Origin of phrase jibber jabber3/17/2023 ![]() *Erika´s note – in this example ‘ en‘ translates to ‘ on‘ in English, but this isn´t always the case! We use ‘ estar‘ to talk about the location / position of places, people, and objects. Well, ‘estar’ is used when referring to a temporary condition (feeling cold, being in a certain city, being in love, etc.)īasically, we use ‘estar’ (and therefore also ‘estoy’) in the following contexts – So, how do you know when to use ‘ estar‘? It therefore needs to be used exclusively in contexts in which ‘ estar’ is called for (as opposed to ‘ ser‘) “So, estoy just means I am, that´s so easy!”, I hear you cry while closing your Spanish dictionary with a triumphant smirk!īut hold your horses and don´t close that dictionary just yet!Īs mentioned above, ‘ estoy’ is the first-person singular of the verb ‘ estar’. I remember clearly that when I first embarked in my Spanish speaking journey, these two tricky little verbs would constantly trip me up!Īnyway, without further ado, let´s get into the differences between ‘ soy‘ and ‘ estoy‘. This difference between ‘ ser‘ and ‘ estar‘ can be quite confusing for learners of Spanish the concept itself is fairly straightforward, but in practice the use of each one can be quite nuanced! The Supreme Court deserves to be credited for another important judgment upholding the federal scheme and spirit of the Constitution.Quick answer – both these words can be translated to ‘ I am‘ in English, but they CANNOT be used interchangeably! ‘ Soy’ is the first person present of the verb ‘ ser‘ (used to talk about permanent qualities) and ‘ estoy‘ is the first person present of ‘ estar‘ (used to talk about a temporary condition). Having lost three years to constant bickering, the judgment will come as a relief to the AAP government and its struggle to keep deliver the many promises it made to Delhi voters. The circular empowering the L-G to decide on service matters is likely to be heard by another bench but this judgment will serve as a guiding light. In sum, all the decisions on health, education, PDS, transport, etc, that the L-G and AAP haggled over have been set at rest. It further added that Lieutenant Governor should not act in a mechanical manner without due application of mind so as to refer every decision of the Council of Ministers to the President.” The Union and its lawyers tried to make much of the phrase “any matter” but SC pointed out that any matter was different from “every matter”. When difference of opinion arises on “any matter”, the L-G couldn’t take a decision or force a decision on the cabinet but had to refer to the President to take a decision. It said the Council of Ministers was only mandated to communicate all decisions to the L-G and not seek his concurrence. SC also narrowed down L-G’s discretionary powers considerably. SC also noted that the presence of a legislative assembly empowered to make laws on all entries in the State and Concurrent List, save for three, also implied that the Council of Ministers was exercising executive power as a representative of the assembly to implement the legislations it enacted. It is now unquestioned constitutional dictum that the “aid and advice” function of the Council of Ministers is a euphemism for the executive function of the cabinet. In contrast, the majority verdict in SC looked at some key phrases in Article 239AA. ![]() Governor is bound to act only on the aid and advice of the council of ministers in relation to matters in respect of which the power to make laws has been conferred to the legislative assembly of NCT of Delhi under Article 239AA, is without substance and cannot be accepted,” the HC judgment had said. “The contention of the Delhi government that the Lt. While the Delhi HC interpreted Article 239AA and Government of NCT of Delhi Act and the Transaction of Business Rules to arrive at its position of L-G as the administrative head of the Capital, the Supreme Court seems to have laid greater stress on Article 239AA and the constitutional implication of the existence of an elected legislative assembly in contrast to other Union territories. The Article also empowers Parliament to make laws even on entries in the state list and referring “difference of opinion on any matter” between L-G and Council of Ministers to the President. Article 239AA is clear that land, police and public order will remain outside the Delhi government’s domain and on all other entries in the state and concurrent list, the lieutenant-governor shall be aided and advised by the central government. It is interesting how the Supreme Court and the Delhi high court arrived at differing interpretations of Article 239AA of the Constitution which defines the relationship between the central and Delhi governments.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |