Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

🔠 ❌ UPSC Prelims 2026 Disputed MCQ on Polity Article 13 Explained by Dr. Siddharth Arora sir (Adv Sidharth Arora ) 🔠 MCQ. X' was addressing a seminar on the meaning of the term 'law' as provided under Article 13, Part III of the Constitution of India. X' explained...

Mrunal_Patel's profile picture

Dr. Mrunal Patel (Ph.D.)

92,774 subscribers

12,703 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Contempt of Court is Not a Law in Ireland Under Article 15.2 of the Constitution of Ireland, the sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is vested in the Oireachtas. This means that only Acts passed by the Dáil and Seanad, and signed by the President, can be considered “law” in Ireland. At present, “contempt of court” is enforced by judges through inherent jurisdiction and common law practice, not through an Act of the Oireachtas. There is no statute that has been enacted by the Oireachtas which defines contempt of court, sets out its elements, or prescribes penalties. Because contempt is based on judicial discretion and unwritten common law, it does not meet the constitutional standard of being a law made by the Oireachtas. Therefore, while courts may act as if it is enforceable, it is not, strictly speaking, an Irish law under Article 15.2 of the Constitution. #Constitution #Ireland #Oireachtas #RuleOfLaw #Justice #Accountability #Truth
1:53

Contempt of Court is Not a Law in Ireland Under Article 15.2 of the Constitution of Ireland, the sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is vested in the Oireachtas. This means that only Acts passed by the Dáil and Seanad, and signed by the President, can be considered “law” in Ireland. At present, “contempt of court” is enforced by judges through inherent jurisdiction and common law practice, not through an Act of the Oireachtas. There is no statute that has been enacted by the Oireachtas which defines contempt of court, sets out its elements, or prescribes penalties. Because contempt is based on judicial discretion and unwritten common law, it does not meet the constitutional standard of being a law made by the Oireachtas. Therefore, while courts may act as if it is enforceable, it is not, strictly speaking, an Irish law under Article 15.2 of the Constitution. #Constitution #Ireland #Oireachtas #RuleOfLaw #Justice #Accountability #Truth

Patrick McGreal

14,710 views • 10 months ago

.Victoria Coates: “The good news here is that Article II of the Charter of the United Nations is not binding U.S. law, Article II of the U.S. Constitution is, and that was the authority the President used.”
1:19

.Victoria Coates: “The good news here is that Article II of the Charter of the United Nations is not binding U.S. law, Article II of the U.S. Constitution is, and that was the authority the President used.”

Heritage Foundation

61,085 views • 6 months ago

Violent imperialism, eternal vengeance and collective punishment are poisons that endanger us all. The EU believes deeply in a world and an order based on rules. The force of law and not the law of force. The force of rules that must be decided together. #COP29
0:23

Violent imperialism, eternal vengeance and collective punishment are poisons that endanger us all. The EU believes deeply in a world and an order based on rules. The force of law and not the law of force. The force of rules that must be decided together. #COP29

Charles Michel

12,738 views • 1 year ago

X is not above the law. The toy of the world’s richest man won’t take down illegal posts on X – but no-one’s above the law. Join the fight:
0:45

X is not above the law. The toy of the world’s richest man won’t take down illegal posts on X – but no-one’s above the law. Join the fight:

Good Law Project

169,758 views • 7 months ago

Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against Democratic forces available to judiciary 24x7. We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India and on what basis? The only right you have under the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3). There it has to be five judges when Article 145(3) was there, the number of judges in the Supreme Court was eight, 5 out of 8, now 5 out of 30 odd more. The judges who issued a mandamus virtually to the President and presented a scenario it will be law of the land have forgotten the power of the Constitution. How can that combination of judges deal with something under Article 145(3) if it was preserved then for five out of eight. #RajyaSabha
1:36

Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against Democratic forces available to judiciary 24x7. We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India and on what basis? The only right you have under the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3). There it has to be five judges when Article 145(3) was there, the number of judges in the Supreme Court was eight, 5 out of 8, now 5 out of 30 odd more. The judges who issued a mandamus virtually to the President and presented a scenario it will be law of the land have forgotten the power of the Constitution. How can that combination of judges deal with something under Article 145(3) if it was preserved then for five out of eight. #RajyaSabha

Vice-President of India

393,978 views • 1 year ago

The Uniform Civil Code is unacceptable as it goes against the fundamental rights granted in the Constitution, and it is detrimental to the unity and integrity of the country. We (Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind) have already approached the court against the decision to implement the Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand with the hope of receiving justice in order to uphold the Constitution of the country, democracy, and the supremacy of law. As our Constitution guarantees Right to Freedom in article 25, 26 and 29 while recognizing the fundamental rights of citizens, and the Muslim Personal Law is also protected under the Shariat Application Act of 1937. Hence, We will not accept any law that is against Shariah. Muslims can compromise on things, but they can never compromise on their Shariah and Religion. #UniformCivilCode #UCC
2:21

The Uniform Civil Code is unacceptable as it goes against the fundamental rights granted in the Constitution, and it is detrimental to the unity and integrity of the country. We (Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind) have already approached the court against the decision to implement the Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand with the hope of receiving justice in order to uphold the Constitution of the country, democracy, and the supremacy of law. As our Constitution guarantees Right to Freedom in article 25, 26 and 29 while recognizing the fundamental rights of citizens, and the Muslim Personal Law is also protected under the Shariat Application Act of 1937. Hence, We will not accept any law that is against Shariah. Muslims can compromise on things, but they can never compromise on their Shariah and Religion. #UniformCivilCode #UCC

Arshad Madani

48,338 views • 1 year ago

The Motor City Madman nails it again. The Constitution is not an opinion or a view; it’s the law of the land, built on logic and common sense.
1:35

The Motor City Madman nails it again. The Constitution is not an opinion or a view; it’s the law of the land, built on logic and common sense.

🇺🇸Steve2A🇺🇸God🇺🇸Family🇺🇸Country🇺🇸

16,140 views • 5 months ago

Article 25 of the Constitution on the right to fair hearing is sacrosanct. The High Court found that Honorable Rigathi Gachagua was not given a fair hearing in the impeachment process. In my view, after that finding, the proper and inevitable conclusion was to annul that impeachment. #Ukombozi
4:16

Article 25 of the Constitution on the right to fair hearing is sacrosanct. The High Court found that Honorable Rigathi Gachagua was not given a fair hearing in the impeachment process. In my view, after that finding, the proper and inevitable conclusion was to annul that impeachment. #Ukombozi

David Maraga

12,380 views • 1 month ago

🇺🇸 FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: ANYBODY IN THE EPSTEIN FILES IS ABOVE THE LAW Ryan Crosswell: "The most galling part about all of this was that Pam Bondi also said 'no one is above the law'. Except we know that's not true. Eric Adams is above the law. Tom Holman is above the law. Apparently anybody in the Epstein files is above the law. And really anyone who's a friend of Trump is above the law." Source: Acyn
1:26

🇺🇸 FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: ANYBODY IN THE EPSTEIN FILES IS ABOVE THE LAW Ryan Crosswell: "The most galling part about all of this was that Pam Bondi also said 'no one is above the law'. Except we know that's not true. Eric Adams is above the law. Tom Holman is above the law. Apparently anybody in the Epstein files is above the law. And really anyone who's a friend of Trump is above the law." Source: Acyn

Mario Nawfal

214,858 views • 9 months ago

Medvedev on migrants: We will discuss countering the formation of ethnic enclaves on Russian territory. This is a resonant topic. The compact settlement of foreigners in any country - not only in ours - does not help them adapt, and does not facilitate the correct application of Russian laws, or proper law-abiding behavior.
0:33

Medvedev on migrants: We will discuss countering the formation of ethnic enclaves on Russian territory. This is a resonant topic. The compact settlement of foreigners in any country - not only in ours - does not help them adapt, and does not facilitate the correct application of Russian laws, or proper law-abiding behavior.

Margarita Simonyan

85,002 views • 3 months ago

American says Sharia Law was on the ballot in Texas “They had Proposition 10, whether or not Sharia law should be allowed in the state of Texas. And, you know, I believe in the United States Constitution, so of course I voted no on that” Demand a Nationwide ban on Sharia Law
3:02

American says Sharia Law was on the ballot in Texas “They had Proposition 10, whether or not Sharia law should be allowed in the state of Texas. And, you know, I believe in the United States Constitution, so of course I voted no on that” Demand a Nationwide ban on Sharia Law

Wall Street Apes

40,259 views • 4 months ago

BREAKING: UAE EXPOSES ISRAEL’S VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW “Under international law, the Gaza Strip is occupied territory. Israel's indiscriminate attacks on the Gaza Strip have caused massive civilian casualties and the extensive destruction of homes, schools, and hospitals. Israel has imposed a policy of collective punishment against the Palestinian people in violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel has repeatedly issued so-called evacuation orders that, in effect, seek to transfer Palestinians forcibly in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel has also failed its duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies to the population in Gaza in violation of Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel has further failed to protect the wounded and the sick, in violation of Article 16 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Each passing day is met with further violations of international humanitarian law.”
2:57

BREAKING: UAE EXPOSES ISRAEL’S VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW “Under international law, the Gaza Strip is occupied territory. Israel's indiscriminate attacks on the Gaza Strip have caused massive civilian casualties and the extensive destruction of homes, schools, and hospitals. Israel has imposed a policy of collective punishment against the Palestinian people in violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel has repeatedly issued so-called evacuation orders that, in effect, seek to transfer Palestinians forcibly in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel has also failed its duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies to the population in Gaza in violation of Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel has further failed to protect the wounded and the sick, in violation of Article 16 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Each passing day is met with further violations of international humanitarian law.”

Sulaiman Ahmed

668,522 views • 2 years ago

The "Boriswave" of immigration since 2021 was the culmination of a quarter-century-long revolution in British governance and life initiated by Tony Blair in 1997. Reform's acknowledgement today that it should be overturned is part of a long English tradition of reversing bad revolutions, from Magna Carta in the 13th century to the Restoration in the 17th. This is The Starkey Thesis: England's constitution is its history, and that history is CONSERVATIVE. It is both the accommodation of change AND the reining in of progressive fads. Blairism was the ultimate progressive fad; the alignment of this country and its common law system with the unworkable principles of human rights law and international law enforced by domineering judicial activists. It is time to restore the constitution we had, to reverse this bad revolution.
5:11

The "Boriswave" of immigration since 2021 was the culmination of a quarter-century-long revolution in British governance and life initiated by Tony Blair in 1997. Reform's acknowledgement today that it should be overturned is part of a long English tradition of reversing bad revolutions, from Magna Carta in the 13th century to the Restoration in the 17th. This is The Starkey Thesis: England's constitution is its history, and that history is CONSERVATIVE. It is both the accommodation of change AND the reining in of progressive fads. Blairism was the ultimate progressive fad; the alignment of this country and its common law system with the unworkable principles of human rights law and international law enforced by domineering judicial activists. It is time to restore the constitution we had, to reverse this bad revolution.

David Starkey

166,433 views • 9 months ago

My Statement on Conditions for the Use of Firearms by Police Officers I have seen debates, reactions, and expressions regarding my recent statement on the use of firearms by police officers. My statement was made contextually and consciously with clarity of mind based on the express provisions of the law. No leader, scholar, jurist, journalist, blogger, or opinion shaper has challenged me on the law. At my age, position, and experience, I cannot utter statements that are not supported by the Constitution and the law. Throughout my career, I have never, in my conduct or utterances, found myself on the wrong side of the law. Indeed the Sixth Schedule of the National Police Service Act, in Paragraph B(1), provides the conditions for use of firearms by the Police as follows: 1.Protecting the lives of officers or civilians 2.Self-defense against imminent threats of death or serious injury protection through justified force 4.Preventing the escape of felony suspects from lawful custody I ask all those who are spreading misinformation, disinformation, and fake news to challenge me on the law. Those who are saying I issued an order to the police should show where the order is. A mere restatement of the law as it exists cannot amount to giving an order to the police. The Police are mandated by law to operate within the constitutional framework, the statutes, and the departmental standing orders. In any case, I have no constitutional powers to give such orders; instead, I have a duty to support the police and to formulate policy recommendations to aid the application of law in the enforcement of law and order. Our police officers who are attacked by robbers, rioters, and arsonists—who have torched police stations, stolen rifles, burnt suspects alive, and burnt property worth millions of shillings, including courts —cannot be left helpless when they have been given the authority by the Constitution and the law to defend themselves, the citizens, and their property. The law is in black and white.
2:16

My Statement on Conditions for the Use of Firearms by Police Officers I have seen debates, reactions, and expressions regarding my recent statement on the use of firearms by police officers. My statement was made contextually and consciously with clarity of mind based on the express provisions of the law. No leader, scholar, jurist, journalist, blogger, or opinion shaper has challenged me on the law. At my age, position, and experience, I cannot utter statements that are not supported by the Constitution and the law. Throughout my career, I have never, in my conduct or utterances, found myself on the wrong side of the law. Indeed the Sixth Schedule of the National Police Service Act, in Paragraph B(1), provides the conditions for use of firearms by the Police as follows: 1.Protecting the lives of officers or civilians 2.Self-defense against imminent threats of death or serious injury protection through justified force 4.Preventing the escape of felony suspects from lawful custody I ask all those who are spreading misinformation, disinformation, and fake news to challenge me on the law. Those who are saying I issued an order to the police should show where the order is. A mere restatement of the law as it exists cannot amount to giving an order to the police. The Police are mandated by law to operate within the constitutional framework, the statutes, and the departmental standing orders. In any case, I have no constitutional powers to give such orders; instead, I have a duty to support the police and to formulate policy recommendations to aid the application of law in the enforcement of law and order. Our police officers who are attacked by robbers, rioters, and arsonists—who have torched police stations, stolen rifles, burnt suspects alive, and burnt property worth millions of shillings, including courts —cannot be left helpless when they have been given the authority by the Constitution and the law to defend themselves, the citizens, and their property. The law is in black and white.

KIPCHUMBA MURKOMEN, E.G.H

213,283 views • 1 year ago

Listen to Hypocrisy of India’s Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal❗️ “As per Article 15 of the Constitution no LAW shall discriminate on the basis of Caste, Gender or Religion”😳 Does Law Minister have an idea that Reservation, SC/ST & UGC Act are there just on the bases of Caste❓
0:46

Listen to Hypocrisy of India’s Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal❗️ “As per Article 15 of the Constitution no LAW shall discriminate on the basis of Caste, Gender or Religion”😳 Does Law Minister have an idea that Reservation, SC/ST & UGC Act are there just on the bases of Caste❓

Bhakt Prahlad🚩

44,206 views • 5 months ago

The Vice-Chancellor of the National Law School of India University NLSIU speaks on the initiative of @SWDGok, Govt of Karnataka, on reading the 'The Preamble of the Constitution' on 15th Sept, 2023. Have YOU registered to be a part of it?
1:55

The Vice-Chancellor of the National Law School of India University NLSIU speaks on the initiative of @SWDGok, Govt of Karnataka, on reading the 'The Preamble of the Constitution' on 15th Sept, 2023. Have YOU registered to be a part of it?

Manivannan P 🇮🇳

26,261 views • 2 years ago