove acted unlawfully in handing a £560,000 contract to the firm Public First for market research.</p><p>The High Court said there was "apparent bias" in the decision by the Cabinet Office.</p><p>Public First's owners had both worked with Gove and Dominic Cummings, a former senior aide to both Johnson and Gove.</p><p>The advice of HoLAC has not been published, but some of their objections to Cruddas's nominations are apparent in the letter sent by Johnson to the chair of HoLAC, Lord Bew, when he explained why he was overruling their advice and nominating Cruddas to the peerage.</p><p>While co-treasurer of the Conservative Party in March 2012, the Sunday Times published an investigation carried out by undercover reporters alleging that Cruddas had offered them access to then Prime Minister David Cameron in return for £250,000 of donations. </p><p>Cruddas resigned as co-treasurer in the wake of the story, and would go on to sue the paper successfully for libel, winning £180,000 in damages. </p><p>However, the Sunday Times appealed, with damages being reduced to £50,000, and the judges finding that the central allegation of selling access to Cameron and other politicians was accurate. The judges said Cruddas's actions were "unacceptable, inappropriate and wrong".</p><p>In his letter to Lord Bew, Johnson described these concerns as "historic" and stated that "an internal Conservative Party investigation subsequently found that there had been no intentional wrongdoing on Mr Cruddas' part".</p><p>A spokesperson for the prime minister said: "All individuals are nominated in recognition of their contribution to society and their public and political service.</p><p>"Lord Cruddas has a broad range of experiences and insights across the charitable, business and political sectors which allow him to make a hugely valuable contribution to the work of the Lords."</p><p>A spokesperson for Lord Cruddas was contacted for comment.</p>

Boris Johnson's peerage to disgraced donor who gave the Conservatives £500,000 after the PM forced through his nomination, faces legal challenge

<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/Henry Nicholls</span></p><p class="caption">Demonstrators react on the ruling of the Supreme Court during a protest outside the Supreme Court in London, Britain September 24, 2019.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><ul class="summary-list"><li>The United Kingdom's highest court has ruled that Boris Johnson's decision to shut down Parliament for five weeks was unlawful.</li><li>Lady Hale, the President of the Supreme Court, on Tuesday morning said: "The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices."</li><li>She said the prorogation was "null and void," meaning Parliament had not been suspended.</li><li>Read Lady Hale's damning verdict in full.</li></ul><p>Boris Johnson suffered a catastrophic blow to his authority on Monday as the United Kingdom's highest court found that his suspension of Parliament for five weeks was unlawful.</p><p>Eleven Supreme Court judges <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-says-boris-johnson-suspending-parliament-was-illegal-2019-9?r=US&amp;IR=T" target="_blank" rel="noopener">on Tuesday morning</a> ruled unanimously that Johnson's move - widely seen as an attempt to stop his opponents legislating to stop a no-deal Brexit - was "unlawful, void and of no effect," in a dramatic move which immediately triggered calls for his resignation from opposition parties.</p><h2>Here is Supreme Court President Lady Hale's explanation of the ruling:</h2><p>"We have before us two appeals, one from the High Court of England and Wales and one from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. It is important, once again, to emphasise that these cases are not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union. They are only about whether the advice given by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen on 27th or 28th August, that Parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9th and 12th September until 14th October, was lawful and the legal consequences if it was not. The question arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely to arise again. It is a "one-off".</p><p>Briefly, the Scottish case was brought by a cross party group of 75 members of Parliament and a QC on 30th July because of their concern that Parliament might be prorogued to avoid further debate in the lead up to exit day on 31st October. On 15th August, Nikki da Costa, Director of Legislative Affairs at No 10, sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister, copied to seven people, civil servants and special advisers, recommending that his Parliamentary Private Secretary approach the Palace with a request for prorogation to begin within 9th to 12th September and for a Queen's Speech on 14th October. The Prime Minister ticked 'yes' to that recommendation.</p><p>On 27th or 28th August, in a telephone call, he formally advised Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament between those dates. On 28th August, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Privy Council, Mr Mark Harper, chief whip, and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, Leader of the House of Lords, attended a meeting of the Privy Council held by the Queen at Balmoral Castle. An Order in Council was made that Parliament be prorogued between those dates and that the Lord Chancellor prepare and issue a commission for proroguing Parliament accordingly. A Cabinet meeting was held by conference call shortly after that in order to bring the rest of the Cabinet "up to speed" on the decisions which had been taken. That same day, the decision was made public and the Prime Minister sent a letter to all Members of Parliament explaining it. As soon as the decision was announced, Mrs Miller began the English proceedings challenging its lawfulness.</p><h2>1.</h2><p>Parliament returned from the summer recess on 3rd September. The House of Commons voted to decide for themselves what business they would transact. The next day what became the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act passed all its stages in the Commons. It passed all its stages in the House of Lords on 6th September and received royal assent on 9th September. The object of that Act is to prevent the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement on 31st October.</p><p>On 11th September, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller's claim on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law. That same day, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland announced its decision that the issue was justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, and that it, and any prorogation which followed it, were unlawful and thus void and of no effect.</p><p>Mrs Miller's appeal against the English decision and the Advocate General's appeal against the Scottish decision were heard by this court from 17th to 19th September. Because of the importance of the case, we convened a panel of 11 Justices, the maximum number of serving Justices who are permitted to sit. This judgment is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.</p><p>The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister's advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that "the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him". However, in considering prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different questions. The first is whether a prerogative power exists and if so its extent. The second is whether the exercise of that power, within its limits, is open to legal challenge. This second question may depend upon what the power is all about: some powers are not amenable to judicial review while others are. However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power. All the parties to this case accept that. This Court has concluded that this case is about the limits of the power to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament.</p><p>The second question, therefore, is what are the limits to that power? Two fundamental principles of our Constitution are relevant to deciding that question. The first is Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey: this would be undermined if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its power to make laws for as long as it pleased. The second fundamental principle is Parliamentary accountability: in the words of Lord Bingham, senior Law Lord, "the conduct of government by a Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively responsible and accountable to Parliament lies at the heart of Westminster democracy". The power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict.</p><p>For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution.</p><p>If the prorogation does have that effect, without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister's motive or purpose was unlawful.</p><h2>2.</h2><p>The third question, therefore, is whether this prorogation did have the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen's Speech. It prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on 31st October. Proroguing Parliament is quite different from Parliament going into recess. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch after the Queen's Speech. During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual. This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.</p><p>No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15th August. This explains why holding the Queen's Speech to open a new session of Parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen's Speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.</p><p>The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.</p><p>The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a "proceeding in Parliament" which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.</p><p>This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister's advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.</p><h2>3.</h2><p>It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.</p><p>It follows that the Advocate General's appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller's appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case."</p> <p class="tagline">Our Brexit Insider Facebook group is the best place for up-to-date news and analysis about Britain's departure from the EU, direct from Business Insider's political reporters. Join <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/267178180471848/">here.</a></p>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/presidential-debate-entertaining-problem-democratic-trump-reality-tv-show-2019-9">How networks treat debates like reality TV</a></h3>        <div>                    </div>    </div>

Read the UK Supreme Court's explosive verdict on why Boris Johnson's suspension of parliament was illegal

<ul><li><strong>India's Narendra Modi government has made a historic move to annul Constitutional provisions that confer Jammu and Kashmir a 'special' status that allows it to make its own laws and ward off 'outsiders.</strong></li><li><strong>India's Home Minister Amit Shah declared in the </strong><strong>Parliament today </strong><strong>that Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution will be abrogated.</strong></li><li><strong>The government also informed the Parliament that Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh will be split into two Union Territories, which will be the entire region directly under the Centre's rule.</strong></li><li><strong>Ahead of this announcement, Section 144 was imposed in Kashmir valley-- internet services have been suspended, political leaders like Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti have been placed under house arrest-- to prevent any backlash.</strong></li></ul><br />The Narendra Modi government is keen to create history by putting an end to provisions in the Indian Constitution that confer a special status to state of Jammu and Kashmir, which has been the centre of a conflict with Pakistan as well as a hotbed for separatists in the region. <br /><br />The government's overpowering majority in the Indian Parliament as well as the fact that the state is under President's rule for now, help Modi get his way.<br /><br />India's Home Minister Amit Shah declared in Parliament that Article 35A and Article 370 of the Indian Constitution that give special status given to Kashmir -- and rights to make its own laws-- will be abrogated. "The entire constitution will be applicable to Jammu and Kashmir state,” Shah said. In a subsequent order, India’s president approved the government’s changes.<br /><br />He also proposed splitting the state into two Union Territories -- Jammu and Kashmir being one and Ladakh being the other-- bringing the entire region under New Delhi's direct rule and administration.<br /><br />
  
  
  
  
  
  
  <div type="image" title="8f37c756ff5ce3d56319fdab452cec76 (1)" msid="70532007" hostid="261"></div>














<br />Shah's declaration was faced with an uproar from the opposition leaders in the Rajya Sabha. Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad argued that Article 370 has been a crucial factor in keeping Jammu and Kashmir united with India since its independence in 1947.<br /><br />Shah responded saying that Azad's argument was a lie perpetuated by the Congress for decades and Article 370 only managed to isolate Kashmiris from the rest of India.<br /><br /><strong>What it means</strong><br /><br />India's first Prime Minsiter Jawaharlal Nehru and Kashmiri icon Sheikh Abdullah agreed to a 'special' status for the state of Jammu and Kashmir to protect the land rights of the 'permanent citizens'. Article 35A prohibits 'outsiders' from owning property, getting government jobs and scholarship, and from settling in the state.<br /><br />The Article, also called the Permanent Residents Law, also prohibits women from inheriting property if they marry someone from outside the state.<br /><br />Apart from the autonomy, Article 370 -- which makes Artice 35A possible-- allows the state to make its own law and also makes it compulsory for the state assembly to agree to any move proposed by the central government in New Delhi. However, as of now, the state is under President's rule and there is no need for consent from the state assembly.<br /><br />Those against the 'special' status given to Jammu and Kashmir argue that Article 370 was a 'temporary' provision but the courts, including the Supreme Court, have held that it is a permanent part of the Constitution, in a judgement as recent as 2018. However, Parliamentarians from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) argued in the Parliament the it is indeed a temporary provision, which must be abolished now.<br /><br />So this move by the Narendra Modi government is expected to land in litigation as well draw some international attention.<br /><br />
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="70529731" title="Imran Khan is asking Donald Trump to intervene in Kashmir as promised" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>

































<br />It is also claimed by many experts that Article 35A stems from the powers conferred upon the President under Article 370 of the Constitution, and therefore one cannot be annulled without the other. The deletion of Article 370 will automatically render Article 35A null and void.<br /><br />Two Parliamentarians tore up copies of the Constitution in protest of the move to abrogate Article 370 and 35A. Both of them were forced out of the house by the Speaker of Rajya Sabha, Venkaiah Naidu, the country's Vice President.<br /><br /><br />SEE ALSO:<br /><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/section-144-in-kashmir-latest-news-developments/articleshow/70529285.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">All that's happened in Kashmir over the last 72 hours – from movement of troops to suspension of internet to political leaders under house arrest</a><br /><br /><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-will-now-be-two-separate-union-territories/articleshow/70531866.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh will now be two separate Union Territories</a><br /><br />

Article 370 and Article 35A which give Kashmir a special status will be annulled, Amit Shah tells Indian Parliament

<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Getty</span></p><p class="caption">Dominic Grieve</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><ul class="summary-list"><li><strong>The House of Commons passed a Brexit amendment on Wednesday designed to force the prime minister to immediately come up with a "Plan B" if her deal with the EU is rejected by MPs.</strong></li><li><strong>The "meaningful vote" amendment was heralded as parliament "taking back control" of Brexit.</strong></li><li><strong>However, parliamentary procedure experts insist that the amendment leaves the timetable for any second vote on May's deal essentially unchanged.</strong></li><li><strong>While there will be political pressure on May not to run down the clock she is under no legal obligation to do so.</strong></li></ul><p>LONDON - Theresa May's government was furious on Wednesday after the House of Commons Speaker John Bercow upended constitutional convention to let MPs vote on a motion which was designed to prevent the prime minister from "running down the clock" if she loses the vote on her Brexit deal next week.</p><p>The motion, brought forward by the former Conservative Attorney General Dominic Grieve, was subsequently backed by a majority of MPs, leading to widespread reports that MPs had <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/bercows-controversial-move-allows-commons-to-take-back-control-on-brexit-11602960">"taken back control</a>" of the Brexit process from May's government.</p><h2>Had they really?</h2><p>Well, not quite. While the intention of Grieve's amendment was to buy MPs an extra fortnight in which to shape the next stage of the process if, as expected, May's deal is voted down, Downing Street insisted on Thursday that this was a misreading of the amendment.</p><p>They pointed to advice they had received suggesting that while the amendment does mean they must bring a new motion forward within three sitting days, it does not oblige them to "move" that motion.</p><p>In other words, while Grieve's amendment will require the the government to set out what it plans to do if and when May's deal is voted down, it does not oblige them to put those plans immediately to a vote.</p><p>This interpretation was confirmed by parliamentary procedure experts Business Insider spoke to on Thursday, who suggested that Grieve's amendment essentially leaves the original timetabling procedure for any second "meaningful vote" on the Brexit deal untouched.</p><p>Technically, it changes nothing.</p><h2>So does Grieve's amendment actually make any difference?</h2><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Peter Macdiarmid / Getty</span></p><p class="caption">Tory MP and former Attorney General Dominic Grieve</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>Under <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/13/enacted" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Section 13</a><span> of the EU Withdrawal Act, the UK government has not 3 days, but 21 days to bring forward a statement on its next move if May's deal is voted down by MPs on Tuesday. Once that statement has been made, the government has a further seven House of Commons sitting days to move a vote on it.</span></p><p>Importantly, Grieve's amendment does not change that legally binding timetable.</p><h2>So does that mean that the prime minister could still run down the clock in a hope to force through her deal?</h2><p>It's certainly possible. And in that sense the Grieve amendment technically doesn't change anything.</p><p>However, doing so would go clearly against the spirit and intention of the amendment and be a provocation of the roughly 20 Remainer Conservative rebels MPs who have already demonstrated their willingness to vote against the government.</p><p>It would also be a provocation of the Commons Speaker, who has already demonstrated his determination to hand maximum powers to MPs.</p><p>And this is the crucial point. While technically Grieve's amendment may not have tied the government's hands, politically it is a clear demonstration of Parliament's will to shape the Brexit process.</p><p>The point that is often lost is that the meaningful vote is just the first step to ratifying the Brexit deal. </p><p>The meaningful vote may be important, but it is merely a precursor to the far more challenging process of passing the deal into legislation through the Withdrawal and Implementation Bil.</p><p>It is perfectly possible to imagine May managing to squeak her deal through the meaningful vote process, only for it to fall once she attempts to turn it into legislation. And if she fails to pass that bill by March 29, then the withdrawal treaty she has agreed with the EU becomes null and void.</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>UK Parliament / Jessica Taylor</span></p></div><p></p></div></div>A useful comparison here is with the <a href="https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/houseoflordsreform.html">House of Lords Reform Bill</a> brought forward by the Conservative-led coalition government in 2012.</p><p>The bill, which would have made the UK Parliament's upper chamber mostly elected, was supported in principle by Conservative MPs and the Labour opposition at its Second Reading in the Commons.</p><p>However, despite the Conservative and Liberal Democrat government having a clear parliamentary majority and despite all three major parties being committed to reform, the bill ultimately failed after MPs were unable to agree on the so-called Programme Motion for the bill.</p><p>Getting a Brexit deal passed into legislation by MPs would be significantly harder than passing reform of the Lords, even if May had possession of a clear governing majority, which she does not.</p><p>For this reason, any further attempt by May to "run down the clock" as her opponents accuse her of attempting, would only make the process of passing her deal even harder both in political and logistical terms.</p><p>So Grieve's amendment, while technically not forcing May to speed up the process, is a clear demonstration of Parliament's political will to move on to debate and vote on possible alternatives to her deal.</p><p>Were May to simply ignore that, then she would make the process of getting any Brexit Withdrawal bill through Parliament even more difficult than it already is.</p>  <p class="tagline">Our Brexit Insider Facebook group is the best place for up-to-date news and <keyword id="6357018" type="DEFINITION" weightage="60" keywordseo="Analysis">analysis</keyword> about Britain's departure from the EU, direct from Business Insider's political reporters. Join <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/267178180471848/">here.</a></p>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/msnbc-host-chris-hayes-president-trump-china-trade-war-2018-12">MSNBC host Chris Hayes thinks President Trump's stance on China is 'not at all crazy'</a></h3>        <div>                    </div>    </div>

You Searched For "null Power Minister" and got 6 results

Govt's Job Is Not Micro Management, But To Facilitate Business: Power Minister

BI India Bureau

The world's most powerful drug lord may be headed back to a prison he's already broken out of

Christopher Woody

Boris Johnson's peerage to disgraced donor who gave the Conservatives £500,000 after the PM forced through his nomination, faces legal challenge

Henry Dyer

Read the UK Supreme Court's explosive verdict on why Boris Johnson's suspension of parliament was illegal

Thomas Colson

Article 370 and Article 35A which give Kashmir a special status will be annulled, Amit Shah tells Indian Parliament

Sriram Iyer

Has the UK parliament really taken back control of Brexit from Theresa May?

Adam Bienkov

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides