legal principle: a power conferred by a statute cannot be withdrawn by subordinate legislation. factual situation: the cinematograph act conferred powers upon the district magistrate - indian constitution (entrance exams)
given below is the statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.legal principle: a power conferred by a statute cannot be withdrawn by subordinate legislation.factual situation: the cinematograph act conferred powers upon the district magistrate (dm) to grant license subject to the control of the government. the government framed rules under the said act. the effect of these rules was that the licensing power stood transferred to the government itself and the district magistrate was rendered powerless. whether such rules are valid?decision :
the licensing power was granted by the cinematograph act. any withdrawal or transfer thereof was possible only through an amending act and not by any rules made under the parent act. explanation: the licensing power was granted by the cinematograph act. any withdrawal or transfer thereof was possible only through an amending act and not by rules made under the parent act.
the “rule of law” states that everyone, regardless of any discrimination, is equal before the law. in an independent and democratic india, all citizens from a rickshaw puller to the prime minister are to be judged equally before the law if they violate it by committing a crime. every violation of a law or commitment of a criminal offense has a specific process to establish guilt and cite its punishment. the “rule of law” ensures that equality is maintained by passing the same judgment on a criminal regardless of his/her status or background.
violations of the “rule of law” are, sadly enough, aplenty in india. in our country, if one has power or “contacts” with influential people, then it is easy to get away with even gross violations of laws and rules. for example, most politicians today own property and wealth worth crores but they do not even file tax returns on the same. the assets they declare are probably not even half of what they originally own. however, an ordinary income tax official cannot dare to question them for fear of losing his job, because the former have “power” that this official does not possess. a statutory corporation is formed by passing a special act of parliament or state legislature. example: airports authority of india. following are the features of such an enterprise:* it is formed by a special act by the parliament or state legislature which defines its power and functions.
* it has a separate legal entity.
* the board of directors are nominated or appointed by the government.
* capital is either borrowed from the government or the public.
* free from government accounting and audit control.
* autonomy in framing policies within the limits of the state legislature.
* ease of operations and quick decisions can be taken due to less interference of government.
* provides better services than governmental organisations which in turn helps in increasing profit for the corporation. the executive branch of our government is not chief legislator. laws are legislated by congress. the president's duty is to see to it that the laws are carried out. as commander in chief, the president acts as the non-military person in charge of all military operations and is the civilian head. our forefathers wanted a civilian to head the services because they feared that a military headed by a military person would wield too much power and would threaten the stability of the country if they ever tried to thwart the will of congress and the president.

chow!! No, since they did not write the law for you. What you need to look for is a Grandfather Clause that lets those who had it legally, get to keep it legally.   

  

Edit: No, TD, it is so the police can see the driver. a traffic ticket is a notice of violation. the statute of
limitations is to prevent one from being accused of a crime when
the witnesses may no longer be available and defense difficult. in
this case, you have already been notified of the violation and have
not defended against it in the time allotted. as such, a traffic
ticket does not expire and is not subject to a statute of
limitations. the united states supreme court held in county of riverside v. v. mclaughlin (1991) 500 u.s. 44, that a person arrested without a warrant is entitled to a judicial determination of probable cause within 48 hours, including weekends and holidays.

it appears that ? was involved in some kind of civil custody proceeding, which is different from the detention of those arrested for criminal conduct. Supreme court after examining the details of engineering education imparted through the distance mode came to a conclusion that imparting an engineering course through the distance mode was not permissible without the approval of AICTE. The court categorically told that engineering colleges in a particular state have no right to extend their limit beyond the state territory for imparting distance education. It also observed that the post facto approval by UGC in these matters were also defunct. With this the court ruled that distance degrees with effect from 2001-2005 session are not to be considered until unless AICTE takes a view of verifying them through additional tests or exams.  
  
All these stipulations are for those candidates who have completed their degrees in distance mode. In your case you have come through the legally valid lateral mode in the regular stream of engineering so there is nothing to worry as your degree is very much valid. because the us supreme court has said that government can ban polygamy and not violate the first amendment as it does so. the case in which that happened was well over 100 years ago, reynolds v. united states. here's a wiki summary of that case and the court's ruling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/reynolds\_v.\_united\_states

furthermore, there has been other rhetoric (known as obiter dictum) in two other cases which also mentioned that getting married is not a constitutional right, per se: 
"the state ... has an absolute right to prescribe the condition upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the cause for which it may be dissolved." -- pennoyer v. neff, 1877.
"marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature." -- maynard v. hill, 1888.

state legislature's control over marriage is less than absolute now, though, because of a few 20th century rulings, like loving v. virginia, 1966, zablocki v. redhail, 1978, and turner v. safley, 1986, but none of those cases were decided on the basis of the first amendment. none of those cases claimed that a right to get married is as absolute as the 19th century opinion had claimed that a state government has absolute power over marriage. so states still have some control over dictating who can marry whom. democracy is more effective than its other alternatives:1. promotes equality: one of democracy’s underlying principles is equality among citizens. it tries to stop discrimination on the basis of caste, religion, region or sex.2. enhances dignity of the individual: democracy does not allow the dignity or the basic rights of a person to be violated.3. improves the quality of decision-making: since decision-making power is not concentrated in one hand, democracy ensures an unbiased system of checks and balances.explanation: democracy largely derives its power from the citizen itself. unlike other forms of government, it prioritizes the welfare of citizens through the citizens themselves. I'm sure he wasn't "illegally" taken by the state, since the state is the one that makes the rules. You may not agree with their decision, but that doesn't make it illegal. 


You'll have to review the custody order to see who has the final decision regarding school placement. My guess is that if the father has custody, then he probably has the final decision, but it could be different. You may want to consult with an attorney to review the order.