Test: Legal Reasoning - 6 - CLAT MCQ

Passage: The amendment to the Prevention Of Child Sex Offences (POCSO) Act was made at the behest of Women and Child Development Minister Maneka Gandhi, who said she believed this would deter sexual crimes against children.
The new amendments will enable a court to hand out a death penalty to someone convicted of raping a child under ______ of age, even if it does not result in death.
Despite these changes to the law, however, India is a country that is reluctant to carry out the death penalty. It is currently prescribed only for the “rarest of rare” cases – the interpretation of which is left to the court. The country’s last execution was on 30 July 2015.
Although welcomed by many, the new amendment has also been criticised by a number of activists who have questioned whether the death penalty is really an effective deterrent.
This is a question that has been debated around the world – does toughening the sentence actually reduce crimes? Some evidence from neighboring countries would suggest otherwise.
Experts say that a major argument against imposing the death penalty for rape is that it actually deters the system from handing out convictions.
The slow pace of the justice system has also been cited as an issue.
Long-drawn-out trials in India often mean that victims have to wait for years before they can get justice. And in cases where the death penalty has been handed out, those convicted have many chances to appeal against their sentence.
The men convicted in India’s most high-profile rape case in recent years – of a medical student who died of her injuries after being raped in December 2012 – are still appealing against the death penalties handed out by a “fast-track” trial court that in September 2013.
Robust laws would, in fact, have a very limited impact in reducing the crime unless they are accompanied by a change in the attitudes of the police, judiciary, government officers and society.

Q. According to the author, the introduction of the death penalty is likely to

The number of High Courts in India is:

Passage: In 2018, Seema, a third year student at NLU Mumbai wrote a post criticizing the policies of a deceased political leader of Maharashtra. She called his policies regionalist and divisive. She was consequently arrested by the Maharashtra police. The police had used Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which prevented the dissemination of information by means of a computer resource or a communication device intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or insult.
Seema challenged this law on the basis that it violated her freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1)(a) states: All citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and expression… Which is subject to Article 19(2) that states– “(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State  from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right  conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence

Q. Seema’s challenge will –

Passage: In 2018, Seema, a third year student at NLU Mumbai wrote a post criticizing the policies of a deceased political leader of Maharashtra. She called his policies regionalist and divisive. She was consequently arrested by the Maharashtra police. The police had used Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which prevented the dissemination of information by means of a computer resource or a communication device intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or insult.
Seema challenged this law on the basis that it violated her freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1)(a) states: All citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and expression… Which is subject to Article 19(2) that states– “(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State  from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right  conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence

Q. Assume that her challenge succeeded. Mr. X, a non–citizen, comes to India and criticizes the same leader in the same fashion. He gets arrested under the same Section. He goes to Court and argues that the Section was struck down, so his arrest was wrongful. His argument will–

Passage: In 2018, Seema, a third year student at NLU Mumbai wrote a post criticizing the policies of a deceased political leader of Maharashtra. She called his policies regionalist and divisive. She was consequently arrested by the Maharashtra police. The police had used Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which prevented the dissemination of information by means of a computer resource or a communication device intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or insult.
Seema challenged this law on the basis that it violated her freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1)(a) states: All citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and expression… Which is subject to Article 19(2) that states– “(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State  from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right  conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence

Q. Ramesh was a powerful leader in Mirzapur, where religious riots had just concluded. He had travelled out to Rampur for his mother’s operation. While he was coming back, the police did not allow him to enter the city. The police was acting on the directions of the government as Ramesh was likely deliver a fiery speech which would excite the crowd. He had displayed a history of such conduct. Bear in mind that for a restriction based on public order, the danger must be imminent. Ramesh decided to challenge the direction of the government. The challenge will–

Passage: In 2018, Seema, a third year student at NLU Mumbai wrote a post criticizing the policies of a deceased political leader of Maharashtra. She called his policies regionalist and divisive. She was consequently arrested by the Maharashtra police. The police had used Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which prevented the dissemination of information by means of a computer resource or a communication device intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or insult.
Seema challenged this law on the basis that it violated her freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1)(a) states: All citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and expression… Which is subject to Article 19(2) that states– “(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State  from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right  conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence

Q. The legislative assembly of Maharashtra passed a law that would enable the government to filter and remove any social media that harshly criticized the government. They held the same to be in public interest and, thus, a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech. A public spirited lawyer, Nilima, challenged this. The court will–

Passage: In 2018, Seema, a third year student at NLU Mumbai wrote a post criticizing the policies of a deceased political leader of Maharashtra. She called his policies regionalist and divisive. She was consequently arrested by the Maharashtra police. The police had used Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which prevented the dissemination of information by means of a computer resource or a communication device intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or insult.
Seema challenged this law on the basis that it violated her freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1)(a) states: All citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and expression… Which is subject to Article 19(2) that states– “(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State  from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right  conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence

Q. The assembly of Maharashtra passed another law which completely banned any movie with any explicit as they would „corrupt‟ any children or adolescents who viewed them. Nilima challenged this law as well. 
The challenge will–

Legal Principle: A contract enters into by the use of misrepresentation is voidable at the option of the other party.
Facts of the Problem: Lalit with an intention to deceive Rahul into buying his cement factory, falsely stated that his factory is capable of producing 2,000 kg of cement per day. However, in reality, the factory only has a production capacity of 500 kg/ day. Rahul gets induced and agrees to buy the factory. Is it a valid contract?

Passage: Various governments have taken steps to tackle the black economy in the last seventy years. Many committees and commissions have been set up to study the problem and they have made thousands of suggestions and hundreds have been implemented.
In 2016, demonetisation was announced with a big bang. It caused untold misery to the poor who never generated any black incomes while those generating black incomes and who had accumulated much black wealth went scot-free; the problem did not get solved. The reason is that the underlying cause of the black economy’s existence is not technical or economic but political and that remains unresolved.
Proponents of GST have been arguing that it would help tackle the black economy since all inputs and outputs in the entire chain of production and distribution would be computerised. As argued, this is not entirely true for the Indian GST since it has various exemptions and certain key commodities are kept out of its purview.
Further, small and cottage sectors are largely outside its scope. More importantly, Indian businesses are adept at keeping two sets of accounts and they can continue to do so.
Finally, it is believed that digitisation would help tackle the black economy. It is argued that the informal sector would get formalised and come under the tax net. This is an incorrect understanding of the nature of the black economy in India.
Most of the unorganised sector earn incomes way below the taxable limit. To understand this, it is important to know that in India, taxation begins at a multiple of the per capita incomes and income inequality is high. Hence, a vast majority of the people earn incomes way below the taxable limit and do not fall in the tax net. An overwhelming majority of those below the taxable limit belong to the low-paid unorganised and informal sector.
Not only is the perception that black incomes are generated in the informal sector incorrect, but there are also other misperceptions about the black economy.
For instance, demonetisation was premised on the notion that “black means cash.” This led to the unfortunate conclusion that if cash is squeezed out of the system, then the black economy would disappear at one stroke.
It has been argued that the use of technology can help curtail the black economy. It is felt that the human element is incorrigible so it needs to be eliminated from business transactions if the black economy is to be eradicated. The underlying assumption is that the human element can be eliminated in the running of society.
This is a flawed notion since it is human beings who operate technology even if the number of human beings running systems can be reduced. As long as human intervention is needed, illegality can persist.
The idea that more laws are needed to check the growth of the black economy is also flawed. As explained in a book on the Indian economy by this author there can be no perfect law since human ingenuity can find a way of circumventing any law.
Tackling the black economy is a political and societal issue which only movements can address. There is a need to change the consciousness of the public at large so that they demand accountability from their elected representatives. But the public is also compromised.
It votes for a person from its own caste, region, community, etc., even if they are corrupt and/or have a criminal background. The public chooses one who will do their work, regardless of legality, given that policies fail. There is also a growing belief that one community can only gain at the expense of others.
People have come to believe that it is a zero-sum game and not a positive-sum game. GST does not dismantle the triad and hence cannot tackle the black economy. As argued above, ways to circumvent the GST laws will emerge to enable the black economy to continue, even if its form changes.

Q. From the above passage, which of the following conclusions can be inferred?

Passage: Various governments have taken steps to tackle the black economy in the last seventy years. Many committees and commissions have been set up to study the problem and they have made thousands of suggestions and hundreds have been implemented.
In 2016, demonetisation was announced with a big bang. It caused untold misery to the poor who never generated any black incomes while those generating black incomes and who had accumulated much black wealth went scot-free; the problem did not get solved. The reason is that the underlying cause of the black economy’s existence is not technical or economic but political and that remains unresolved.
Proponents of GST have been arguing that it would help tackle the black economy since all inputs and outputs in the entire chain of production and distribution would be computerised. As argued, this is not entirely true for the Indian GST since it has various exemptions and certain key commodities are kept out of its purview.
Further, small and cottage sectors are largely outside its scope. More importantly, Indian businesses are adept at keeping two sets of accounts and they can continue to do so.
Finally, it is believed that digitisation would help tackle the black economy. It is argued that the informal sector would get formalised and come under the tax net. This is an incorrect understanding of the nature of the black economy in India.
Most of the unorganised sector earn incomes way below the taxable limit. To understand this, it is important to know that in India, taxation begins at a multiple of the per capita incomes and income inequality is high. Hence, a vast majority of the people earn incomes way below the taxable limit and do not fall in the tax net. An overwhelming majority of those below the taxable limit belong to the low-paid unorganised and informal sector.
Not only is the perception that black incomes are generated in the informal sector incorrect, but there are also other misperceptions about the black economy.
For instance, demonetisation was premised on the notion that “black means cash.” This led to the unfortunate conclusion that if cash is squeezed out of the system, then the black economy would disappear at one stroke.
It has been argued that the use of technology can help curtail the black economy. It is felt that the human element is incorrigible so it needs to be eliminated from business transactions if the black economy is to be eradicated. The underlying assumption is that the human element can be eliminated in the running of society.
This is a flawed notion since it is human beings who operate technology even if the number of human beings running systems can be reduced. As long as human intervention is needed, illegality can persist.
The idea that more laws are needed to check the growth of the black economy is also flawed. As explained in a book on the Indian economy by this author there can be no perfect law since human ingenuity can find a way of circumventing any law.
Tackling the black economy is a political and societal issue which only movements can address. There is a need to change the consciousness of the public at large so that they demand accountability from their elected representatives. But the public is also compromised.
It votes for a person from its own caste, region, community, etc., even if they are corrupt and/or have a criminal background. The public chooses one who will do their work, regardless of legality, given that policies fail. There is also a growing belief that one community can only gain at the expense of others.
People have come to believe that it is a zero-sum game and not a positive-sum game. GST does not dismantle the triad and hence cannot tackle the black economy. As argued above, ways to circumvent the GST laws will emerge to enable the black economy to continue, even if its form changes.

Q. The author has used the term “black economy” to denote

Passage: Various governments have taken steps to tackle the black economy in the last seventy years. Many committees and commissions have been set up to study the problem and they have made thousands of suggestions and hundreds have been implemented.
In 2016, demonetisation was announced with a big bang. It caused untold misery to the poor who never generated any black incomes while those generating black incomes and who had accumulated much black wealth went scot-free; the problem did not get solved. The reason is that the underlying cause of the black economy’s existence is not technical or economic but political and that remains unresolved.
Proponents of GST have been arguing that it would help tackle the black economy since all inputs and outputs in the entire chain of production and distribution would be computerised. As argued, this is not entirely true for the Indian GST since it has various exemptions and certain key commodities are kept out of its purview.
Further, small and cottage sectors are largely outside its scope. More importantly, Indian businesses are adept at keeping two sets of accounts and they can continue to do so.
Finally, it is believed that digitisation would help tackle the black economy. It is argued that the informal sector would get formalised and come under the tax net. This is an incorrect understanding of the nature of the black economy in India.
Most of the unorganised sector earn incomes way below the taxable limit. To understand this, it is important to know that in India, taxation begins at a multiple of the per capita incomes and income inequality is high. Hence, a vast majority of the people earn incomes way below the taxable limit and do not fall in the tax net. An overwhelming majority of those below the taxable limit belong to the low-paid unorganised and informal sector.
Not only is the perception that black incomes are generated in the informal sector incorrect, but there are also other misperceptions about the black economy.
For instance, demonetisation was premised on the notion that “black means cash.” This led to the unfortunate conclusion that if cash is squeezed out of the system, then the black economy would disappear at one stroke.
It has been argued that the use of technology can help curtail the black economy. It is felt that the human element is incorrigible so it needs to be eliminated from business transactions if the black economy is to be eradicated. The underlying assumption is that the human element can be eliminated in the running of society.
This is a flawed notion since it is human beings who operate technology even if the number of human beings running systems can be reduced. As long as human intervention is needed, illegality can persist.
The idea that more laws are needed to check the growth of the black economy is also flawed. As explained in a book on the Indian economy by this author there can be no perfect law since human ingenuity can find a way of circumventing any law.
Tackling the black economy is a political and societal issue which only movements can address. There is a need to change the consciousness of the public at large so that they demand accountability from their elected representatives. But the public is also compromised.
It votes for a person from its own caste, region, community, etc., even if they are corrupt and/or have a criminal background. The public chooses one who will do their work, regardless of legality, given that policies fail. There is also a growing belief that one community can only gain at the expense of others.
People have come to believe that it is a zero-sum game and not a positive-sum game. GST does not dismantle the triad and hence cannot tackle the black economy. As argued above, ways to circumvent the GST laws will emerge to enable the black economy to continue, even if its form changes.

Q. The author classifies India’s workforce into

Passage: Various governments have taken steps to tackle the black economy in the last seventy years. Many committees and commissions have been set up to study the problem and they have made thousands of suggestions and hundreds have been implemented.
In 2016, demonetisation was announced with a big bang. It caused untold misery to the poor who never generated any black incomes while those generating black incomes and who had accumulated much black wealth went scot-free; the problem did not get solved. The reason is that the underlying cause of the black economy’s existence is not technical or economic but political and that remains unresolved.
Proponents of GST have been arguing that it would help tackle the black economy since all inputs and outputs in the entire chain of production and distribution would be computerised. As argued, this is not entirely true for the Indian GST since it has various exemptions and certain key commodities are kept out of its purview.
Further, small and cottage sectors are largely outside its scope. More importantly, Indian businesses are adept at keeping two sets of accounts and they can continue to do so.
Finally, it is believed that digitisation would help tackle the black economy. It is argued that the informal sector would get formalised and come under the tax net. This is an incorrect understanding of the nature of the black economy in India.
Most of the unorganised sector earn incomes way below the taxable limit. To understand this, it is important to know that in India, taxation begins at a multiple of the per capita incomes and income inequality is high. Hence, a vast majority of the people earn incomes way below the taxable limit and do not fall in the tax net. An overwhelming majority of those below the taxable limit belong to the low-paid unorganised and informal sector.
Not only is the perception that black incomes are generated in the informal sector incorrect, but there are also other misperceptions about the black economy.
For instance, demonetisation was premised on the notion that “black means cash.” This led to the unfortunate conclusion that if cash is squeezed out of the system, then the black economy would disappear at one stroke.
It has been argued that the use of technology can help curtail the black economy. It is felt that the human element is incorrigible so it needs to be eliminated from business transactions if the black economy is to be eradicated. The underlying assumption is that the human element can be eliminated in the running of society.
This is a flawed notion since it is human beings who operate technology even if the number of human beings running systems can be reduced. As long as human intervention is needed, illegality can persist.
The idea that more laws are needed to check the growth of the black economy is also flawed. As explained in a book on the Indian economy by this author there can be no perfect law since human ingenuity can find a way of circumventing any law.
Tackling the black economy is a political and societal issue which only movements can address. There is a need to change the consciousness of the public at large so that they demand accountability from their elected representatives. But the public is also compromised.
It votes for a person from its own caste, region, community, etc., even if they are corrupt and/or have a criminal background. The public chooses one who will do their work, regardless of legality, given that policies fail. There is also a growing belief that one community can only gain at the expense of others.
People have come to believe that it is a zero-sum game and not a positive-sum game. GST does not dismantle the triad and hence cannot tackle the black economy. As argued above, ways to circumvent the GST laws will emerge to enable the black economy to continue, even if its form changes.

Q. The author’s key suggestion for tackling the issue of black money is

Legal Principle: Any contract made for an unlawful consideration is void in law.
Facts of the Problem: Gagan enters into a contract with Nikhil to murder his wife, Preity for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. Gagan agrees to pay the amount to Nikhil in return of the murder. Is it a valid contract?

Passage: The past year has witnessed several protests across the nation against the central government’s controversial Citizenship Amendment Act. While the protests are a positive sign — indicative of the nation’s united resistance against any attempt which threatens to destroy our secular fabric — the response of the government to quell the protests in any manner whatsoever is deeply worrisome. We have witnessed police brutality against students, labelling of protesters/dissenters as ‘anti-nationals’ and excessive surveillance over areas of protest.
In what appears to be another attempt towards creating an ‘Orwellian State’, the police forces have started using drones to monitor the areas of protest, with the Uttar Pradesh Police going a step further by conducting an aerial survey of houses in several areas of protest in the state. The UP Police’s justification for the survey is that drones help them ‘track and record’ movements of alleged ‘anti-social’ elements, and capture images of houses where bricks and stones are kept on the terraces.
The government can only monitor individuals against whom reasonable grounds of suspicion exist, that is, people with criminal antecedents. Therefore, the State’s monitoring of individuals whom they suspect to be an anti-social elements sans evidence of their past criminal records is a blatant disregard of the law. Sadly, the government is monitoring the movements of protesters who have committed no crime but have only exercised their fundamental right to free speech.
If the last month is any indication, there are chances that footage from the drones may be misused to harass and deter protesters from expressing their dissent.
As per law, the liberty of an individual can never be taken away; it can only be reasonably restricted. However, it seems of late that there has been no restrictions but rather the snatching away of fundamental rights.

Q. The phrase "quell the protests in any manner whatsoever" used in the above passage indicates that the government is

Passage: The past year has witnessed several protests across the nation against the central government’s controversial Citizenship Amendment Act. While the protests are a positive sign — indicative of the nation’s united resistance against any attempt which threatens to destroy our secular fabric — the response of the government to quell the protests in any manner whatsoever is deeply worrisome. We have witnessed police brutality against students, labelling of protesters/dissenters as ‘anti-nationals’ and excessive surveillance over areas of protest.
In what appears to be another attempt towards creating an ‘Orwellian State’, the police forces have started using drones to monitor the areas of protest, with the Uttar Pradesh Police going a step further by conducting an aerial survey of houses in several areas of protest in the state. The UP Police’s justification for the survey is that drones help them ‘track and record’ movements of alleged ‘anti-social’ elements, and capture images of houses where bricks and stones are kept on the terraces.
The government can only monitor individuals against whom reasonable grounds of suspicion exist, that is, people with criminal antecedents. Therefore, the State’s monitoring of individuals whom they suspect to be an anti-social elements sans evidence of their past criminal records is a blatant disregard of the law. Sadly, the government is monitoring the movements of protesters who have committed no crime but have only exercised their fundamental right to free speech.
If the last month is any indication, there are chances that footage from the drones may be misused to harass and deter protesters from expressing their dissent.
As per law, the liberty of an individual can never be taken away; it can only be reasonably restricted. However, it seems of late that there has been no restrictions but rather the snatching away of fundamental rights.

Q. Assuming that surveillance of public places is legal, the above passage suggests that

Passage: The past year has witnessed several protests across the nation against the central government’s controversial Citizenship Amendment Act. While the protests are a positive sign — indicative of the nation’s united resistance against any attempt which threatens to destroy our secular fabric — the response of the government to quell the protests in any manner whatsoever is deeply worrisome. We have witnessed police brutality against students, labelling of protesters/dissenters as ‘anti-nationals’ and excessive surveillance over areas of protest.
In what appears to be another attempt towards creating an ‘Orwellian State’, the police forces have started using drones to monitor the areas of protest, with the Uttar Pradesh Police going a step further by conducting an aerial survey of houses in several areas of protest in the state. The UP Police’s justification for the survey is that drones help them ‘track and record’ movements of alleged ‘anti-social’ elements, and capture images of houses where bricks and stones are kept on the terraces.
The government can only monitor individuals against whom reasonable grounds of suspicion exist, that is, people with criminal antecedents. Therefore, the State’s monitoring of individuals whom they suspect to be an anti-social elements sans evidence of their past criminal records is a blatant disregard of the law. Sadly, the government is monitoring the movements of protesters who have committed no crime but have only exercised their fundamental right to free speech.
If the last month is any indication, there are chances that footage from the drones may be misused to harass and deter protesters from expressing their dissent.
As per law, the liberty of an individual can never be taken away; it can only be reasonably restricted. However, it seems of late that there has been no restrictions but rather the snatching away of fundamental rights.

Q. The above passage relates to

Passage: The past year has witnessed several protests across the nation against the central government’s controversial Citizenship Amendment Act. While the protests are a positive sign — indicative of the nation’s united resistance against any attempt which threatens to destroy our secular fabric — the response of the government to quell the protests in any manner whatsoever is deeply worrisome. We have witnessed police brutality against students, labelling of protesters/dissenters as ‘anti-nationals’ and excessive surveillance over areas of protest.
In what appears to be another attempt towards creating an ‘Orwellian State’, the police forces have started using drones to monitor the areas of protest, with the Uttar Pradesh Police going a step further by conducting an aerial survey of houses in several areas of protest in the state. The UP Police’s justification for the survey is that drones help them ‘track and record’ movements of alleged ‘anti-social’ elements, and capture images of houses where bricks and stones are kept on the terraces.
The government can only monitor individuals against whom reasonable grounds of suspicion exist, that is, people with criminal antecedents. Therefore, the State’s monitoring of individuals whom they suspect to be an anti-social elements sans evidence of their past criminal records is a blatant disregard of the law. Sadly, the government is monitoring the movements of protesters who have committed no crime but have only exercised their fundamental right to free speech.
If the last month is any indication, there are chances that footage from the drones may be misused to harass and deter protesters from expressing their dissent.
As per law, the liberty of an individual can never be taken away; it can only be reasonably restricted. However, it seems of late that there has been no restrictions but rather the snatching away of fundamental rights.

Q. Under which article of Indian Constitution is right to privacy enshrined?

Passage: The past year has witnessed several protests across the nation against the central government’s controversial Citizenship Amendment Act. While the protests are a positive sign — indicative of the nation’s united resistance against any attempt which threatens to destroy our secular fabric — the response of the government to quell the protests in any manner whatsoever is deeply worrisome. We have witnessed police brutality against students, labelling of protesters/dissenters as ‘anti-nationals’ and excessive surveillance over areas of protest.
In what appears to be another attempt towards creating an ‘Orwellian State’, the police forces have started using drones to monitor the areas of protest, with the Uttar Pradesh Police going a step further by conducting an aerial survey of houses in several areas of protest in the state. The UP Police’s justification for the survey is that drones help them ‘track and record’ movements of alleged ‘anti-social’ elements, and capture images of houses where bricks and stones are kept on the terraces.
The government can only monitor individuals against whom reasonable grounds of suspicion exist, that is, people with criminal antecedents. Therefore, the State’s monitoring of individuals whom they suspect to be an anti-social elements sans evidence of their past criminal records is a blatant disregard of the law. Sadly, the government is monitoring the movements of protesters who have committed no crime but have only exercised their fundamental right to free speech.
If the last month is any indication, there are chances that footage from the drones may be misused to harass and deter protesters from expressing their dissent.
As per law, the liberty of an individual can never be taken away; it can only be reasonably restricted. However, it seems of late that there has been no restrictions but rather the snatching away of fundamental rights.

Q. Which of the Rights mentioned below was removed by a constitutional amendment from Article 19 of the Constitution?

What is meant by the Legal Maxim/word “non bis in idem”?

Principle: A defendant can avoid liability for his negligence by establishing that the plaintiff voluntarily consented to face a known danger created by defendant’s negligence.
Facts: Mr. Raj requests Mr. Austin to conduct repair of the roof of his shop and offers him a wooden stair which was not in a good condition. Mr. Austin, fully aware of the poor condition of stair agreed to do the task. During the work, he fell down and sustained injuries in his leg. He wants to file a suit for damage against Mr. Raj. In light of the above principle, decide the right course of action.

Passage: The role of India’s judiciary in securing the enforcement of rights outside statute law but within the Constitutional mandate promoted public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s. PIL is a broad-based, people-orientated approach, which promotes access to justice through judge-made processes and remedies. PIL revolutionized the judicial procedure by introducing three procedural innovations: (i) expanded standing; (ii) non-adversarial procedure; and (iii) wider remedial action as a result of expanded frontiers of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Environmental PIL is a product of the Courts’ response to inaction by the state or the wrongful action of state agencies in performing their statutory duties, which has resulted in endangering or impairing the quality of life of people as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state is under a duty to enforce this Constitutional right by devising and implementing a coherent and coordinated programme for the well-being of the population. Failure on the part of the state prompted judges to issue brief interim directions entitled ‘continuing mandamus’. In this context, PIL is considered a ‘wheel of transformation’ providing access to justice, inter alia, to victims of environmental degradation. In the past two decades Courts have locked together human rights and the environment and entertained PIL petitions from various quarters seeking remedies, including the issuing of guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. The proactive judiciary, acting as ‘amicus environment’, has produced a major shift in the environmental landscape of India and has also declared and promoted the principles of sustainable development and the precautionary and the polluter pays principles as elements of fundamental law.
The active engagement of the Indian judiciary in imparting environmental justice nonetheless raised concerns about the effectiveness of PIL. This was in relation to the rapidly increasing number of petitions, complex technical and scientific issues, unrealistic Court directions, and individual judicial preferences – often personality driven rather than reflecting collective institutionalized adjudication – as well as the issue of creeping jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court created a procedure that allowed indigents and concerned citizens to access the Courts via PIL, it did not prove to be the much heralded ‘magic bullet’.

Q. Which of the following principles are regarded as the elements of fundamental law?

Passage: The role of India’s judiciary in securing the enforcement of rights outside statute law but within the Constitutional mandate promoted public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s. PIL is a broad-based, people-orientated approach, which promotes access to justice through judge-made processes and remedies. PIL revolutionized the judicial procedure by introducing three procedural innovations: (i) expanded standing; (ii) non-adversarial procedure; and (iii) wider remedial action as a result of expanded frontiers of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Environmental PIL is a product of the Courts’ response to inaction by the state or the wrongful action of state agencies in performing their statutory duties, which has resulted in endangering or impairing the quality of life of people as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state is under a duty to enforce this Constitutional right by devising and implementing a coherent and coordinated programme for the well-being of the population. Failure on the part of the state prompted judges to issue brief interim directions entitled ‘continuing mandamus’. In this context, PIL is considered a ‘wheel of transformation’ providing access to justice, inter alia, to victims of environmental degradation. In the past two decades Courts have locked together human rights and the environment and entertained PIL petitions from various quarters seeking remedies, including the issuing of guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. The proactive judiciary, acting as ‘amicus environment’, has produced a major shift in the environmental landscape of India and has also declared and promoted the principles of sustainable development and the precautionary and the polluter pays principles as elements of fundamental law.
The active engagement of the Indian judiciary in imparting environmental justice nonetheless raised concerns about the effectiveness of PIL. This was in relation to the rapidly increasing number of petitions, complex technical and scientific issues, unrealistic Court directions, and individual judicial preferences – often personality driven rather than reflecting collective institutionalized adjudication – as well as the issue of creeping jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court created a procedure that allowed indigents and concerned citizens to access the Courts via PIL, it did not prove to be the much heralded ‘magic bullet’.

Q. Article 21 guarantees right to clean air. The government has established a new factory in the central area of city of Indraprastha. This step has been questioned widely by the activists due to the emission of polluting gases. The government closed operations of the factory permanently within one months. Mr. Y.C. Mehta approached to Court under environmental PIL to look into this matter.

Passage: The role of India’s judiciary in securing the enforcement of rights outside statute law but within the Constitutional mandate promoted public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s. PIL is a broad-based, people-orientated approach, which promotes access to justice through judge-made processes and remedies. PIL revolutionized the judicial procedure by introducing three procedural innovations: (i) expanded standing; (ii) non-adversarial procedure; and (iii) wider remedial action as a result of expanded frontiers of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Environmental PIL is a product of the Courts’ response to inaction by the state or the wrongful action of state agencies in performing their statutory duties, which has resulted in endangering or impairing the quality of life of people as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state is under a duty to enforce this Constitutional right by devising and implementing a coherent and coordinated programme for the well-being of the population. Failure on the part of the state prompted judges to issue brief interim directions entitled ‘continuing mandamus’. In this context, PIL is considered a ‘wheel of transformation’ providing access to justice, inter alia, to victims of environmental degradation. In the past two decades Courts have locked together human rights and the environment and entertained PIL petitions from various quarters seeking remedies, including the issuing of guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. The proactive judiciary, acting as ‘amicus environment’, has produced a major shift in the environmental landscape of India and has also declared and promoted the principles of sustainable development and the precautionary and the polluter pays principles as elements of fundamental law.
The active engagement of the Indian judiciary in imparting environmental justice nonetheless raised concerns about the effectiveness of PIL. This was in relation to the rapidly increasing number of petitions, complex technical and scientific issues, unrealistic Court directions, and individual judicial preferences – often personality driven rather than reflecting collective institutionalized adjudication – as well as the issue of creeping jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court created a procedure that allowed indigents and concerned citizens to access the Courts via PIL, it did not prove to be the much heralded ‘magic bullet’.

Q. The government subsequently starts another project at the outskirts of the city. Environmental activists approached the Court through PIL, questioning this act as being responsible for emission of air pollutants. They also produced stats from government sources which show that the air quality has degraded in the main city. The government, however, has been taking measures to filter the emitted gases and also that the plant is necessary for supplying power in the city. Decide.

Passage: The role of India’s judiciary in securing the enforcement of rights outside statute law but within the Constitutional mandate promoted public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s. PIL is a broad-based, people-orientated approach, which promotes access to justice through judge-made processes and remedies. PIL revolutionized the judicial procedure by introducing three procedural innovations: (i) expanded standing; (ii) non-adversarial procedure; and (iii) wider remedial action as a result of expanded frontiers of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Environmental PIL is a product of the Courts’ response to inaction by the state or the wrongful action of state agencies in performing their statutory duties, which has resulted in endangering or impairing the quality of life of people as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state is under a duty to enforce this Constitutional right by devising and implementing a coherent and coordinated programme for the well-being of the population. Failure on the part of the state prompted judges to issue brief interim directions entitled ‘continuing mandamus’. In this context, PIL is considered a ‘wheel of transformation’ providing access to justice, inter alia, to victims of environmental degradation. In the past two decades Courts have locked together human rights and the environment and entertained PIL petitions from various quarters seeking remedies, including the issuing of guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. The proactive judiciary, acting as ‘amicus environment’, has produced a major shift in the environmental landscape of India and has also declared and promoted the principles of sustainable development and the precautionary and the polluter pays principles as elements of fundamental law.
The active engagement of the Indian judiciary in imparting environmental justice nonetheless raised concerns about the effectiveness of PIL. This was in relation to the rapidly increasing number of petitions, complex technical and scientific issues, unrealistic Court directions, and individual judicial preferences – often personality driven rather than reflecting collective institutionalized adjudication – as well as the issue of creeping jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court created a procedure that allowed indigents and concerned citizens to access the Courts via PIL, it did not prove to be the much heralded ‘magic bullet’.

Q. Which of the following is true?
A) For the past couple of decades, Courts have seen human rights along with the environment
B) The proactive role of judiciary in safeguarding the environment has failed to yield desired results

Passage: The role of India’s judiciary in securing the enforcement of rights outside statute law but within the Constitutional mandate promoted public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s. PIL is a broad-based, people-orientated approach, which promotes access to justice through judge-made processes and remedies. PIL revolutionized the judicial procedure by introducing three procedural innovations: (i) expanded standing; (ii) non-adversarial procedure; and (iii) wider remedial action as a result of expanded frontiers of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Environmental PIL is a product of the Courts’ response to inaction by the state or the wrongful action of state agencies in performing their statutory duties, which has resulted in endangering or impairing the quality of life of people as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state is under a duty to enforce this Constitutional right by devising and implementing a coherent and coordinated programme for the well-being of the population. Failure on the part of the state prompted judges to issue brief interim directions entitled ‘continuing mandamus’. In this context, PIL is considered a ‘wheel of transformation’ providing access to justice, inter alia, to victims of environmental degradation. In the past two decades Courts have locked together human rights and the environment and entertained PIL petitions from various quarters seeking remedies, including the issuing of guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. The proactive judiciary, acting as ‘amicus environment’, has produced a major shift in the environmental landscape of India and has also declared and promoted the principles of sustainable development and the precautionary and the polluter pays principles as elements of fundamental law.
The active engagement of the Indian judiciary in imparting environmental justice nonetheless raised concerns about the effectiveness of PIL. This was in relation to the rapidly increasing number of petitions, complex technical and scientific issues, unrealistic Court directions, and individual judicial preferences – often personality driven rather than reflecting collective institutionalized adjudication – as well as the issue of creeping jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court created a procedure that allowed indigents and concerned citizens to access the Courts via PIL, it did not prove to be the much heralded ‘magic bullet’.

Q. What would be a proof of the amicus environment role of the judiciary?

Passage: The role of India’s judiciary in securing the enforcement of rights outside statute law but within the Constitutional mandate promoted public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s. PIL is a broad-based, people-orientated approach, which promotes access to justice through judge-made processes and remedies. PIL revolutionized the judicial procedure by introducing three procedural innovations: (i) expanded standing; (ii) non-adversarial procedure; and (iii) wider remedial action as a result of expanded frontiers of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Environmental PIL is a product of the Courts’ response to inaction by the state or the wrongful action of state agencies in performing their statutory duties, which has resulted in endangering or impairing the quality of life of people as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state is under a duty to enforce this Constitutional right by devising and implementing a coherent and coordinated programme for the well-being of the population. Failure on the part of the state prompted judges to issue brief interim directions entitled ‘continuing mandamus’. In this context, PIL is considered a ‘wheel of transformation’ providing access to justice, inter alia, to victims of environmental degradation. In the past two decades Courts have locked together human rights and the environment and entertained PIL petitions from various quarters seeking remedies, including the issuing of guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. The proactive judiciary, acting as ‘amicus environment’, has produced a major shift in the environmental landscape of India and has also declared and promoted the principles of sustainable development and the precautionary and the polluter pays principles as elements of fundamental law.
The active engagement of the Indian judiciary in imparting environmental justice nonetheless raised concerns about the effectiveness of PIL. This was in relation to the rapidly increasing number of petitions, complex technical and scientific issues, unrealistic Court directions, and individual judicial preferences – often personality driven rather than reflecting collective institutionalized adjudication – as well as the issue of creeping jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court created a procedure that allowed indigents and concerned citizens to access the Courts via PIL, it did not prove to be the much heralded ‘magic bullet’.

Q. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is protected by

Passage: The role of India’s judiciary in securing the enforcement of rights outside statute law but within the Constitutional mandate promoted public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s. PIL is a broad-based, people-orientated approach, which promotes access to justice through judge-made processes and remedies. PIL revolutionized the judicial procedure by introducing three procedural innovations: (i) expanded standing; (ii) non-adversarial procedure; and (iii) wider remedial action as a result of expanded frontiers of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Environmental PIL is a product of the Courts’ response to inaction by the state or the wrongful action of state agencies in performing their statutory duties, which has resulted in endangering or impairing the quality of life of people as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state is under a duty to enforce this Constitutional right by devising and implementing a coherent and coordinated programme for the well-being of the population. Failure on the part of the state prompted judges to issue brief interim directions entitled ‘continuing mandamus’. In this context, PIL is considered a ‘wheel of transformation’ providing access to justice, inter alia, to victims of environmental degradation. In the past two decades Courts have locked together human rights and the environment and entertained PIL petitions from various quarters seeking remedies, including the issuing of guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. The proactive judiciary, acting as ‘amicus environment’, has produced a major shift in the environmental landscape of India and has also declared and promoted the principles of sustainable development and the precautionary and the polluter pays principles as elements of fundamental law.
The active engagement of the Indian judiciary in imparting environmental justice nonetheless raised concerns about the effectiveness of PIL. This was in relation to the rapidly increasing number of petitions, complex technical and scientific issues, unrealistic Court directions, and individual judicial preferences – often personality driven rather than reflecting collective institutionalized adjudication – as well as the issue of creeping jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court created a procedure that allowed indigents and concerned citizens to access the Courts via PIL, it did not prove to be the much heralded ‘magic bullet’.

Q. Separation of the judiciary from the executive has been provided in one of the following parts of the Indian Constitution: