Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like andldquo;seditionandrdquo; have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (andldquo;seditionandrdquo; is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as andldquo;seditionandrdquo;). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumarandrsquo;s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciaryandrsquo;s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on courtandrsquo;s interpretation and Governmentandrsquo;s discretion.Q.Taking reference from the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State, it can be construed that due to lethargic approach by the police officials and delayed judicial process by courts, a conundrum arises in delivering justice because:a)There exists a complex legal procedure which escalates the trial process in the courts.b)The existing procedural law and cumbersome legal process hinders the speedy trial of a matter.c)The lack of co-ordination between judiciary and law enforcement bodies at the early trial stage.d)All the above optionsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Read the information given below and answer t...

Join the Discussion on the App

Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code lays down the punishment for sedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.

There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.

Q. Taking reference from the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State, it can be construed that due to lethargic approach by the police officials and delayed judicial process by courts, a conundrum arises in delivering justice because:

a)
There exists a complex legal procedure which escalates the trial process in the courts.
b)
The existing procedural law and cumbersome legal process hinders the speedy trial of a matter.
c)
The lack of co-ordination between judiciary and law enforcement bodies at the early trial stage.
d)
All the above options

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CLAT: Mock Test (New Pattern) - 15

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it....

Option (D) is correct because all the available options deals with the reason for “transgressing” as referred in the Kanhaiya Kumar’s case which further creates a conundrum between courts and police officials.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s cas e) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.According to the passage, the view point of author towards the judiciary and law enforcement bodies is said to be

View answer

Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s cas e) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.“It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays.” Through this statement the author wants to construe that

View answer

Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s cas e) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.According to the passage, courts have deliberately provided for a time frame within which a prior sanction has to be taken from the government by the police. These steps have been taken by the courts because

View answer

Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s cas e) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.Suppose if a person commits an offence of “sedition” under Chapter 6 of I.P.C and police arrest him for commission of such an act without taking prior sanction from government and further present him before the court

View answer

Passage:In the 1850s, around the time the Indian Contract Act was about to be drafted, consideration was on its way to becoming a ‘mere technicality’ and could very well have ‘withered away altogether’. It should not be surprising then that framers of a midnineteenth century contract code, beginning tabula rasa, might have wished to fundamentally shake up the rules relating to consideration. Indeed, as Ibbetson argues, ‘a codifying system might legitimately have discarded consideration as inconsistent with the newly imposed legal model’ – an option ‘not open to the Common law.’ But like the ingenious common law reformers in England, the drafters continued to pay ‘lip service’ to the idea of consideration and the ‘reciprocity’ underlying it. They did indeed retain the traditional doctrine’s outer crust of reciprocity: an act or abstinence or promise on the ‘other side’, as it were, but they tweaked this in important ways. The framers of the Act, like the English Courts of the day, made it very easy to find consideration by defining it in capacious terms, which included any act or abstinence or promise, regardless of benefit or detriment. Perhaps, they too, like the Law Revision Committee, were mindful of the fact that a root and branch abolition of the doctrine might arouse ‘suspicion and hostility’ and hence decided to ‘prune away from the doctrine those aspects of it that create hardship’. They also provided that no question of adequacy of consideration could ever be raised. However, the definition under the Indian Contract Act did more than that – Section 2( d) had other elements that lent it the makings of marking the vanishing point of consideration.The definition of consideration under the Indian Contract Act, with its copula ‘at the desire of’, appears to have been calculated to preempt potential hair splitting over whether the consideration in any given case was indeed valuable in the ‘eye of the law’. The idea at play here is that of the subjective theory of value: that the Courts would not second-guess whether any consideration was actually valuable – what the promisor desired is what he got and that settled conclusively the matter of the value of consideration. This was one of the effects of the influence of the will theory on the traditional exchange model of consideration.Q.Which of these is true?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.Taking reference from the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State, it can be construed that due to lethargic approach by the police officials and delayed judicial process by courts, a conundrum arises in delivering justice because:a)There exists a complex legal procedure which escalates the trial process in the courts.b)The existing procedural law and cumbersome legal process hinders the speedy trial of a matter.c)The lack of co-ordination between judiciary and law enforcement bodies at the early trial stage.d)All the above optionsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.Taking reference from the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State, it can be construed that due to lethargic approach by the police officials and delayed judicial process by courts, a conundrum arises in delivering justice because:a)There exists a complex legal procedure which escalates the trial process in the courts.b)The existing procedural law and cumbersome legal process hinders the speedy trial of a matter.c)The lack of co-ordination between judiciary and law enforcement bodies at the early trial stage.d)All the above optionsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.Taking reference from the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State, it can be construed that due to lethargic approach by the police officials and delayed judicial process by courts, a conundrum arises in delivering justice because:a)There exists a complex legal procedure which escalates the trial process in the courts.b)The existing procedural law and cumbersome legal process hinders the speedy trial of a matter.c)The lack of co-ordination between judiciary and law enforcement bodies at the early trial stage.d)All the above optionsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.Taking reference from the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State, it can be construed that due to lethargic approach by the police officials and delayed judicial process by courts, a conundrum arises in delivering justice because:a)There exists a complex legal procedure which escalates the trial process in the courts.b)The existing procedural law and cumbersome legal process hinders the speedy trial of a matter.c)The lack of co-ordination between judiciary and law enforcement bodies at the early trial stage.d)All the above optionsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.Taking reference from the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State, it can be construed that due to lethargic approach by the police officials and delayed judicial process by courts, a conundrum arises in delivering justice because:a)There exists a complex legal procedure which escalates the trial process in the courts.b)The existing procedural law and cumbersome legal process hinders the speedy trial of a matter.c)The lack of co-ordination between judiciary and law enforcement bodies at the early trial stage.d)All the above optionsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.Taking reference from the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State, it can be construed that due to lethargic approach by the police officials and delayed judicial process by courts, a conundrum arises in delivering justice because:a)There exists a complex legal procedure which escalates the trial process in the courts.b)The existing procedural law and cumbersome legal process hinders the speedy trial of a matter.c)The lack of co-ordination between judiciary and law enforcement bodies at the early trial stage.d)All the above optionsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.Taking reference from the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State, it can be construed that due to lethargic approach by the police officials and delayed judicial process by courts, a conundrum arises in delivering justice because:a)There exists a complex legal procedure which escalates the trial process in the courts.b)The existing procedural law and cumbersome legal process hinders the speedy trial of a matter.c)The lack of co-ordination between judiciary and law enforcement bodies at the early trial stage.d)All the above optionsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.Taking reference from the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State, it can be construed that due to lethargic approach by the police officials and delayed judicial process by courts, a conundrum arises in delivering justice because:a)There exists a complex legal procedure which escalates the trial process in the courts.b)The existing procedural law and cumbersome legal process hinders the speedy trial of a matter.c)The lack of co-ordination between judiciary and law enforcement bodies at the early trial stage.d)All the above optionsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.Taking reference from the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State, it can be construed that due to lethargic approach by the police officials and delayed judicial process by courts, a conundrum arises in delivering justice because:a)There exists a complex legal procedure which escalates the trial process in the courts.b)The existing procedural law and cumbersome legal process hinders the speedy trial of a matter.c)The lack of co-ordination between judiciary and law enforcement bodies at the early trial stage.d)All the above optionsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s case) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.Taking reference from the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State, it can be construed that due to lethargic approach by the police officials and delayed judicial process by courts, a conundrum arises in delivering justice because:a)There exists a complex legal procedure which escalates the trial process in the courts.b)The existing procedural law and cumbersome legal process hinders the speedy trial of a matter.c)The lack of co-ordination between judiciary and law enforcement bodies at the early trial stage.d)All the above optionsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam