General Union Provisions: Fill & Download for Free

At his first inaugural address, President Lincoln gave the following explanation:“I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as acontract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.”At the conclusion of the war, the government wasn’t sure how well the legal arguments would stand up in court, so they avoided trying Jefferson Davis. The topic did finally reach the Supreme Court in 1869, in the case Texas v White. In that judgment, the court wrote:“When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”

Let me first put the question itself in the correct perspective. Firstly, I would prefer to use the words “State Government” instead of “Chief Minister”. Secondly, the words “ban the entry” may not be the correct words; I’ll explain what the correct words would be.Let me also point out that recently I had created a YouTube video on the issue of Andhra Pradesh Government withdrawing general consent to CBI for investigating offences within that state. This video is available at the link: https://bit.ly/2QhufVkWith this background, let me point out that “police” and “public order” are State subjects under the Constitution [being in the State List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution], which means that the power to legislate on these issues lies with the State legislatures and not the Parliament.However, the subjects of criminal law (including “Indian Penal Code” and Prevention of Corruption Act), criminal procedure (including “Criminal Procedure Code”), evidence (including the Evidence Act) are in the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. This implies that while the Parliament and State legislatures, both, have concurrent powers to legislate on these subjects, it is the Parliament whose law dominates the field in view of, and subject to, the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution.The power of registering FIR and conducting investigation in an offence has been given to police under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, which has been enacted by the Parliament in exercise of the above power. So, the power to investigate available with the state police is mainly given under the Criminal Procedure Code, which is enacted by the Parliament.State police forces have been constituted by the respective State Police Acts (such as Maharashtra Police Act for Maharashtra Police] or the Police Act of 1861.On the other hand, the CBI has been constituted as a special police force under the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (it is called, “Delhi Special Police Establishment” or DSPE, under the said Act).The original power of the CBI is within the jurisdiction of the union territories (such as in Delhi). However, the provisions of the above Act lay down that the power of CBI to conduct investigation can be extended within the jurisdiction of the states also, with the consent of the State Government concerned. This consent can be either general consent (for a category or class of offences, generally, such as for example, corruption cases against central government employees), or a special consent (which is given specially for a specific individual offence).It is this general consent that has now been withdrawn by the Andhra Pradesh Government from the CBI. This is legally permissible.This basically implies that CBI will not be legally empowered to register any new FIR (it is called RC or Regular Case in CBI’s terminology) for an offence which has occurred within the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh.West Bengal Government has also withdrawn such general consent given to the CBI.However, I may clarify that:(1) A special consent may still be given to the CBI for a specific / individual offence by the Andhra Pradesh Government in future. Of course, Andhra Pradesh Government can again give general consent to CBI for certain class or category of cases.(2) The Supreme Court and the High Court will still have the power to direct the CBI to conduct an investigation within Andhra Pradesh. And, for this purpose, the consent of the State Government shall NOT be necessary.(3) If any particular case was already being investigated by the CBI in Andhra Pradesh, then it can continue to investigate such offence even after withdrawal of the general consent. This is in view of an old judgment of the Supreme Court [Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116].(4) If the CBI registers an FIR in some other state or union territory (where the offence took place) even in future, and if a part of such investigation is required to be conducted within Andhra Pradesh, then the CBI would still have the power to conduct investigation in such offence within Andhra Pradesh, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the general consent by the State Government. This is in view of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allow the investigation of an offence to be continued anywhere in India. In fact, the investigation of an offence can be conducted even outside India through the process of what is known as letter rogatory or letters of request, as laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code. Of course, as I mentioned above, the CBI will not have the power to register a fresh FIR which took place in Andhra Pradesh itself (except without a special consent or without a court order, as mentioned above).(5) In that sense, there is no ban on entry of the CBI in Andhra Pradesh, as is wrongly mentioned in the question. The ban is only on the registration of a fresh FIR by CBI and investigation thereof, in Andhra Pradesh if the offence has taken place within that state.(6) Further, as I have clarified in the said video, a State Government has no authority to take away the powers of ED (Enforcement Directorate) and the Income Tax department and they can still exercise their full powers within Andhra Pradesh.So, this, in brief, is the legal position with regard to the question asked, with certain legal nuances, that I thought need to be clarified.

See this map?It represents the nations that signed the Rescue Agreement. See Russia there? The former Soviet Union signed it. Quoting from Wikipedia,“The Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, also referred to as the Rescue Agreement is an international agreement setting forth rights and obligations of states concerning the rescue of persons in space. The Agreement was created by a 19 December 1967 consensus vote in the United Nations General Assembly (Resolution 2345 (XXII)). It came into force on 3 December 1968. Its provisions elaborate on the rescue provisions in Article V of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Despite containing more specificity and detail than the rescue provision in Article V of the Outer Space Treaty, the Rescue Agreement still suffers from vague drafting and the possibility of differing interpretation.”Countries depicted in green signed and ratified the treaty; those in yellow signed it but have not ratified it.Again, from Wikipedia, here are the basic provisions:“The Rescue Agreement requires that any state party that becomes aware that the personnel of a spacecraft are in distress must notify the launching authority and the Secretary General of the United Nations.The Rescue Agreement essentially provides that any state that is a party to the agreement must provide all possible assistance to rescue the personnel of a spacecraft who have landed within that state's territory, whether because of an accident, distress, emergency, or unintended landing. If the distress occurs in an area that is beyond the territory of any nation, then any state party that is in a position to do so shall, if necessary, extend assistance in the search and rescue operation.”Those provisions - and the Agreement - were in place at the time of the Apollo 13 mission.Rescue Agreement - WikipediaImage: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Outer_Space_Treaty_parties.svg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Outer_Space_Treaty_parties.svg) Countries: http://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/spacelaw/treatystatus/AC105_C2_2017_CRP07E.pdf, by liivan9528