India is a <u>Sovereign</u><u> </u><u>Socialist</u><u> Secular </u><u>Democratic</u><u> </u><u>Republic</u> with a Parliamentary form of government.
<h3>What type of democracy is in India? What is democracy?</h3>
India is parliamentary secular republic democratic country, in which the president of India is the first head and citizen and the prime minister is the head of the government.
Democracy is type of government system, in which people of the country has the authority and rights to choose their leaders by voting. In democracy, the citizens control the government.
Basically, the India Constitution followed the central government on the British pattern.
Learn more about the Democracy in India here:-
brainly.com/question/473591
#SPJ1
Explanation:
The witness's testimony is inadmissible.
Under Federal Rule 804(b)(1), the testimony of a witness who is unavailable, given at another hearing, is admissible in a subsequent trial if there is sufficient similarity of parties and issues so that the opportunity to develop testimony or cross-examination at the prior hearing was meaningful.
The former testimony is admissible upon any trial of the same subject matter. The party against whom the testimony is offered or, in civil cases, the party's predecessor in interest must have been a party in the former action. "Predecessor in interest" includes one in a privity relationship with the party, such as grantor-grantee, testator-executor, life tenant-remainder man, and joint tenants.
These requirements are intended to ensure that the party against whom the testimony is offered (or a predecessor in interest in a civil case) had an adequate opportunity and motive to cross-examine the witness.
In the civil suit here at issue, the survivors of the victim were not parties to the criminal case, nor were they in privity with any such party. (The parties to that case were the defendant and the government.) These survivors, who are the plaintiffs in the instant litigation, are the parties against whom the testimony of the witness is being offered. Because they were not parties to the action in which the witness testified, they had no opportunity to cross-examine him. Even if the government had a similar motive to cross-examine the witness as do the plaintiffs in the current action, that is not sufficient to make the government a predecessor in interest to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the testimony of the witness does not come within the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule, and the testimony is inadmissible hearsay.
A victim and his former business.
Answer:
Classical
Explanation:
In this final Circular Flow example for our course, the starting point was a deep recession with 5 million cyclically unemployed people. A Classical approach would suggest a "hands off" approach by Government and suggest that flexible prices and wages would correct the problem very quickly.
Answer:
Option B, spending less time with others, is the right answer.
Explanation:
Nowadays, most parents are working outside their homes than ever before. As participation is increasing in the outside jobs so as parents are also spending more time with their children than the earlier generations. But the question here is, how do parents are getting more time for their family, when they are involved in highly advanced businesses?
So according to a recent study, parents are spending less time with others and giving that precious time to their children.
It must be clean paper towel
