Languages: Mock Test - 9 - CUET MCQ

The Parliament passed the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which promises to strengthen the rights of consumers and provides a mechanism for redressal of complaints regarding defects in goods and deficiency in services.Union Food and Consumer Affairs Minister stressed that the overall purpose of the legislation was to ease the process of addressing grievances of consumers.

TheAct also seeks to bring in e-commerce under their jurisdiction and hold celebrities accountable for false and misleading advertisements of products that they endorse.

The Act proposed strict action against the advertiser in case of misleading advertisements but not against the media through which the advertisement is being publicised. It also provides for product liability action on account of harm caused to consumers due to defective products or deficient services.Product liability means the liability of a product manufacturer, service provider or seller to compensate a consumer for any harm or injury caused by a defective good or deficient service.

Under the Act, a consumer is defined as a person who buys any good or avails a service for a consideration.

It does not include a person who obtains a good for resale or a good or service for commercial purpose. It covers transactions through all modes including offline, and online through electronic means, teleshopping, multilevel marketing or direct selling. Only a consumer can bring an action under the Act. Certain consumer rights have been defined in the Act, including the right to: (i) be protected against marketing of goods and services which are hazardous to life and property; (ii) be informed of the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods or services; (iii) be assured of access to a variety of goods or services at competitive prices; and (iv) seek redressal against unfair or restrictive trade practices.

The central government will set up a Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to promote, protect and enforce the rights of consumers. It will regulate matters related to violation of consumer rights, unfair trade practices, and misleading advertisements. The CCPA will have an investigation wing, headed by a DirectorGeneral, which may conduct inquiry or investigation into such violations.The CCPA may impose a penalty on a manufacturer or an endorser of up to Rs 10 lakh and imprisonment for up to two years for a false or misleading advertisement. In case of a subsequent offence, the fine may extend to Rs 50 lakh and imprisonment of up to five years.

Q. Kanika Sharma, a famous actress endorsed a brand of leggings. In the advertisement, the actress says, "100% cotton leggings to keep you cool during summers." Manasa purchase a pair of the same brand leggings relying on the advertisement. It turns out to be only 20% cotton and the rest is nylon.
Choose the best option.

The Parliament passed the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which promises to strengthen the rights of consumers and provides a mechanism for redressal of complaints regarding defects in goods and deficiency in services.Union Food and Consumer Affairs Minister stressed that the overall purpose of the legislation was to ease the process of addressing grievances of consumers.

TheAct also seeks to bring in e-commerce under their jurisdiction and hold celebrities accountable for false and misleading advertisements of products that they endorse.

The Act proposed strict action against the advertiser in case of misleading advertisements but not against the media through which the advertisement is being publicised. It also provides for product liability action on account of harm caused to consumers due to defective products or deficient services.Product liability means the liability of a product manufacturer, service provider or seller to compensate a consumer for any harm or injury caused by a defective good or deficient service.

Under the Act, a consumer is defined as a person who buys any good or avails a service for a consideration.

It does not include a person who obtains a good for resale or a good or service for commercial purpose. It covers transactions through all modes including offline, and online through electronic means, teleshopping, multilevel marketing or direct selling. Only a consumer can bring an action under the Act. Certain consumer rights have been defined in the Act, including the right to: (i) be protected against marketing of goods and services which are hazardous to life and property; (ii) be informed of the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods or services; (iii) be assured of access to a variety of goods or services at competitive prices; and (iv) seek redressal against unfair or restrictive trade practices.

The central government will set up a Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to promote, protect and enforce the rights of consumers. It will regulate matters related to violation of consumer rights, unfair trade practices, and misleading advertisements. The CCPA will have an investigation wing, headed by a DirectorGeneral, which may conduct inquiry or investigation into such violations.The CCPA may impose a penalty on a manufacturer or an endorser of up to Rs 10 lakh and imprisonment for up to two years for a false or misleading advertisement. In case of a subsequent offence, the fine may extend to Rs 50 lakh and imprisonment of up to five years.

Q. Garima ordered fried rice at a 3-star restaurant. She found a dead cockroach in it. Decide.

The unanimous ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on Thursday, on the prevention of alleged acts of genocide against Rohingya Muslims has finally pinned legal responsibility on Myanmar's government for the military's large-scale excesses of 2017. The court has further emphasised that an estimated 600,000 Rohingya resident in Myanmar still remained highly vulnerable to attacks from the security forces. The ruling vindicates findings by the UN and human rights groups on the prevalence of hate speech, mass atrocities of rape and extra-judicial killings, and torching of villages in Myanmar's Rakhine province, leading to the forced migration of thousands to Bangladesh. The ruling pertains to the Gambia's suit on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), alleging that the brutalities by the defence services amounted to crimes of genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention. Arguing the defence in person during the three-day public hearings last month, Ms. Suu Kyi, who was elected in 2016, insisted that the 2017 violence was proportionate to the threat of insurgency. She even questioned the Gambia's standing to bring the suit, saying that there was no bilateral dispute.

Rejecting the ICJ's ruling, Myanmar's Foreign Ministry has accused rights groups of presenting the Court with a distorted picture of the prevailing situation. In a statement, it defended the army's action as a legitimate response to violations of the law by the insurgent Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. However, the above claim is at odds with the findings this week of an Independent Commission of Enquiry established by the government.

The Commission acknowledged that war crimes had indeed been committed during the military campaign, when about 900 people were killed. But there was nothing to back the assertions of gang-rape, or evidence to presume any intent of genocide, it held. Although it could take years before the court pronounces the final verdict in the genocide case, Thursday's injunction is an important victory for the refugees languishing in Bangladeshi camps. It empowers the UN Security Council to prevail upon Myanmar to take appropriate measures for the rehabilitation and repatriation of displaced communities. As the biggest regional player, China could play a constructive role to ensure a speedy return to normalcy in its neighbourhood. India has its own interests in an amicable resolution of Myanmar's internal dispute. Above all, finding closure to the current dispute would mark the completion of Myanmar's return to civilian rule.

Q. Genocide means killing with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.Serbia was alleged to have attempted to exterminate the Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) population of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above, decide the guilt of Serbia?

The unanimous ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on Thursday, on the prevention of alleged acts of genocide against Rohingya Muslims has finally pinned legal responsibility on Myanmar's government for the military's large-scale excesses of 2017. The court has further emphasised that an estimated 600,000 Rohingya resident in Myanmar still remained highly vulnerable to attacks from the security forces. The ruling vindicates findings by the UN and human rights groups on the prevalence of hate speech, mass atrocities of rape and extra-judicial killings, and torching of villages in Myanmar's Rakhine province, leading to the forced migration of thousands to Bangladesh. The ruling pertains to the Gambia's suit on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), alleging that the brutalities by the defence services amounted to crimes of genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention. Arguing the defence in person during the three-day public hearings last month, Ms. Suu Kyi, who was elected in 2016, insisted that the 2017 violence was proportionate to the threat of insurgency. She even questioned the Gambia's standing to bring the suit, saying that there was no bilateral dispute.

Rejecting the ICJ's ruling, Myanmar's Foreign Ministry has accused rights groups of presenting the Court with a distorted picture of the prevailing situation. In a statement, it defended the army's action as a legitimate response to violations of the law by the insurgent Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. However, the above claim is at odds with the findings this week of an Independent Commission of Enquiry established by the government.

The Commission acknowledged that war crimes had indeed been committed during the military campaign, when about 900 people were killed. But there was nothing to back the assertions of gang-rape, or evidence to presume any intent of genocide, it held. Although it could take years before the court pronounces the final verdict in the genocide case, Thursday's injunction is an important victory for the refugees languishing in Bangladeshi camps. It empowers the UN Security Council to prevail upon Myanmar to take appropriate measures for the rehabilitation and repatriation of displaced communities. As the biggest regional player, China could play a constructive role to ensure a speedy return to normalcy in its neighbourhood. India has its own interests in an amicable resolution of Myanmar's internal dispute. Above all, finding closure to the current dispute would mark the completion of Myanmar's return to civilian rule.

Q. The Armenian Genocide refers to the deliberate and systematic destruction of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I. It was implemented through extensive massacres and deportations, with the deportations consisting of forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees. The total number of resulting deaths is generally held to have been between one and one and a half million. If Armenia brings a suit against Ottoman Empire, based only on the author's reasoning in the given passage, would the International Court entertain the suit?

The unanimous ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on Thursday, on the prevention of alleged acts of genocide against Rohingya Muslims has finally pinned legal responsibility on Myanmar's government for the military's large-scale excesses of 2017. The court has further emphasised that an estimated 600,000 Rohingya resident in Myanmar still remained highly vulnerable to attacks from the security forces. The ruling vindicates findings by the UN and human rights groups on the prevalence of hate speech, mass atrocities of rape and extra-judicial killings, and torching of villages in Myanmar's Rakhine province, leading to the forced migration of thousands to Bangladesh. The ruling pertains to the Gambia's suit on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), alleging that the brutalities by the defence services amounted to crimes of genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention. Arguing the defence in person during the three-day public hearings last month, Ms. Suu Kyi, who was elected in 2016, insisted that the 2017 violence was proportionate to the threat of insurgency. She even questioned the Gambia's standing to bring the suit, saying that there was no bilateral dispute.

Rejecting the ICJ's ruling, Myanmar's Foreign Ministry has accused rights groups of presenting the Court with a distorted picture of the prevailing situation. In a statement, it defended the army's action as a legitimate response to violations of the law by the insurgent Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. However, the above claim is at odds with the findings this week of an Independent Commission of Enquiry established by the government.

The Commission acknowledged that war crimes had indeed been committed during the military campaign, when about 900 people were killed. But there was nothing to back the assertions of gang-rape, or evidence to presume any intent of genocide, it held. Although it could take years before the court pronounces the final verdict in the genocide case, Thursday's injunction is an important victory for the refugees languishing in Bangladeshi camps. It empowers the UN Security Council to prevail upon Myanmar to take appropriate measures for the rehabilitation and repatriation of displaced communities. As the biggest regional player, China could play a constructive role to ensure a speedy return to normalcy in its neighbourhood. India has its own interests in an amicable resolution of Myanmar's internal dispute. Above all, finding closure to the current dispute would mark the completion of Myanmar's return to civilian rule.

Q. Sarabjit, an Indian who was attacked in a prison in Pakistan where he spent 22 years after being convicted of terrorism and died in Pakistan. Sarabjit was an Indian national convicted of terrorism and spying by a Pakistani court. Can India bring a claim of genocide against Pakistan?

The unanimous ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on Thursday, on the prevention of alleged acts of genocide against Rohingya Muslims has finally pinned legal responsibility on Myanmar's government for the military's large-scale excesses of 2017. The court has further emphasised that an estimated 600,000 Rohingya resident in Myanmar still remained highly vulnerable to attacks from the security forces. The ruling vindicates findings by the UN and human rights groups on the prevalence of hate speech, mass atrocities of rape and extra-judicial killings, and torching of villages in Myanmar's Rakhine province, leading to the forced migration of thousands to Bangladesh. The ruling pertains to the Gambia's suit on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), alleging that the brutalities by the defence services amounted to crimes of genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention. Arguing the defence in person during the three-day public hearings last month, Ms. Suu Kyi, who was elected in 2016, insisted that the 2017 violence was proportionate to the threat of insurgency. She even questioned the Gambia's standing to bring the suit, saying that there was no bilateral dispute.

Rejecting the ICJ's ruling, Myanmar's Foreign Ministry has accused rights groups of presenting the Court with a distorted picture of the prevailing situation. In a statement, it defended the army's action as a legitimate response to violations of the law by the insurgent Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. However, the above claim is at odds with the findings this week of an Independent Commission of Enquiry established by the government.

The Commission acknowledged that war crimes had indeed been committed during the military campaign, when about 900 people were killed. But there was nothing to back the assertions of gang-rape, or evidence to presume any intent of genocide, it held. Although it could take years before the court pronounces the final verdict in the genocide case, Thursday's injunction is an important victory for the refugees languishing in Bangladeshi camps. It empowers the UN Security Council to prevail upon Myanmar to take appropriate measures for the rehabilitation and repatriation of displaced communities. As the biggest regional player, China could play a constructive role to ensure a speedy return to normalcy in its neighbourhood. India has its own interests in an amicable resolution of Myanmar's internal dispute. Above all, finding closure to the current dispute would mark the completion of Myanmar's return to civilian rule.

Q. Genocide means killing with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The Government of Sri Lanka has indulged in gross violations of human rights against the innocent Tamil Community in the War against Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in the year 2009, and during such operation, several civilians were killed, tortured and maimed. In such a situation, based only on the author's reasoning in the given passage, would the Government of Sri Lanka be held liable for Genocide?

The unanimous ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on Thursday, on the prevention of alleged acts of genocide against Rohingya Muslims has finally pinned legal responsibility on Myanmar's government for the military's large-scale excesses of 2017. The court has further emphasised that an estimated 600,000 Rohingya resident in Myanmar still remained highly vulnerable to attacks from the security forces. The ruling vindicates findings by the UN and human rights groups on the prevalence of hate speech, mass atrocities of rape and extra-judicial killings, and torching of villages in Myanmar's Rakhine province, leading to the forced migration of thousands to Bangladesh. The ruling pertains to the Gambia's suit on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), alleging that the brutalities by the defence services amounted to crimes of genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention. Arguing the defence in person during the three-day public hearings last month, Ms. Suu Kyi, who was elected in 2016, insisted that the 2017 violence was proportionate to the threat of insurgency. She even questioned the Gambia's standing to bring the suit, saying that there was no bilateral dispute.

Rejecting the ICJ's ruling, Myanmar's Foreign Ministry has accused rights groups of presenting the Court with a distorted picture of the prevailing situation. In a statement, it defended the army's action as a legitimate response to violations of the law by the insurgent Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. However, the above claim is at odds with the findings this week of an Independent Commission of Enquiry established by the government.

The Commission acknowledged that war crimes had indeed been committed during the military campaign, when about 900 people were killed. But there was nothing to back the assertions of gang-rape, or evidence to presume any intent of genocide, it held. Although it could take years before the court pronounces the final verdict in the genocide case, Thursday's injunction is an important victory for the refugees languishing in Bangladeshi camps. It empowers the UN Security Council to prevail upon Myanmar to take appropriate measures for the rehabilitation and repatriation of displaced communities. As the biggest regional player, China could play a constructive role to ensure a speedy return to normalcy in its neighbourhood. India has its own interests in an amicable resolution of Myanmar's internal dispute. Above all, finding closure to the current dispute would mark the completion of Myanmar's return to civilian rule.

Q. Genocide means killing with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.Simele are stateless people which cannot be put strictly into any national, ethnical, racial or religious group. In the 20th century, the Simele massacre was committed by the armed forces of the Kingdom of Iraq during a campaign which systematically targeted the Assyrians of northern Iraq in August 1933. Is Iraq guilty?

The unanimous ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on Thursday, on the prevention of alleged acts of genocide against Rohingya Muslims has finally pinned legal responsibility on Myanmar's government for the military's large-scale excesses of 2017. The court has further emphasised that an estimated 600,000 Rohingya resident in Myanmar still remained highly vulnerable to attacks from the security forces. The ruling vindicates findings by the UN and human rights groups on the prevalence of hate speech, mass atrocities of rape and extra-judicial killings, and torching of villages in Myanmar's Rakhine province, leading to the forced migration of thousands to Bangladesh. The ruling pertains to the Gambia's suit on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), alleging that the brutalities by the defence services amounted to crimes of genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention. Arguing the defence in person during the three-day public hearings last month, Ms. Suu Kyi, who was elected in 2016, insisted that the 2017 violence was proportionate to the threat of insurgency. She even questioned the Gambia's standing to bring the suit, saying that there was no bilateral dispute.

Rejecting the ICJ's ruling, Myanmar's Foreign Ministry has accused rights groups of presenting the Court with a distorted picture of the prevailing situation. In a statement, it defended the army's action as a legitimate response to violations of the law by the insurgent Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. However, the above claim is at odds with the findings this week of an Independent Commission of Enquiry established by the government.

The Commission acknowledged that war crimes had indeed been committed during the military campaign, when about 900 people were killed. But there was nothing to back the assertions of gang-rape, or evidence to presume any intent of genocide, it held. Although it could take years before the court pronounces the final verdict in the genocide case, Thursday's injunction is an important victory for the refugees languishing in Bangladeshi camps. It empowers the UN Security Council to prevail upon Myanmar to take appropriate measures for the rehabilitation and repatriation of displaced communities. As the biggest regional player, China could play a constructive role to ensure a speedy return to normalcy in its neighbourhood. India has its own interests in an amicable resolution of Myanmar's internal dispute. Above all, finding closure to the current dispute would mark the completion of Myanmar's return to civilian rule.

Q. An act which causes death and is done with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such injury as is reasonably likely to lead to death, amounts to murder. Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion. A fight breaks out between fans of Calcutta Club Riders (CCR) and Punjab Maharajas Tigers (PMT) to decide which team is the second last in the tournament. A CCR fan smashes a bottle of beer on to a PMT fan's face. The PMT fan, bleeding, takes the broken bottle and stabs the CCR fan, thereby killing him. What offence if any has been committed?

This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Court's ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment.

"Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.

Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.

Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.

The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.

David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trump's strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.

But he also called Mr. Trump's proposal "beyond the pale."

"To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesn't understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you can't punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesn't seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.

Q. Jinkal is a Joint Managing Director of a public limited company. He being in charge of the factory situated at USA was flying National Flag at the office premises of his factory. He was not allowed to do so by the Government officials on the ground that the same is impermissible under the Flag Code. Will the Right to fly the National Flag freely with respect and dignity saved within the meaning of First Amendment. Based on the author's interpretation which of the following is true.

This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Court's ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment.

"Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.

Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.

Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.

The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.

David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trump's strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.

But he also called Mr. Trump's proposal "beyond the pale."

"To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesn't understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you can't punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesn't seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.

Q. Johnson, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, participated in a political demonstration against the Administration and certain companies. Johnson marched through the streets, shouted chants, destroyed property, broke windows and threw trash, beer cans, soiled diapers and various other items, and held signs outside the offices of several companies. When Johnson reached the City Hall, he poured kerosene on the flag and set it on fire. Trump administration passed an order to strip his citizenship. Johnson challenged the order. In such a case, based on the author's reasoning, what is the most likely outcome of the case:

This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Court's ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment.

"Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.

Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.

Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.

The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.

David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trump's strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.

But he also called Mr. Trump's proposal "beyond the pale."

"To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesn't understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you can't punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesn't seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.

Q. Which of the following views can be correctly attributed to the opinion of Mr. Trump regarding the flag burning

This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Court's ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment.

"Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.

Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.

Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.

The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.

David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trump's strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.

But he also called Mr. Trump's proposal "beyond the pale."

"To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesn't understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you can't punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesn't seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.

Q. Suppose in the US Congress a bill is introduced to expatriate Americans accused and suspected of terrorism as well as burning the flag. This bill was fiercely opposed by the house during its introduction.Based on the author's reasoning, what can be the justification for the opposition

This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Court's ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment.

"Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.

Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.

Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.

The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.

David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trump's strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.

But he also called Mr. Trump's proposal "beyond the pale."

"To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesn't understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you can't punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesn't seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.

Q. United States established a new vetting measure to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America. In pursuance of the same an executive order is signed to remove Americans of Iranian, Syrian, Yemeni and Libyan Origin. If this is true, then, based on the author's reasoning and precedents cited in the passage above, will the order stand the scrutiny of law:

Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects".

Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesn't include visitors or those who aren't considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.

The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns 'escapes onto land', and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.) In summation, Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a person's enjoyment of property. Property rights in the land is necessary for an action in Private nuisance.

Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties. Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.

Q. A large tower was constructed in the Docklands area of East London which goes by the name of One Canada Square. Residents in the area experienced interference with the television signals due to the construction of One Canada Square. Some of the claimants were homeowners whilst others were family members, lodgers and others without a proprietary interest in the property affected. Decide, whether interference with one's television reception amounted to actionable nuisance?

Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects".

Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesn't include visitors or those who aren't considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.

The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns 'escapes onto land', and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.) In summation, Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a person's enjoyment of property. Property rights in the land is necessary for an action in Private nuisance.

Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties. Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.

Q. Murugan incorporated a company named Murugan Metal Mart (MMM). MMM generates a great amount of metal waste during the course of repairing and maintenance of plant and machinery. MMM dumps the metal waste in a nearby place assuming nobody will notice. Dumping however backfires sometimes.For example once MMM tried dumping the waste on the road adjacent to the business premise it ended up blocking it partly causing difficulty to vehicle users and passersby. Can the road users in general sue MMM for the private nuisance?

Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects".

Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesn't include visitors or those who aren't considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.

The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns 'escapes onto land', and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.) In summation, Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a person's enjoyment of property. Property rights in the land is necessary for an action in Private nuisance.

Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties. Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.

Q. If MMM is liable then on being sued by sole road user, then the suit will lie under

Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects".

Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesn't include visitors or those who aren't considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.

The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns 'escapes onto land', and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.) In summation, Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a person's enjoyment of property. Property rights in the land is necessary for an action in Private nuisance.

Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties. Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.

Q. Ms.Malone lived in a house belonging to her husband's employer. Ms.Malone's husband was a tenant, and she had a license to live at the property. Whilst using the lavatory, the toilet cistern was dislodged by vibrations caused by the next-door neighbour's electricity generator, which fell on her causing her injuries. She sued her neighbour for nuisance.Decide.

Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects".

Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesn't include visitors or those who aren't considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.

The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns 'escapes onto land', and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.) In summation, Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a person's enjoyment of property. Property rights in the land is necessary for an action in Private nuisance.

Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties. Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.

Q. Whether it was necessary for the claimant to have a property interest before a claim of nuisance could be launched?

Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects".

Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesn't include visitors or those who aren't considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.

The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns 'escapes onto land', and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.) In summation, Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a person's enjoyment of property. Property right in the land is necessary for an action in Private nuisance.

Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties. Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.

Q. Suterpech was the owner of a large country house with over a thousand acres of land. This land was close to a copper smelting factory which had long been in operation. The smelting factory discharged noxious gases as a result of its operation, which were considered to be a normal part of the smelting operation. As a result, trees on the claimant's land were damaged by the fumes and noxious gases.

The Suterpech sued for nuisance. Whether the Factory was liable for causing Nuisance?

The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.

The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?

Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts' actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.

Third, 'Aadhaar linking' is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.

Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed 'solution' misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.

Q. A court is deliberating a PIL as to whether platforms like WhatsApp that provide encrypted services should allow forms of traceability to enable finding the originator of content. Based on the author's reasoning above:

The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.

The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?

Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts' actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.

Third, 'Aadhaar linking' is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.

Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed 'solution' misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.

Q. The directive principles ensure that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order in which social, economic and political justice. A court, ruling on a PIL which was about road safety, has banned the sale of liquor at retail outlets, as also in hotels, restaurants, and bars, that are within 500m of any national or state highway. The order has caused much collateral damage for the state government. For state government, there is a massive loss in the form of revenue collection. Based on the author's reasoning:

The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.

The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?

Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts' actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.

Third, 'Aadhaar linking' is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.

Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed 'solution' misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.

Q. Which of the following views can be correctly attributed to the author of the above passage?

The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.

The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?

Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts' actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.

Third, 'Aadhaar linking' is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.

Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed 'solution' misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.

Q. A PIL was filed for the closing of a certain fertilizer plant from where a dangerous gas had leaked. The court here applied the doctrine of absolute liability and stated that any enterprise engaged in any sort of dangerous activity is absolutely liable to compensate all persons who were affected by such gas leak. Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above:

The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.

The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?

Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts' actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.

Third, 'Aadhaar linking' is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.

Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed 'solution' misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.

Q. Suppose the Madras High Court passed a judgement to link Aadhar card to social media accounts. In such a case, based on the author's reasoning, what is the likely impact it will have on Cybercrime investigating agencies?

The polity assured to the people of India by the Constitution is described in the Preamble wherein the word "secular" was added by the 42nd Amendment. It highlights the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 25 to 28 that the State shall have no religion of its own and all persons shall be equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion of their own choice, in brief, this is the concept of secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution of India and the way of life adopted by the people of India as their abiding faith and creed. M.C. Setalvad in Patel Memorial Lectures - 1985, on Secularism, referring to the Indian concept of secularism, stated thus:

The ideal, therefore, of a secular State in the sense of a State which treats all religions alike and displays benevolent neutrality towards them is in a way more suited to the Indian environment and climate than that of a truly secular State. Secularism, in the Indian context, must be given the widest possible content. It should connote the eradication of all attitudes and practices derived from or connected with religion which impede our development and retard our growth into an integrated nation The concept of secularism is very much embedded in our constitutional philosophy.Secularism is thus more than a passive attitude of religious tolerance. It is a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions. The State has no religion. The State is bound to honour and to wield the scales even between all religions. It may not advance the cause of one religion to the detriment of another. Thus, only concerted and earnest endeavour, both by the State and citizen, towards secularisation lead to the stabilisation of our democratic state and the establishment of a true and cohesive Indian nationhood.

Q. Apex Court had held that "Equality and Secularism cannot be separated from each other. They are mutually reinforcing forces." Government has passed a cabinet resolution to eliminate the norms and values of equality. Legal scholars are of the view that it will create asymmetry in the scheme of the constitution.
Based on the author's arguments and precedent of the Apex Court, would the cabinet resolution seeking removal of equality be held valid?

The polity assured to the people of India by the Constitution is described in the Preamble wherein the word "secular" was added by the 42nd Amendment. It highlights the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 25 to 28 that the State shall have no religion of its own and all persons shall be equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion of their own choice, in brief, this is the concept of secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution of India and the way of life adopted by the people of India as their abiding faith and creed. M.C. Setalvad in Patel Memorial Lectures - 1985, on Secularism, referring to the Indian concept of secularism, stated thus:

The ideal, therefore, of a secular State in the sense of a State which treats all religions alike and displays benevolent neutrality towards them is in a way more suited to the Indian environment and climate than that of a truly secular State. Secularism, in the Indian context, must be given the widest possible content. It should connote the eradication of all attitudes and practices derived from or connected with religion which impede our development and retard our growth into an integrated nation The concept of secularism is very much embedded in our constitutional philosophy.Secularism is thus more than a passive attitude of religious tolerance. It is a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions. The State has no religion. The State is bound to honour and to wield the scales even between all religions. It may not advance the cause of one religion to the detriment of another. Thus, only concerted and earnest endeavour, both by the State and citizen, towards secularisation lead to the stabilisation of our democratic state and the establishment of a true and cohesive Indian nationhood.

Q. Modu is an ardent follower of a religion followed by the majority population in the country. Moduis elected with a landslide victory in the general elections.
Gondu, his political opponent belongs to a minority religion in the country. Gondu challenges Modu's appointment. Basic premise of the challenge is that election cannot be allowed of a person who follows communal practices, excludes the interests of other religions and remains silent during religious intolerance and lynching. Based on the author's arguments and reasoning of the passage, decide the validity of the petition?

The polity assured to the people of India by the Constitution is described in the Preamble wherein the word "secular" was added by the 42nd Amendment. It highlights the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 25 to 28 that the State shall have no religion of its own and all persons shall be equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion of their own choice, in brief, this is the concept of secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution of India and the way of life adopted by the people of India as their abiding faith and creed. M.C. Setalvad in Patel Memorial Lectures - 1985, on Secularism, referring to the Indian concept of secularism, stated thus:

The ideal, therefore, of a secular State in the sense of a State which treats all religions alike and displays benevolent neutrality towards them is in a way more suited to the Indian environment and climate than that of a truly secular State. Secularism, in the Indian context, must be given the widest possible content. It should connote the eradication of all attitudes and practices derived from or connected with religion which impede our development and retard our growth into an integrated nation The concept of secularism is very much embedded in our constitutional philosophy.Secularism is thus more than a passive attitude of religious tolerance. It is a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions. The State has no religion. The State is bound to honour and to wield the scales even between all religions. It may not advance the cause of one religion to the detriment of another. Thus, only concerted and earnest endeavour, both by the State and citizen, towards secularisation lead to the stabilisation of our democratic state and the establishment of a true and cohesive Indian nationhood.

Q. All persons have a fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. However, this right shall be subjected to the public order, morality and health, and any law enacted by state to regulate the secular activities associated with religious practices. In the general elections for the Parliament, addressing an election rally, X, a candidate belonging to religion Y appealed to the people present there that if they wanted to throw the people belonging to religion Z out of this country, then they must vote for him. X was prosecuted under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 on the ground of creating a feeling of hatred between different classes of citizens belonging to different religion. X challenged the prosecution on the ground of his constitutional right to religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.