Are students from Government Aided schools eligible for the 7.5% reservation in NEET? TamilNadu government recently passed a bill that provides a 7.5% reservation for government school students in the NEET medical entrance exam. In TamilNadu, usually government and aided schools are treated in the same manner while concerning government schemes e.g)Nutrion meals, laptops schemes, etc... My question is that, Is this reservation applicable for students studying in Government Aided schools too? I couldn't find any information related to this.
At the time of writing, students studying in Government Aided schools are not eligible for the 7.5% percent reservation in NEET exams. Petitions have been filed in courts challenging this. References: Why exclude govt-aided students from 7.5% quota? | Indian Express Plea challenges exclusion of government-aided school students from 7.5% medical admission quota | The Hindu
Anti-discrimination laws only apply to people, see here – &quot;No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program to which this part applies&quot;. Genetic information anti-discrimination laws are limited to employment and insurance, see here. In addition, I'm betting that your dog cannot meet the university admission standards (lack of a transcript is fatal to the plan).
In South Africa. the duty of care in regards to children and the schools they attend only begins when the child enters the classroom for the first time. All parents are advised that, in the case of primary school children, it is not sufficient to drop young kids of at school. Parents must take them to their specific classroom. The duty to care officially ends when the school day ends. For primary school children that is 13-15 and for highschool children that is 13-45. Teachers are expected to work until 16-00, but the legal obligation for children to attend school ends when the school day ends. A lot of schools don't transport children anymore and have blanket policies of parents being responsible to take children to any extra mural events outside the school. It has just become increasingly harder to ensure children's safety, and many schools are uncomfortable with the liability it creates. The duty of care can be extended to schools who have hostels. In this case, hostel parents take up the role of parents.
Although the constitution doesn't explicitly require your vote to be equal in strength, surely the founders intended with the word 'vote' that you at least get to choose who you vote for. Quite the contrary. The founders specifically intended that smaller states should have disproportionate strength - they knew exactly what they were doing. This was one of the major design goals of the Constitution and is reflected in several other areas (e.g. the structure of the Senate); the smaller states wouldn't have agreed to join the Union if such concessions hadn't been made. There's a general principle in law that "the specific overrides the general". You're not going to get anywhere by trying to read into the word "vote" when there is explicit text saying something different. If the founders intended the word "vote" to imply "equal power for everyone", then why would they have specified, in great detail, a system which does exactly the opposite? For that matter, the founders didn't particularly intend that the people be able to vote for president at all! Article II, Section 1 says only that "each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." There is no requirement that the state should hold an election to determine the appointment of the electors. According to Wikipedia, five states initially had the electors chosen by the state legislature, without having the people vote at all, and South Carolina continued to use this system until 1860. The 14th Amendment, section 2, appears to require that all eligible voters (male and 21 at the time, since modified by the 19th and 26th Amendments) be allowed to vote for their electors, but even there the wording is "any election" which appears to leave open the possibility of having no election at all. (It hasn't been tested as far as I know.) I think that your proposed lawsuit would be quickly dismissed, possibly as "frivolous".
Is the government exempt from anti discrimination legislation Broadly speaking, the government (in Canada, the executive power vested in Her Majesty the Queen) is not subject to any law unless the legislature binds the Crown explicitly. In this case, Ontario Human Rights Code does bind the government and any agency of the Crown. However, Canada is a federal country, and for certain areas exclusively regulated by the federal government, provincial laws may not apply fully. This is the case for human rights and employment laws; the federal government along with federally regulated industries (banking, telecommunications, airlines etc.) enjoy immunity from provincial human rights codes. But they are still subject to the federal Canada Human Rights Act (which only apply to businesses under the federal jurisdiction), which also prohibit age discrimination. Additionally, government actions are also subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 15 of which prohibits discrimination based on age. what is with the huge number of jobs that list &quot;Must be eligible to participate in the Canada Summer Jobs (CSJ) program&quot; as a requirement (with &lt;30 being the top listed requirement). For example, the Canada Summer Jobs (CSJ) program you referred to in the question is a federal program within the spending power of the Parliament of Canada and are immune from provincial laws that interfere with its application. Ontario laws simply to no apply in this case (but federal law and the Charter does) even if an action physically happens in Ontario. What Exemptions are there to the Age Discrimination laws in Ontario? Anti-discrimination law in general only prohibits &quot;unreasonable&quot; discriminations. If someone can show that they have &quot;good reason&quot; to discriminate, it can be legal. For example, it is legal for a casting director to choose a black man to portray Martin Luther King Jr. instead of a white woman. It is also legal to discriminate against people with certain disabilities if they are in fact unable to carry out tasks required in a job even with reasonable accommodation. It is also legal for an employer (or for the law to require an employer) to give special leaves to women for pregnancy and childbirth, even though otherwise discrimination is not permitted based on sex. Age-based discounts for example are usually not illegal (and even explicitly legal in Ontario's legislation for senior's discounts) if the purpose is genuine (e.g. less spending power for teens and seniors). While age requirements are on its face a discrimination, youth programs usually qualify as affirmative action programs that are designed to ameliorate the conditions of a disadvantaged group. It is the same basis why certain gender-, race- or age-based scholarships and grants are legal. In the employment context, the government considers youths as a disadvantaged group and improving youth employment is a reasonable government objective. The Charter allows affirmative programs by the government: (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. and both federal and Ontario human rights legislations allow special programs: 14 (1) A right under Part I is not infringed by the implementation of a special program designed to relieve hardship or economic disadvantage or to assist disadvantaged persons or groups to achieve or attempt to achieve equal opportunity or that is likely to contribute to the elimination of the infringement of rights under Part I. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 14 (1). 16 (1) It is not a discriminatory practice for a person to adopt or carry out a special program, plan or arrangement designed to prevent disadvantages that are likely to be suffered by, or to eliminate or reduce disadvantages that are suffered by, any group of individuals when those disadvantages would be based on or related to the prohibited grounds of discrimination, by improving opportunities respecting goods, services, facilities, accommodation or employment in relation to that group. Canadian Human Rights Act
The comments have basically covered this, but: It's a slightly weird parallel structure ("who shall not be at least 25, and been a citizen for 7 years, and who shall not be a resident"). The Constitution is not written in fluid 21st-century English. But the obviously correct way to parse the sentence is that no one can be a representative who isn't a 25-year-old or older who's been a citizen for at least 7 years; furthermore, no one can be a representative who wasn't a resident of the state they represent when they were elected. With some parts of the Constitution (like the Second Amendment), the drafting results in actual disputes about the intended meaning. With other parts (like here), only one reading makes any sense. It's the same with the requirements to be President. The Constitution says "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President," which could be read as "you're not eligible unless, when the Constitution was adopted, you were either a citizen of the US or a natural-born citizen." But that's a silly reading, so "at the time of the Adoption" is read as only applying to "a Citizen of the United States:" natural-born citizens are eligible period, and people who were born before the US was a thing but were citizens by the time the Constitution was adopted were grandfathered in.
For starters you might want to read fundamental rights in India. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS General Definition. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights. Right to Equality Equality before law. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Abolition of Untouchability. Abolition of titles. Right to Freedom Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. Protection in respect of conviction for offences. Protection of life and personal liberty. 21A. Right to education. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. Right against Exploitation Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour. Prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc. Right to Freedom of Religion Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. Freedom to manage religious affairs. Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion. Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions. Cultural and Educational Rights Protection of interests of minorities. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. [Repealed.] Saving of Certain Laws 31A. Saving of Laws providing for acquisition of estates, etc. 31B. Validation of certain Acts and Regulations. 31C. Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles. 31D. [Repealed.] Right to Constitutional Remedies Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part. 32A. [Repealed.] Power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by this Part in their application to Forces, etc. Restriction on rights conferred by this Part while martial law is in force in any area. Legislation to give effect to the provisions of this Part. Then read this PDF for above mentioned topics. The eight fundamental rights recognised by the Indian constitution are: 1. Right to equality: Which includes equality before law, prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, gender or place of birth, and equality of opportunity in matters of employment, abolition of untouchability and abolition of titles. 2. Right to freedom: Which includes speech and expression, assembly, association or union or cooperatives, movement, residence, and right to practice any profession or occupation (some of these rights are subject to security of the State, friendly relations with foreign countries, public order, decency or morality), right to life and liberty, right to education, protection in respect to conviction in offences and protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. 3. Right against exploitation: Which prohibits all forms of forced labour, child labour and traffic of human beings 4. Right to freedom of religion: Which includes freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, freedom to manage religious affairs, freedom from certain taxes and freedom from religious instructions in certain educational institutes. 5. Cultural and Educational rights: Preserve the right of any section of citizens to conserve their culture, language or script, and right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. 6. Right to constitutional remedies: Which is present for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 7. Right to life: Which gives the right to live with human dignity. This includes rights such as right to education, health, shelter and basic amenities that the state shall provide. 8. Right to education: It is the latest addition to the fundamentals rights. 9. Right to Information:RTI stands for Right To Information and has been given the status of a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Remember - you will have to keep updating your knowledge on Laws India's parliament and state governments pass. One such place is PRSIndia. Read this question on Quora. Google search "Police laws and acts, india" - you will get lucky. About beating and mistreating, any body can do that. You do not have to be in police for doing so. You do not have to be weak, old or poor for getting beaten. Examples: Poor people beat their kids and wives. Frustrated wives beat their husbands. Salman Khan slapped Aishwarya Rai. And so on. All you can do is read about the law, gain information and use it. Edit: Adding an image (for visual stimulation) None of this constitutes a legal advice. These are opinions.
The English version of the taxman's web page does not indicate any specific exemption or reduction of taxation due to being under 18, however provision 102.3 says that The monthly taxable income of disabled people of I and II groups (except for veterans of war), persons under age of 18 with limited levels of health from any type employment shall be reduced by the amount of 200 manats. Provision 106.2, about exempt income says that Income tax rate for production enterprises owned by public organizations of disabled people, or children with limited levels of health shall be reduced by 50 percent if not less than 50 percent of employees at such enterprises are disabled people, or persons under age of 18 with limited levels of health. These provisions imply that it is legal for people under 18 to work. The Azerbaijan Labor Code section 42(3) says A person who has reached the age of fifteen may be a party to an employment contract. and 58(6) says that Employees under age of 18 may be allowed to hold multiple jobs if their total daily working hours do not exceed the reduced work hours provided for them in Section 91 hereof. which again implies that those under 18 may work for money. There are a number of other provisions that address employees under age 18. A freelancer is not an employee, so the labor code is technically not applicable to you, but it suggests that it is legal to freelance if you are under 18. Usually, restrictions are placed on people working for others and it is assumed that people can be self-employed relatively freely. One would have to hire a lawyer to be sure, though.