Talk:List of acts of the Parliament of India

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Formatting

I presume the use of "width:800px;" on each table was from a very laudable desire to make each table the same width. But size specifications like that are always deprecated because of the vast variety of browsers and user settings. I have indicated, but not completed, what I think is the correct approach. Section headings can be put inside a table and still contribute to the TOC. So create the whole thing as one big table! That way you can omit an overall width specification, the user's browser will decide on the best width and you will still get tidy columns all the way down. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But see List of free to air channels (UK). Does it greatly matter if each section has different column widths? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Act formats

I'm really pleased to see this list: but I think that it would be better to have done a different format. So that the links match the pages, the Acts should include the year in the title - because otherwise they may not be distinguished from other Commonwealth Acts of Parliament, and also between different Acts with the same name.

Can the person who wrote this write more on the Indian law page? I'd be very interested to help, because it's difficult to find decent up to date Indian law books in London. Wik idea 20:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting and renaming

This list needs to be split into at least two separate lists:

a list of Acts passed by the various central authorities in British India for the period 1834–1947; and
a list of Acts passed by the post-independence Constituent Assembly and Parliament.

The need for the split should be obvious; just ask a lawyer from Pakistan or Bangladesh!

The list also needs to be renamed. To the best of my knowledge there was no such thing as "federal" legislation before 1947, and "federal legislation" in relation to post-independence India does not properly distinguish between (a) the Constitution and its amendments, (b) Acts passed by the Parliament of India, (c) and "subordinate legislation". I would suggest "List of Acts passed by the Parliament of India" in relation to the post-independence era (this politely ignores that the earliest Acts would have been passed by the Constituent Assembly).

A good name for the British era is a trickier problem, in part because the name of the central legislative authority changed over time, and because of the Governor-General's reserve powers to pass legislation. Perhaps something like "List of central legislative Acts passed in British India"? (Possibly the British era should also be split at the change of system introduced by the Government of India Act 1919?)

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Requested move 07 May 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to List of Acts of the Parliament of India (non-admin closure) ^walk victor falk^talk 05:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian federal legislation → ? – This a formal move request based on the comments left by Andrew Gwilliam (talk · contribs) on this page. My reasons for move is based on the same grounds. I am coping the grounds mentioned by Andrew Gwilliam in verbatim. "To the best of my knowledge there was no such thing as "federal" legislation before 1947, and "federal legislation" in relation to post-independence India does not properly distinguish between (a) the Constitution and its amendments, (b) Acts passed by the Parliament of India, (c) and "subordinate legislation". I would suggest "List of Acts passed by the Parliament of India" in relation to the post-independence era (this politely ignores that the earliest Acts would have been passed by the Constituent Assembly).

A good name for the British era is a trickier problem, in part because the name of the central legislative authority changed over time, and because of the Governor-General's reserve powers to pass legislation. Perhaps something like "List of central legislative Acts passed in British India"?" Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Comment when I saw this title, I thought it was about Native Americans in either the USA or Canada... so IMO, it badly needs to use "India" instead of "Indian". -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of Indian federal acts looks like a pretty obvious choice to me, the words being used in the lead sentence. I understand 65's surprise, but I don't see a natural way to avoid adjective Indian, which is inherently ambiguous. Besides, the adjective for "other" Indians in academic discourse is usually native American.
Other similar articles are listed in Lists of legislation. Most are titled like "List of Acts [sic]"... (with wrong capitalization) or "List of laws"... and only a few have List of legislation. Although English is not my first language, the phrase "list of legislation" sounds odd – I really expect a noun in grammatical, not merely semantic, plural followed by "list of". No such user (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The word "Act" is a noun to refer to the statutory law passed by a legislature. Please note, the word "federal" is not commonly used in India in context of laws passed by the parliament. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 08:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that in law, Native Americans are referred to as "Indian", hence Indian reserve and Indian reservation. Since these are about law, the terms used in law concerning Amerinds in US and Canada is Indian. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - However, I think outside US and Canada, the term used is generally native American and not "Indian". The moot question is whether we should use the word "federal" to refer to the list. Please see the arguments above. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 08:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't matter what term is used to describe American Indians outside of law, since this is a legal article. The prescriptive term is "Indian", it is what is written in the laws. Since this is an article about laws, there is quite a lot of confusion that will be engendered. So using "Indian" is a poor choice, while "India" removes such confusion. "federal" just makes it worse, since most legislation concerning "Indians" in the US and Canada is federal. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current title brings to mind Native Americans - the U.S. government still has a Bureau of Indian Affairs, and there is in fact a great deal of historical federal legislation in the U.S. with "Indian" in the title. I think, however, that a name including the phrase "Indian Parliament" would alleviate any confusion, as there has never been a parliamentary system in the U.S. bd2412 T 14:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support split into
1. List of laws passed by the Parliament of India: this would seem to include the laws passed by the constituent assembly and the provisional parliament, but we can include them in the article all the same.
2. List of laws passed by the Imperial Legislative Council of India and, again, we include the handful of Company-era laws as well even if the title doesn't mention it so.—indopug (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I still feel the most apt/technical word would be "Act" instead of "laws". Have a look at Lists of legislation, the most common word used for the Commonwealth countries which has a Parliamentary system is "Act". Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acts is fine with me. I guess we follow List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and name it List of Acts of the Parliament of India.—indopug (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, List of Acts of the Parliament of India sounds like the winner. I'd rather not split, despite the mismatch of the title and scope, but that can be decided separately. No such user (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split

If it is decided to split the article, I'd suggest list of legislation in British India, to match Category:Legislation in British India. ^walk victor falk^talk 05:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Acts of the Parliament of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]