Legal Mock Test - 17


40 Questions MCQ Test Mock Test Series for CLAT 2020 | Legal Mock Test - 17


Description
This mock test of Legal Mock Test - 17 for CLAT helps you for every CLAT entrance exam. This contains 40 Multiple Choice Questions for CLAT Legal Mock Test - 17 (mcq) to study with solutions a complete question bank. The solved questions answers in this Legal Mock Test - 17 quiz give you a good mix of easy questions and tough questions. CLAT students definitely take this Legal Mock Test - 17 exercise for a better result in the exam. You can find other Legal Mock Test - 17 extra questions, long questions & short questions for CLAT on EduRev as well by searching above.
QUESTION: 1

Passage​: How can we measure crime? The simplest answer would be the official crime statistics. But in a country such as India, dependence on these figures is misleading as police have a regrettable tendency to downgrade crimes or discourage complainant to leave police stations without filing a complaint. Underreporting and non-reporting of criminal cases, which have been a huge problem in all Indian states, totally distort the crime scenario. Despite being aware that allowing mandatory or free registration of cases would certainly inflate crime statistics, Rajasthan became the first Indian state almost a year ago, when the Chief Minister, Ashok Gahlot, demonstrated remarkable political courage by removing the obstacles in mandatory registration of cases. By all accounts, it has been a bold initiative signaling seminal contribution to police reforms in the country.
The reports of various police commissions and available literature on police reforms clearly indicate that non-reporting or non-registration of cases is a widespread and serious problem across India. Being the first point of contact with the criminal justice delivery system, a police station, headed by a Station House Officer (SHO), is the most important unit of police functioning. It is engaged with multiple functions such as the registration of crimes through the First Information Report (FIR) and their investigations, handling of various law and order situations, patrolling, and ensuring safety and security in its jurisdiction. However, what gives the power and visibility to a police station and its SHO is the registration or rather the non-registration of cases.
Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), registration of an FIR is mandatory if the complaint discloses that a cognizable offence has been committed. Although, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ensure the nature of an offence, however the scope of such an inquiry is not to confirm the authenticity or otherwise of the complaint but only to ascertain whether it was cognizable complaint of a crime. In theory, the SHO of a police station cannot avoid registration of the FIR and, action has to be taken against those SHOs who do not immediately register the FIR for a cognizable offence. But it is rarely followed in practice.
Police stations across the country are notorious for not registering cases as police personnel are aware that their performance is judged on the basis of this information, and they have developed various informal mechanisms to circumvent this legal imposition. One cannot deny that police professionals are overworked and unappreciated. Since registration of cases increases the burden as well as the crime statistics of a police station, an SHO has a vested interest in discouraging non-registration of cases in his jurisdiction.
Police legitimacy and public safety are closely related to each other. If the police department wants to develop trust and project better image in the public, it cannot afford to resist change. And greater transparency and accountability in the police functioning are political attributes of good governance. However, systemic change also carries huge political risk if not managed without adequate preparations. Gahlot is aware of this risk as he has remarked that free registration of cases would result in sudden increase in number of FIRs. Notwithstanding the spurt in crime rates, as informed by the expanding wave of FIRs registered in the state during the last one year, the practice of mandatory registration of cases must be continued. The primary motive behind mandatory registration of FIR is to ensure quick response to all crimes and attempts to collect evidence, two key elements of a credible investigation and trial. Although the intention is laudable, the implementation would need to be watched carefully.

Q. According to the author, India is likely to have lower crime statistics because

Solution:

Paragraph 1 of the passage mentions that underreporting of cases distorts the crime scenario in India. 

QUESTION: 2

Passage​: How can we measure crime? The simplest answer would be the official crime statistics. But in a country such as India, dependence on these figures is misleading as police have a regrettable tendency to downgrade crimes or discourage complainant to leave police stations without filing a complaint. Underreporting and non-reporting of criminal cases, which have been a huge problem in all Indian states, totally distort the crime scenario. Despite being aware that allowing mandatory or free registration of cases would certainly inflate crime statistics, Rajasthan became the first Indian state almost a year ago, when the Chief Minister, Ashok Gahlot, demonstrated remarkable political courage by removing the obstacles in mandatory registration of cases. By all accounts, it has been a bold initiative signaling seminal contribution to police reforms in the country.
The reports of various police commissions and available literature on police reforms clearly indicate that non-reporting or non-registration of cases is a widespread and serious problem across India. Being the first point of contact with the criminal justice delivery system, a police station, headed by a Station House Officer (SHO), is the most important unit of police functioning. It is engaged with multiple functions such as the registration of crimes through the First Information Report (FIR) and their investigations, handling of various law and order situations, patrolling, and ensuring safety and security in its jurisdiction. However, what gives the power and visibility to a police station and its SHO is the registration or rather the non-registration of cases.
Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), registration of an FIR is mandatory if the complaint discloses that a cognizable offence has been committed. Although, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ensure the nature of an offence, however the scope of such an inquiry is not to confirm the authenticity or otherwise of the complaint but only to ascertain whether it was cognizable complaint of a crime. In theory, the SHO of a police station cannot avoid registration of the FIR and, action has to be taken against those SHOs who do not immediately register the FIR for a cognizable offence. But it is rarely followed in practice.
Police stations across the country are notorious for not registering cases as police personnel are aware that their performance is judged on the basis of this information, and they have developed various informal mechanisms to circumvent this legal imposition. One cannot deny that police professionals are overworked and unappreciated. Since registration of cases increases the burden as well as the crime statistics of a police station, an SHO has a vested interest in discouraging non-registration of cases in his jurisdiction.
Police legitimacy and public safety are closely related to each other. If the police department wants to develop trust and project better image in the public, it cannot afford to resist change. And greater transparency and accountability in the police functioning are political attributes of good governance. However, systemic change also carries huge political risk if not managed without adequate preparations. Gahlot is aware of this risk as he has remarked that free registration of cases would result in sudden increase in number of FIRs. Notwithstanding the spurt in crime rates, as informed by the expanding wave of FIRs registered in the state during the last one year, the practice of mandatory registration of cases must be continued. The primary motive behind mandatory registration of FIR is to ensure quick response to all crimes and attempts to collect evidence, two key elements of a credible investigation and trial. Although the intention is laudable, the implementation would need to be watched carefully.

Q. The passage suggests that registration of FIR is necessary in cases of -

Solution:

Paragraph 3 of the passage indicates that registration of FIR is necessary in cases of offences cognizable as per law.

QUESTION: 3

Passage​: How can we measure crime? The simplest answer would be the official crime statistics. But in a country such as India, dependence on these figures is misleading as police have a regrettable tendency to downgrade crimes or discourage complainant to leave police stations without filing a complaint. Underreporting and non-reporting of criminal cases, which have been a huge problem in all Indian states, totally distort the crime scenario. Despite being aware that allowing mandatory or free registration of cases would certainly inflate crime statistics, Rajasthan became the first Indian state almost a year ago, when the Chief Minister, Ashok Gahlot, demonstrated remarkable political courage by removing the obstacles in mandatory registration of cases. By all accounts, it has been a bold initiative signaling seminal contribution to police reforms in the country.
The reports of various police commissions and available literature on police reforms clearly indicate that non-reporting or non-registration of cases is a widespread and serious problem across India. Being the first point of contact with the criminal justice delivery system, a police station, headed by a Station House Officer (SHO), is the most important unit of police functioning. It is engaged with multiple functions such as the registration of crimes through the First Information Report (FIR) and their investigations, handling of various law and order situations, patrolling, and ensuring safety and security in its jurisdiction. However, what gives the power and visibility to a police station and its SHO is the registration or rather the non-registration of cases.
Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), registration of an FIR is mandatory if the complaint discloses that a cognizable offence has been committed. Although, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ensure the nature of an offence, however the scope of such an inquiry is not to confirm the authenticity or otherwise of the complaint but only to ascertain whether it was cognizable complaint of a crime. In theory, the SHO of a police station cannot avoid registration of the FIR and, action has to be taken against those SHOs who do not immediately register the FIR for a cognizable offence. But it is rarely followed in practice.
Police stations across the country are notorious for not registering cases as police personnel are aware that their performance is judged on the basis of this information, and they have developed various informal mechanisms to circumvent this legal imposition. One cannot deny that police professionals are overworked and unappreciated. Since registration of cases increases the burden as well as the crime statistics of a police station, an SHO has a vested interest in discouraging non-registration of cases in his jurisdiction.
Police legitimacy and public safety are closely related to each other. If the police department wants to develop trust and project better image in the public, it cannot afford to resist change. And greater transparency and accountability in the police functioning are political attributes of good governance. However, systemic change also carries huge political risk if not managed without adequate preparations. Gahlot is aware of this risk as he has remarked that free registration of cases would result in sudden increase in number of FIRs. Notwithstanding the spurt in crime rates, as informed by the expanding wave of FIRs registered in the state during the last one year, the practice of mandatory registration of cases must be continued. The primary motive behind mandatory registration of FIR is to ensure quick response to all crimes and attempts to collect evidence, two key elements of a credible investigation and trial. Although the intention is laudable, the implementation would need to be watched carefully.

Q. The author has used the term "free registration" to mean -

Solution:

A plain reading of the passage indicates that the author has used the term "free registration" to mean compulsory registration of cases by the police. 

QUESTION: 4

Passage: Chief Justice JS Khehar has expressed concern over the media trial of suspects in any case and hinted that the Supreme Court would draw the line on how much policemen can tell the media during the pre-trial, investigation stage as reportage sometimes undermines free and fair trial.
The proposed guidelines, in line with an existing central government advisory, will decide whether policemen can parade the accused before cameras, whether their identities can be revealed, etc.
A bench, comprising CJI Khehar and Justice NV Ramana, agreed with a suggestion by amicus curiae Gopal Shankarnarayan that there be some norms on police briefings for the media. “Reputation of a person is very important. People may be arrested… If they are shown on electronic media, their reputation is smeared forever, even though they may be acquitted later,” CJI Khehar observed. The court was dealing with a host of petitions calling for guidelines for the police or investigating agencies briefing the media about any ongoing investigation. The petitions have been pending since 1999.
In another case, a Constitution bench had already ruled that if any accused faces a smear campaign during trial which may prejudice his case, he would be free to approach the trial court to postpone the reporting of an order. Activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan argued that releasing the names of suspects even before the FIR was filed in some cases in press statements results in pre-judging a case. Often the reputation of totally innocent people are smeared beyond repair. “This not only causes serious harm to the reputation of the person but also affects the trial,” he said.
The CJI directed the central government and all interested parties such as state governments, the Press Council of India, NHRC etc to submit their views through a questionnaire prepared by the amicus curiae which would decide whether an accused can be paraded before the media, whether his identity can be revealed or the evidence against him played out live on TV, etc.
The court will base its orders on the responses of all stakeholders and revise the existing central government advisory to investigative agencies on the dos and don’ts of media briefings by police.
This would decide how much they can reveal to the press without compromising the possibility of upsetting the fundamental premise of our criminal justice system –– that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Q. The above passage indicates that media trial directly harms

Solution:

Paragraph 3 of the passage indicates that media trial directly harms the reputation of a person.  

QUESTION: 5

Passage: Chief Justice JS Khehar has expressed concern over the media trial of suspects in any case and hinted that the Supreme Court would draw the line on how much policemen can tell the media during the pre-trial, investigation stage as reportage sometimes undermines free and fair trial.
The proposed guidelines, in line with an existing central government advisory, will decide whether policemen can parade the accused before cameras, whether their identities can be revealed, etc.
A bench, comprising CJI Khehar and Justice NV Ramana, agreed with a suggestion by amicus curiae Gopal Shankarnarayan that there be some norms on police briefings for the media. “Reputation of a person is very important. People may be arrested… If they are shown on electronic media, their reputation is smeared forever, even though they may be acquitted later,” CJI Khehar observed. The court was dealing with a host of petitions calling for guidelines for the police or investigating agencies briefing the media about any ongoing investigation. The petitions have been pending since 1999.
In another case, a Constitution bench had already ruled that if any accused faces a smear campaign during trial which may prejudice his case, he would be free to approach the trial court to postpone the reporting of an order. Activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan argued that releasing the names of suspects even before the FIR was filed in some cases in press statements results in pre-judging a case. Often the reputation of totally innocent people are smeared beyond repair. “This not only causes serious harm to the reputation of the person but also affects the trial,” he said.
The CJI directed the central government and all interested parties such as state governments, the Press Council of India, NHRC etc to submit their views through a questionnaire prepared by the amicus curiae which would decide whether an accused can be paraded before the media, whether his identity can be revealed or the evidence against him played out live on TV, etc.
The court will base its orders on the responses of all stakeholders and revise the existing central government advisory to investigative agencies on the dos and don’ts of media briefings by police.
This would decide how much they can reveal to the press without compromising the possibility of upsetting the fundamental premise of our criminal justice system –– that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Q. For framing guidelines regulating media trial, Supreme Court adopted the process of

Solution:

The Supreme Court shall revise the existing government advisory by passing orders in a pending case which is essentially the process of judicial review. Since it has also decided to obtain views of all interested parties before passing orders, it has also adopted process of stakeholder consultation.

QUESTION: 6

Passage: Chief Justice JS Khehar has expressed concern over the media trial of suspects in any case and hinted that the Supreme Court would draw the line on how much policemen can tell the media during the pre-trial, investigation stage as reportage sometimes undermines free and fair trial.
The proposed guidelines, in line with an existing central government advisory, will decide whether policemen can parade the accused before cameras, whether their identities can be revealed, etc.
A bench, comprising CJI Khehar and Justice NV Ramana, agreed with a suggestion by amicus curiae Gopal Shankarnarayan that there be some norms on police briefings for the media. “Reputation of a person is very important. People may be arrested… If they are shown on electronic media, their reputation is smeared forever, even though they may be acquitted later,” CJI Khehar observed. The court was dealing with a host of petitions calling for guidelines for the police or investigating agencies briefing the media about any ongoing investigation. The petitions have been pending since 1999.
In another case, a Constitution bench had already ruled that if any accused faces a smear campaign during trial which may prejudice his case, he would be free to approach the trial court to postpone the reporting of an order. Activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan argued that releasing the names of suspects even before the FIR was filed in some cases in press statements results in pre-judging a case. Often the reputation of totally innocent people are smeared beyond repair. “This not only causes serious harm to the reputation of the person but also affects the trial,” he said.
The CJI directed the central government and all interested parties such as state governments, the Press Council of India, NHRC etc to submit their views through a questionnaire prepared by the amicus curiae which would decide whether an accused can be paraded before the media, whether his identity can be revealed or the evidence against him played out live on TV, etc.
The court will base its orders on the responses of all stakeholders and revise the existing central government advisory to investigative agencies on the dos and don’ts of media briefings by police.
This would decide how much they can reveal to the press without compromising the possibility of upsetting the fundamental premise of our criminal justice system –– that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Q. The above passage indicates that the role of "amicus curiae" is to

Solution:

Paragraph 2 of the passage indicates that role of amicus curiae is to assist the court. 

QUESTION: 7

Principle: Mere silence as to the facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not a fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, on close examination it is found to be the duty of the person keeping silent to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.
Facts: X sells by auction to Y, a horse which X knows to be of unsound state of mind. X says nothing to Y about the horse’s unsound state of mind. Give the correct answer.

Solution:

X simply remained silent .No overt act is shown on his part either positive or negative. He would be liable only if he would have given a wrong answer or would have kept silent upon an inquiry raised by the purchaser.

QUESTION: 8

Principles 1: Any person who interferes with the discharge of duties by a public servant is liable for punishment.
Principles 2: Nothing is an offence if the person who committed it was winnable to appreciate the consequences of his act, due to intoxication, provided such intoxication was administered against his will and without his consent.
Facts: Krishna got drunk of his own volition and on his way back home he assaulted a policeman. He is prosecuted for intimidating a public servant.

Q. Is Mr. Krishna liable for punishment"?

Solution:

The Defense of Intoxication is available in the Indian Penal Code when the said state is not caused by voluntary Act. Krishna Drunk on his volition and hence his Act is punishable.

QUESTION: 9

Principle: Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against an immediate harm, and to that end, may use reasonable amount of force.
Facts: Mr. Kaul was passing by Mrs. Mattoo's house. At that time, Mrs. Mattoo's dog ran out and bit Mr. Kaul's overcoat. Mr. Kaul turned around and raised the pistol he was carrying in the pocket of his overcoat. The dog ran away, and Mr. Kaul shot the dog as it was running away. Mr. Kaul knew that the dog had attacked so many other people in that locality of Jammu. Mrs. Mattoo claims that her dog was of a rare breed and it was worth Rs. 5000/-. She is planning to bring a legal action against Mr. Kaul for compensation.

Solution:

The force employed was way more than the danger level as the Dog started to run away from Mr. Kaul. As the threat was reduced and was continuously reducing, there was no need to shoot Dog. Mrs. Mattoo claim will succeed.

QUESTION: 10

Agni enters into a contract with Tanuj whereby Tanuj will supply Agni with 10 grams of cocaine for a specified amount. Is the contract void?
Principle: If the consideration or object o f an agreement is forbidden by law, or is of such a nature that would defeat the provisions of any law, or is fraudulent, or is injurious to the person or property of another or, the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy, then the object or consideration shall be deemed unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.

Solution:

The contract between them is  for sale and purchase of narcotic substance which is illegal. It defeats the object of NDPS Act, 1985.So the contract is void and cannot be enforced through court of law.

QUESTION: 11

Which of the following is the oldest High Court in India?

Solution:

Calcutta High Court is the oldest High Court in India. It was established in the year _? Calcutta High Court was established on 1 July 1862 under the High Courts Act, 1861. It has jurisdiction over the state of West Bengal and the Union Territory of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

QUESTION: 12

Principle: Law does not take notice of trifles.
Facts: A proposes to his neighbor B that they both should go together for a morning walk. B agrees to the proposal and it is decided that both of them would meet at a particular point 6 A.M. from where they would set off for the morning walk. In spite of the agreement, B does not turn up. A waited for him at 6 a.m. every day, for a continuous period of seven days. Thereafter he files a suit against B claiming damages for the agony and mental torture suffered by him. Decide.

Solution:

Instead of falling into a contract, such kind of promises are made due to social arrangement and relations. There is no consideration for formation of contract. If such like matters be allowed to be taken to court no man on earth would be spared. 

QUESTION: 13

Legal Principle: An agreement, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, is void.
Factual Situation: Mohan offered to sell land to Nimrat at 80 lakhs. Nimrat replied accepting the offer and enclosing 30 lakhs and promising to pay the balance amount by monthly installments of 50000 each. Since Nimrat accepted the offer subject to making full payments in installments, decide as a judge whether there is a valid contract?

Solution:

Invalid as the offer was for full 80 lakhs and not in instalments.
Hence option B is the right answer.

QUESTION: 14

What is the reasonable time to perform a Contract is _________.

Solution:

Reasonable time depends upon the nature of contract and the purpose to be accomplished therein. Normally time span is fixed in contracts for performance of contract. If not fixed then the court will take into account the purpose of contract and surrounding circumstances to see what time would be reasonable for performance. 

QUESTION: 15

Indian Constitution is a 
A) Written
B) Unwritten    
C) Flexible
D) Rigid
Chose the correct answer:

Solution:

The Constitution of India is neither rigid nor flexible. A Rigid Constitution means that the special procedures are required for its amendments whereas a Flexible Constitution is one in which the constitution can be amended easily

QUESTION: 16

Passage: Unlike the US, free speech in India is not absolute. Our Constitution, while guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression, places “reasonable restrictions” on this basic human right.
Journalists are often targeted by state authorities for their comments on social media. In September, last year, a Delhi-based journalist was arrested for his tweets on sculptures at the Sun Temple in Konark, Odisha, and another journalist from Manipur was booked under the stringent National Security Act, 1980, and jailed for uploading a video on the internet in which he made remarks deemed to be “derogatory” towards the Chief Minister of the State.
In December, the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the nodal ministry for regulating matters on information technology and the internet, released a draft amendment to guidelines under the Information Technology Act, which prescribe certain conditions for content hosting platforms to seek protection for third party content.
The amendment, which was brought along to tackle the menace of “fake news” and reduce the flow of obscene and illegal content on social media, seeks to mandate the use of “automated filters” for content takedowns on internet platforms and requires them to trace the originator of that information on their services (this traceability requirement is believed to be targeted at messaging apps like WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram).
Apart from state authorities, content sharing and social media companies take down content in tandem with their community standards and terms and conditions. This is often arbitrary and inconsistent.
We believe that the draft amendment to the rules that regulate platform liability undermines free speech and privacy rights of Indians in the online world, while promoting private censorship by companies.
Having said that, acknowledging the problems of circulation of illegal content, legitimate access to law enforcement and disinformation on the internet, the law should mandate governance structures and grievance mechanisms on the part of intermediaries, enabling quick takedown of content determined as illegal by the judiciary or appropriate government agencies.
The “filter bubble” effect, where users are shown similar content, results in readers not being exposed to opposing views, due to which they become easy targets of disinformation.
Tech-companies must re-think their internal policies to ensure that self-initiated content takedowns are not arbitrary and users have a right to voice their concerns.
Government agencies should work with internet platforms to educate users in identifying disinformation to check its spread.
Lastly, the government should adhere to constitutionally mandated principles and conduct multi-stakeholder consultations before drafting internet policy to safeguard the varying interests of interested parties.

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

Solution:

A reading of given passage clearly indicates that the author supports right of free speech. 

QUESTION: 17

Passage: Unlike the US, free speech in India is not absolute. Our Constitution, while guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression, places “reasonable restrictions” on this basic human right.
Journalists are often targeted by state authorities for their comments on social media. In September, last year, a Delhi-based journalist was arrested for his tweets on sculptures at the Sun Temple in Konark, Odisha, and another journalist from Manipur was booked under the stringent National Security Act, 1980, and jailed for uploading a video on the internet in which he made remarks deemed to be “derogatory” towards the Chief Minister of the State.
In December, the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the nodal ministry for regulating matters on information technology and the internet, released a draft amendment to guidelines under the Information Technology Act, which prescribe certain conditions for content hosting platforms to seek protection for third party content.
The amendment, which was brought along to tackle the menace of “fake news” and reduce the flow of obscene and illegal content on social media, seeks to mandate the use of “automated filters” for content takedowns on internet platforms and requires them to trace the originator of that information on their services (this traceability requirement is believed to be targeted at messaging apps like WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram).
Apart from state authorities, content sharing and social media companies take down content in tandem with their community standards and terms and conditions. This is often arbitrary and inconsistent.
We believe that the draft amendment to the rules that regulate platform liability undermines free speech and privacy rights of Indians in the online world, while promoting private censorship by companies.
Having said that, acknowledging the problems of circulation of illegal content, legitimate access to law enforcement and disinformation on the internet, the law should mandate governance structures and grievance mechanisms on the part of intermediaries, enabling quick takedown of content determined as illegal by the judiciary or appropriate government agencies.
The “filter bubble” effect, where users are shown similar content, results in readers not being exposed to opposing views, due to which they become easy targets of disinformation.
Tech-companies must re-think their internal policies to ensure that self-initiated content takedowns are not arbitrary and users have a right to voice their concerns.
Government agencies should work with internet platforms to educate users in identifying disinformation to check its spread.
Lastly, the government should adhere to constitutionally mandated principles and conduct multi-stakeholder consultations before drafting internet policy to safeguard the varying interests of interested parties.

Q. If a social website, say Twitter, uses automated filter to take down personal details, posted by a celebrity, of people who sent her rape threats and obscene pictures, in order to expose them but does not take down the obscene content directed at the celebrity, would such action be in line with the amendment discussed by the author.

Solution:

The author has stated that the amendment aims to "reduce the flow of obscene and illegal content on social media" hence option (b) is correct.

QUESTION: 18

Passage: Unlike the US, free speech in India is not absolute. Our Constitution, while guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression, places “reasonable restrictions” on this basic human right.
Journalists are often targeted by state authorities for their comments on social media. In September, last year, a Delhi-based journalist was arrested for his tweets on sculptures at the Sun Temple in Konark, Odisha, and another journalist from Manipur was booked under the stringent National Security Act, 1980, and jailed for uploading a video on the internet in which he made remarks deemed to be “derogatory” towards the Chief Minister of the State.
In December, the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the nodal ministry for regulating matters on information technology and the internet, released a draft amendment to guidelines under the Information Technology Act, which prescribe certain conditions for content hosting platforms to seek protection for third party content.
The amendment, which was brought along to tackle the menace of “fake news” and reduce the flow of obscene and illegal content on social media, seeks to mandate the use of “automated filters” for content takedowns on internet platforms and requires them to trace the originator of that information on their services (this traceability requirement is believed to be targeted at messaging apps like WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram).
Apart from state authorities, content sharing and social media companies take down content in tandem with their community standards and terms and conditions. This is often arbitrary and inconsistent.
We believe that the draft amendment to the rules that regulate platform liability undermines free speech and privacy rights of Indians in the online world, while promoting private censorship by companies.
Having said that, acknowledging the problems of circulation of illegal content, legitimate access to law enforcement and disinformation on the internet, the law should mandate governance structures and grievance mechanisms on the part of intermediaries, enabling quick takedown of content determined as illegal by the judiciary or appropriate government agencies.
The “filter bubble” effect, where users are shown similar content, results in readers not being exposed to opposing views, due to which they become easy targets of disinformation.
Tech-companies must re-think their internal policies to ensure that self-initiated content takedowns are not arbitrary and users have a right to voice their concerns.
Government agencies should work with internet platforms to educate users in identifying disinformation to check its spread.
Lastly, the government should adhere to constitutionally mandated principles and conduct multi-stakeholder consultations before drafting internet policy to safeguard the varying interests of interested parties.

Q. According to the author, which of the following methods ensures better efficacy of new laws proposed to be enacted in India.

Solution:

The author supports "multi-stakeholder consultations" of all interested parties hence option (a) is correct.

QUESTION: 19

Passage: Unlike the US, free speech in India is not absolute. Our Constitution, while guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression, places “reasonable restrictions” on this basic human right.
Journalists are often targeted by state authorities for their comments on social media. In September, last year, a Delhi-based journalist was arrested for his tweets on sculptures at the Sun Temple in Konark, Odisha, and another journalist from Manipur was booked under the stringent National Security Act, 1980, and jailed for uploading a video on the internet in which he made remarks deemed to be “derogatory” towards the Chief Minister of the State.
In December, the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the nodal ministry for regulating matters on information technology and the internet, released a draft amendment to guidelines under the Information Technology Act, which prescribe certain conditions for content hosting platforms to seek protection for third party content.
The amendment, which was brought along to tackle the menace of “fake news” and reduce the flow of obscene and illegal content on social media, seeks to mandate the use of “automated filters” for content takedowns on internet platforms and requires them to trace the originator of that information on their services (this traceability requirement is believed to be targeted at messaging apps like WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram).
Apart from state authorities, content sharing and social media companies take down content in tandem with their community standards and terms and conditions. This is often arbitrary and inconsistent.
We believe that the draft amendment to the rules that regulate platform liability undermines free speech and privacy rights of Indians in the online world, while promoting private censorship by companies.
Having said that, acknowledging the problems of circulation of illegal content, legitimate access to law enforcement and disinformation on the internet, the law should mandate governance structures and grievance mechanisms on the part of intermediaries, enabling quick takedown of content determined as illegal by the judiciary or appropriate government agencies.
The “filter bubble” effect, where users are shown similar content, results in readers not being exposed to opposing views, due to which they become easy targets of disinformation.
Tech-companies must re-think their internal policies to ensure that self-initiated content takedowns are not arbitrary and users have a right to voice their concerns.
Government agencies should work with internet platforms to educate users in identifying disinformation to check its spread.
Lastly, the government should adhere to constitutionally mandated principles and conduct multi-stakeholder consultations before drafting internet policy to safeguard the varying interests of interested parties.

Q. Judicial review is the process wherein validity of laws can be tested by the judiciary. Which of the following options is correct?

Solution:

The line "enabling quick takedown of content determined as illegal by the judiciary" indicates that the author supports judicial review. 

QUESTION: 20

In law, the term ‘neighbour’ means

Solution:

Neighbor includes all persons who are so closely and directly affected by the act that the actor should reasonably think of them when engaging in the act or omission in question.

QUESTION: 21

Principle: Any direct physical interference with goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass of goods.
Facts: Z purchased a car from a person who had no title to it and sent it to a garage for repair. X believing wrongly that the car was his, removed it from the garage.

Solution:

X has removed the car without lawful justification. His belief that car was his is also not genuine. 

QUESTION: 22

Tanvi and Ashrita were residents of Jahnvi Devi Society. Ashrita has been into the habit of practicing Nitinnatyam before sunrise each morning since the past 25 years. She plays loud dance beats in her music system each morning to help her practice. The loud noise emanating from her music system disturbs Tanvi who is woken up each morning due to the sound. After putting up with this for 25 years, Tanvi finally decides she can take it no more and decides to sue Ashrita for nuisance.
Principle: Whoever causes unreasonable interference to the right of another over his property and space is causing nuisance.

Solution:

In a normal course, the activity of Ashita falls within the parameters of principle. Yet tanvi chose to be silent for such a substantial period of time which resulted in vesting aright in Ashita and Tanvi will loose due to inordinate delay on his part in challenging. 

QUESTION: 23

Passage: The hurriedly enacted Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, invalidates, as well as criminalises, instant triple talaq (ITT) with a sentence up to three years of jail for Muslim men found guilty. ITT is prevalent among one sub-sect (maslak) of Sunnis, a majority among India’s Muslims.
Ever since the Jawaharlal Nehru led government legislated the Hindu Marriage Act 1956, a section of society has been harbouring a grievance regarding why Muslims were ‘spared’ from as similar reform.
In 1986, when the Rajiv Gandhi led administration overturned the Supreme Court verdict in favour of Shah Bano through a legislation, snatching away her right to maintenance, this grievance was reinforced.
This overturning of the verdict was conducted under pressure from the Muslim clergy, who fanned social conservatism in the worst possible ways, taking recourse to street mobilisations. Notably, this grievance was not limited to the Hindu Right.
Former All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) president, Ali MiyanNadvi, ‘confesses’ in his 1988 memoir, Karwan-e-Zindagi (Procession of Life), how he misled Rajiv Gandhi and made the prime minister upturn the apex court verdict through a retrogressive legislation.
Shah Bano, married in 1932 and separated from her husband in 1975, was the 62-year-old wife of a well-off advocate in Indore when she approached the court in April 1978 for maintenance. An instant triple talaq was uttered against her inside the Indore court only after the judge, in course of the plea, said that under Muslim Personal Law, she was entitled to maintenance.
This historical fact is pertinent for many reasons, including for being at the core of the notion of maintenance of a divorced Muslim woman in India.
The tragedy with Tuesday’s legislation is that it does not say a word on maintenance. Muslim women remain as potentially hapless and helpless as Shah Bano — as are so many women abandoned by their husbands in other communities, including Hindu.
Sadly, even the citadels of modern education such as Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) have also miserably failed in reaching out to the Muslim masses and freeing them from the clutches of religious reactionaries. But enough of modern, educated, middle-class Muslims have emerged, even from earlier marginalised sections of the ommunity. They shall have to play their roles in bringing about reforms. The new anti-ITT law, too, shall have to be amended — as soon as better sense prevails on enough legislators. 

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

Solution:

The passage states that the newly enacted law prescribes punishment only for Muslim men so it can be inferred that only Muslim men could exercise right of triple talaq and not Muslim women.  

QUESTION: 24

Passage: The hurriedly enacted Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, invalidates, as well as criminalises, instant triple talaq (ITT) with a sentence up to three years of jail for Muslim men found guilty. ITT is prevalent among one sub-sect (maslak) of Sunnis, a majority among India’s Muslims.
Ever since the Jawaharlal Nehru led government legislated the Hindu Marriage Act 1956, a section of society has been harbouring a grievance regarding why Muslims were ‘spared’ from as similar reform.
In 1986, when the Rajiv Gandhi led administration overturned the Supreme Court verdict in favour of Shah Bano through a legislation, snatching away her right to maintenance, this grievance was reinforced.
This overturning of the verdict was conducted under pressure from the Muslim clergy, who fanned social conservatism in the worst possible ways, taking recourse to street mobilisations. Notably, this grievance was not limited to the Hindu Right.
Former All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) president, Ali MiyanNadvi, ‘confesses’ in his 1988 memoir, Karwan-e-Zindagi (Procession of Life), how he misled Rajiv Gandhi and made the prime minister upturn the apex court verdict through a retrogressive legislation.
Shah Bano, married in 1932 and separated from her husband in 1975, was the 62-year-old wife of a well-off advocate in Indore when she approached the court in April 1978 for maintenance. An instant triple talaq was uttered against her inside the Indore court only after the judge, in course of the plea, said that under Muslim Personal Law, she was entitled to maintenance.
This historical fact is pertinent for many reasons, including for being at the core of the notion of maintenance of a divorced Muslim woman in India.
The tragedy with Tuesday’s legislation is that it does not say a word on maintenance. Muslim women remain as potentially hapless and helpless as Shah Bano — as are so many women abandoned by their husbands in other communities, including Hindu.
Sadly, even the citadels of modern education such as Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) have also miserably failed in reaching out to the Muslim masses and freeing them from the clutches of religious reactionaries. But enough of modern, educated, middle-class Muslims have emerged, even from earlier marginalised sections of the ommunity. They shall have to play their roles in bringing about reforms. The new anti-ITT law, too, shall have to be amended — as soon as better sense prevails on enough legislators. 

Q. In the Shah Bano case, husband of Shah Bano -

Solution:

The facts given in the passage clearly support the inference given in option (a).

QUESTION: 25

Passage: The hurriedly enacted Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, invalidates, as well as criminalises, instant triple talaq (ITT) with a sentence up to three years of jail for Muslim men found guilty. ITT is prevalent among one sub-sect (maslak) of Sunnis, a majority among India’s Muslims.
Ever since the Jawaharlal Nehru led government legislated the Hindu Marriage Act 1956, a section of society has been harbouring a grievance regarding why Muslims were ‘spared’ from as similar reform.
In 1986, when the Rajiv Gandhi led administration overturned the Supreme Court verdict in favour of Shah Bano through a legislation, snatching away her right to maintenance, this grievance was reinforced.
This overturning of the verdict was conducted under pressure from the Muslim clergy, who fanned social conservatism in the worst possible ways, taking recourse to street mobilisations. Notably, this grievance was not limited to the Hindu Right.
Former All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) president, Ali MiyanNadvi, ‘confesses’ in his 1988 memoir, Karwan-e-Zindagi (Procession of Life), how he misled Rajiv Gandhi and made the prime minister upturn the apex court verdict through a retrogressive legislation.
Shah Bano, married in 1932 and separated from her husband in 1975, was the 62-year-old wife of a well-off advocate in Indore when she approached the court in April 1978 for maintenance. An instant triple talaq was uttered against her inside the Indore court only after the judge, in course of the plea, said that under Muslim Personal Law, she was entitled to maintenance.
This historical fact is pertinent for many reasons, including for being at the core of the notion of maintenance of a divorced Muslim woman in India.
The tragedy with Tuesday’s legislation is that it does not say a word on maintenance. Muslim women remain as potentially hapless and helpless as Shah Bano — as are so many women abandoned by their husbands in other communities, including Hindu.
Sadly, even the citadels of modern education such as Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) have also miserably failed in reaching out to the Muslim masses and freeing them from the clutches of religious reactionaries. But enough of modern, educated, middle-class Muslims have emerged, even from earlier marginalised sections of the ommunity. They shall have to play their roles in bringing about reforms. The new anti-ITT law, too, shall have to be amended — as soon as better sense prevails on enough legislators. 

Q. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 is a Central Act which can be amended only by Indian Parliament. In this context, the phrase "enough legislators" used by the author means

Solution:

The question states that the law in question can be amended only by Indian Parliament hence option (a) is correct.

QUESTION: 26

Passage: The hurriedly enacted Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, invalidates, as well as criminalises, instant triple talaq (ITT) with a sentence up to three years of jail for Muslim men found guilty. ITT is prevalent among one sub-sect (maslak) of Sunnis, a majority among India’s Muslims.
Ever since the Jawaharlal Nehru led government legislated the Hindu Marriage Act 1956, a section of society has been harbouring a grievance regarding why Muslims were ‘spared’ from as similar reform.
In 1986, when the Rajiv Gandhi led administration overturned the Supreme Court verdict in favour of Shah Bano through a legislation, snatching away her right to maintenance, this grievance was reinforced.
This overturning of the verdict was conducted under pressure from the Muslim clergy, who fanned social conservatism in the worst possible ways, taking recourse to street mobilisations. Notably, this grievance was not limited to the Hindu Right.
Former All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) president, Ali MiyanNadvi, ‘confesses’ in his 1988 memoir, Karwan-e-Zindagi (Procession of Life), how he misled Rajiv Gandhi and made the prime minister upturn the apex court verdict through a retrogressive legislation.
Shah Bano, married in 1932 and separated from her husband in 1975, was the 62-year-old wife of a well-off advocate in Indore when she approached the court in April 1978 for maintenance. An instant triple talaq was uttered against her inside the Indore court only after the judge, in course of the plea, said that under Muslim Personal Law, she was entitled to maintenance.
This historical fact is pertinent for many reasons, including for being at the core of the notion of maintenance of a divorced Muslim woman in India.
The tragedy with Tuesday’s legislation is that it does not say a word on maintenance. Muslim women remain as potentially hapless and helpless as Shah Bano — as are so many women abandoned by their husbands in other communities, including Hindu.
Sadly, even the citadels of modern education such as Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) have also miserably failed in reaching out to the Muslim masses and freeing them from the clutches of religious reactionaries. But enough of modern, educated, middle-class Muslims have emerged, even from earlier marginalised sections of the ommunity. They shall have to play their roles in bringing about reforms. The new anti-ITT law, too, shall have to be amended — as soon as better sense prevails on enough legislators. 

Q. The author's opinion is that

Solution:

The author has opined that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 does not address issue of maintenance of Muslim women due to which it needs to be amended.  

QUESTION: 27

What is a lispendens?

Solution:

The meaning of lis pendens is - ‘a pending legal action’, wherein Lis means the ‘suit’ and Pendens means ‘continuing or pending’. The doctrine has been derived from a latin maxim “Ut pendent nihil innovetur” which means that during litigation nothing should be changed.
The principle embodying the said doctrine is that the subject matter of a suit should not be transferred to a third party during the pendency of the suit. In case of transfer of such immovable property, the transferee becomes bound by the result of the suit.

QUESTION: 28

A contract can be discharged _________.

Solution:

Discharge of a contract implies termination of contractual obligations. This is because when the parties originally entered into the contract, the rights and duties in terms of contractual obligations were set up. Consequently when those rights and duties are put out then the contract is said to have been discharged.

QUESTION: 29

Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.
Facts: ‘A’, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Rohan, who has committed murder and is running for cover.
Decide as a judge.

Solution:

It is case of murder and police officer is fully justified in discharge of his duties to apprehend the person without warrant who is accused of committing an offence or against whom a suspicion is there.  

QUESTION: 30

What is the meaning of the maxim “nemojudex in suacausa”?

Solution:

Nemo judex in causa sua (or nemo judex in sua causa) is a Latin phrase that means, literally, “no-one should be a judge in his own case.” It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest.

QUESTION: 31

Principle: A principal is liable for all the acts of the agent which he does in his capacity as an agent.
Facts: A Bollywood actor turned producer Balwan Khan makes a movie ‘MAA ONE’, he takes loan from a money lender Mr. Danjay Sutt, the film releases and as expected is a flop, the producer could not return the money, Danjay Sutt does not goes through the legal channel but asks Kancha Cheena to recover the debt on his behalf. In the process of recovery Kancha Cheena damages the property and manhandles Balwan Khan. Balwan Khan files case against Danjay Sutt. The money lender says he was ignorant of the collection tactics of Kancha Cheena, Is he liable in case?

Solution:

Danjay Sutt appointed kacha Cheena for recovery of his money. He has not opted for lawful means to recover money. Even he has not instructed him not to damage property. He was concerned with money by illegal tactics. Once he appointed a kind of gangster for recovery of money, it does not lie in his mouth to say  that he was ignorant about is ways to collect money.  

QUESTION: 32

Who has the constitutional right to the audience in all Indian Court’?

Solution:

The Attorney General of India has the right of audience in all Courts in India as well as the right to participate in the proceedings of the Parliament, through not to vote

QUESTION: 33

Passage: Article 25 guarantees the right to “profess, practice and propagate religion‟, but also permits the State to regulate „economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice‟, as well as provide for „social welfare and reform‟ of Hindu religious institutions. Article 26 guarantees religious denominations, among other things, freedom to manage their religious affairs. However, the protection is extended only to the practices considered essential to the religion. The State can still restrict the right on the grounds of public order, health and morality.
Litigation around these two Articles has broadly centred on two issues. The first is the distinction between the religious and secular, particularly in the case of Hinduism. The Court has dealt with this by bringing into play an „essential practices‟ test to decide what is essential to Hinduism and used it to distinguish between the sacred and the secular. The Court’s intervention to decide what is religious and what is not in a secular, constitutional culture is hardly peculiar to India. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out, in most constitutional settings courts „have to determine whether or not a policy places a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. This might require the court to have not just a definition of religion but also to determine whether a particular practice counts as falling under that definition. What is unusual, however, is the Indian Supreme Court’s activism in fashioning religion in the way the State or the judges would likeit to be, rather than accept religion as practised by believers. The courts have upheld several practices as essential, but not along with the added elements and their outgrowths. (Ronojoy Sen, Secularism and Religious Freedom).

Q. A particular temple in Maharashtra played religious songs all night on loudspeakers for thirteen days in a row, citing the beginning of Navratri. This was an auspicious period, during which it was necessary for the people of the religion to pray to the deity all night through music. An aggrieved resident of the nearby society filed a case against temples using speakers at odd hours. The followers of the religion argued that this practice is integral for them. The Court will decide –

Solution:

such kind of religious activities cannot be permitted to be performed at the cost of causing discomfort to the person like public order, health and morality, howsoever, attached the followers may be towards such ceremonies. 

QUESTION: 34

Passage: Article 25 guarantees the right to “profess, practice and propagate religion‟, but also permits the State to regulate „economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice‟, as well as provide for „social welfare and reform‟ of Hindu religious institutions. Article 26 guarantees religious denominations, among other things, freedom to manage their religious affairs. However, the protection is extended only to the practices considered essential to the religion. The State can still restrict the right on the grounds of public order, health and morality.
Litigation around these two Articles has broadly centred on two issues. The first is the distinction between the religious and secular, particularly in the case of Hinduism. The Court has dealt with this by bringing into play an „essential practices‟ test to decide what is essential to Hinduism and used it to distinguish between the sacred and the secular. The Court’s intervention to decide what is religious and what is not in a secular, constitutional culture is hardly peculiar to India. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out, in most constitutional settings courts „have to determine whether or not a policy places a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. This might require the court to have not just a definition of religion but also to determine whether a particular practice counts as falling under that definition. What is unusual, however, is the Indian Supreme Court’s activism in fashioning religion in the way the State or the judges would likeit to be, rather than accept religion as practised by believers. The courts have upheld several practices as essential, but not along with the added elements and their outgrowths. (Ronojoy Sen, Secularism and Religious Freedom).

Q. A leader of a religious sect, along with a group of volunteers decided to visit the rural parts of India to help those in need. In the process of helping them, he also taught them the basic tenet of his religion. Many residents of the rural area decided to begin following his religion. The leader was arrested under a law that made it illegal to “induce” anyone to convert to a particular religion. The term “induce” is left vague. The Supreme Court has already held, in Stanislaus v. State of MP, that the right to profess and practice religion does not include the right to convert. The leader challenged, in the High Court, the law as violating his right to propagate his religion. His challenge will –

Solution:

As per settled law right to profess and practice religion does not include right to convert. So his argument as regards conversion will be against settled law and will entail failure to his challenge.

QUESTION: 35

Passage: Article 25 guarantees the right to “profess, practice and propagate religion‟, but also permits the State to regulate „economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice‟, as well as provide for „social welfare and reform‟ of Hindu religious institutions. Article 26 guarantees religious denominations, among other things, freedom to manage their religious affairs. However, the protection is extended only to the practices considered essential to the religion. The State can still restrict the right on the grounds of public order, health and morality.
Litigation around these two Articles has broadly centred on two issues. The first is the distinction between the religious and secular, particularly in the case of Hinduism. The Court has dealt with this by bringing into play an „essential practices‟ test to decide what is essential to Hinduism and used it to distinguish between the sacred and the secular. The Court’s intervention to decide what is religious and what is not in a secular, constitutional culture is hardly peculiar to India. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out, in most constitutional settings courts „have to determine whether or not a policy places a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. This might require the court to have not just a definition of religion but also to determine whether a particular practice counts as falling under that definition. What is unusual, however, is the Indian Supreme Court’s activism in fashioning religion in the way the State or the judges would likeit to be, rather than accept religion as practised by believers. The courts have upheld several practices as essential, but not along with the added elements and their outgrowths. (Ronojoy Sen, Secularism and Religious Freedom).

Q. In 2019, the Government of India banned the pasting of religious pamphlets in public spaces. These pamphlets often carried the text of the key teachings of religions, and all religious sects engaged in this practice. One leader from a religion challenged this action of the government. His challenge will –

Solution:

Though it is not very much clear from the factual position , still banning cannot be associated with right to practice religion. Rather it defaces public properties. 

QUESTION: 36

Passage: Article 25 guarantees the right to “profess, practice and propagate religion‟, but also permits the State to regulate „economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice‟, as well as provide for „social welfare and reform‟ of Hindu religious institutions. Article 26 guarantees religious denominations, among other things, freedom to manage their religious affairs. However, the protection is extended only to the practices considered essential to the religion. The State can still restrict the right on the grounds of public order, health and morality.
Litigation around these two Articles has broadly centred on two issues. The first is the distinction between the religious and secular, particularly in the case of Hinduism. The Court has dealt with this by bringing into play an „essential practices‟ test to decide what is essential to Hinduism and used it to distinguish between the sacred and the secular. The Court’s intervention to decide what is religious and what is not in a secular, constitutional culture is hardly peculiar to India. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out, in most constitutional settings courts „have to determine whether or not a policy places a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. This might require the court to have not just a definition of religion but also to determine whether a particular practice counts as falling under that definition. What is unusual, however, is the Indian Supreme Court’s activism in fashioning religion in the way the State or the judges would likeit to be, rather than accept religion as practised by believers. The courts have upheld several practices as essential, but not along with the added elements and their outgrowths. (Ronojoy Sen, Secularism and Religious Freedom).

Q. Riots have just taken place in the small town of Mirzapur. Religious tempers were simmering. In this atmosphere, a small group of violent people from each religion decided to start announcing that the only path to salvation was the annihilation of the people of the other sect. The government decided to outlaw any public religious announcements in Mirzapur. Both the groups challenged this action. Their challenge will –

Solution:

The Government has decided to ban practice of announcement looking to the prevalent situation where religious tempers were still simmering. 

QUESTION: 37

The religion of NNN decided to construct a place of worship in a crowded locality. The priest of their nearby temple had had a dream that god himself will reside in this new place of worship. After the building was constructed, the government ordered a razing of all illegal structures in that locality which included the new place of worship. The priest challenged this action. His action will –

Solution:

As he has raised construction at a place where it is not legal to raise any building. Illegal construction cannot be allowed in the name of god or religion.

QUESTION: 38

Passage: In 2016, a group of women decided to challenge the XYZ Places of Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965 by virtue of which a ban was imposed on women between the ages of 10 to 50 years from entering the Sun temple. They argued that this violated their fundamental rights under Article 14, 17 and 25. The temple authorities stated that they only excluded women because of the “impurity‟ caused by their menstrual cycles. The authorities believed that they were a religious denomination, and thus the regulation of entry into the temple was a part of their right to manage their own affairs under Article 26.
The texts of the relevant articles are as follows–
Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
Article 17: Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden The enforcement of any disability, by the State or otherwise, arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
This prohibition of untouchability was interpreted by the courts to be based on notions of purity and impurity of an individual.
Article 25: Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion

Q. In the present case, is there a violation of Article 14?

Solution:

State is custodiun of right of citizens. It is duty of State to ensure equality. All individual were created equal. Excluding women and allowing men would certainly a discrimination on the basis of gender as also placing the women in position of subordination. Any discrimination on the basis of gender invite scrutiny of article 14 and 15 i.e. equality and no discrimination. Prohibiting access to women in temples is contrary to equality provisions  also  held by Bombay High court in shani Shignapur,s Case.

QUESTION: 39

Passage: In 2016, a group of women decided to challenge the XYZ Places of Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965 by virtue of which a ban was imposed on women between the ages of 10 to 50 years from entering the Sun temple. They argued that this violated their fundamental rights under Article 14, 17 and 25. The temple authorities stated that they only excluded women because of the “impurity‟ caused by their menstrual cycles. The authorities believed that they were a religious denomination, and thus the regulation of entry into the temple was a part of their right to manage their own affairs under Article 26.
The texts of the relevant articles are as follows–
Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
Article 17: Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden The enforcement of any disability, by the State or otherwise, arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
This prohibition of untouchability was interpreted by the courts to be based on notions of purity and impurity of an individual.
Article 25: Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion

Q. In the present case, is there a violation of Article 17?

Solution:

Prohibition of entry of women of menstruating age is practice comparable to untouchability so as to attract article 17. The prejudice based on notion of impurity and pollution associated with menstruation is symbol of exclusion and this social exclusion based on menstruation is form of untouchability. It is systematic form of humiliation and exclusion. Article 17 is horizontal right that aims to abolish untouchability at all levels of individuals and communities and not only against state.

QUESTION: 40

Passage: In 2016, a group of women decided to challenge the XYZ Places of Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965 by virtue of which a ban was imposed on women between the ages of 10 to 50 years from entering the Sun temple. They argued that this violated their fundamental rights under Article 14, 17 and 25. The temple authorities stated that they only excluded women because of the “impurity‟ caused by their menstrual cycles. The authorities believed that they were a religious denomination, and thus the regulation of entry into the temple was a part of their right to manage their own affairs under Article 26.
The texts of the relevant articles are as follows–
Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
Article 17: Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden The enforcement of any disability, by the State or otherwise, arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
This prohibition of untouchability was interpreted by the courts to be based on notions of purity and impurity of an individual.
Article 25: Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion

Q. Would the women be able to assert a violation of Article 17 in the absence of the aforementioned statute?

Solution:

The enforcement of disability by State is prohibited under Article 17.

Related tests