All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Paragraph:Omar Abdullah, former chief ministe... Start Learning for Free
Paragraph: Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), has been in detention since August 5, 2019, under the Public Safety Act. Every moment of his detention has been a gross violation of the right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The allegations against Omar are totally frivolous. In a three-page dossier served on him, it is said he made statements to the Kashmiri public against the dilution of Articles 35A and 370.All this is ipse dixit (a dogmatic and unproven statement) and is hardly a valid ground for detaining him. There is no allegation that Omar Abdullah ever gave a call for violence or organised violence. In fact, his entire political record shows that he has always abided by India’s Constitution. Criticising the government is no crime, as it is a democratic right protected by the freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This was laid down by the constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court in RomeshThapparvs State of Madras in 1950 and several other decisions of the court thereafter.
As held in the historic decision of the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg vs Ohio (1969), which still holds the field, free speech can only be prohibited by the state when “it is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action”. This decision of the US Supreme Court has been followed in two decisions of the Indian Supreme Court, Arup Bhuyanvs State of Assam and Sri Indra Das vs the State of Assam, both delivered in 2011. Hence, it is the law of the land in India too. There is no allegation that Omar said anything to incite or produce imminent lawless action.
In Ghanivs Jones (1970), Lord Denning observed that “a man’s liberty of movement is regarded so highly by the laws of England that it is not to be hindered or prevented except on the surest grounds”, and this statement has been quoted with approval by the seven-judge constitution bench judgment of our Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India and thereafter in Govt of Andhra Pradesh vs P. Laxmi Devi. Hence it is the law of the land in India too.
Omar Abdullah's sister has termed the renewed detention orders under the PSA as "unconstitutional" and a "flagrant violation of his fundamental rights".
The petition explained that Mr. Abdullah’s detention from August 5 under Section 107 CrPC (security for keeping the peace) was scheduled to end on February 5, 2020. His release was imminent. He had served the maximum period of detention.
Section 107 (1) of CrPC is used to deter any person likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and the Magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
Q. Mr. Bond is a vocal critic of the incumbent Government. Fed up of the corruption, he writes a book outlining the shortcomings of the ruling dispensation. However, Mr. Bond is arrested fearing that his book would disturb the public tranquillity. Can the Government do that? 
  • a)
    Yes, the book was bound to cause dissatisfaction and unrest in the public.
  • b)
    No, Mr. Bond did not have any intention of breaching public tranquility.
  • c)
    Yes, it was Mr. Bond’s intention to create public outrage and disharmony; hence there was sufficient ground.
  • d)
    None of the above.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CLAT doubts with EduRev
Verified Answer
Paragraph:Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir (J...
D is the correct option. No, Mr Bond can't be arrested but not because of his unintentional conscience to cause disturb the public tranquillity.In Fact,  He can't be arrested because mere writing of a book cant be termed as enough to be held as a ground of detention under section 107 of CrPC.
View all questions of this test
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Paragraph:Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), has been in detention since August 5, 2019, under the Public Safety Act. Every moment of his detention has been a gross violation of the right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The allegations against Omar are totally frivolous. In a three-page dossier served on him, it is said he made statements to the Kashmiri public against the dilution of Articles 35A and 370.All this is ipse dixit (a dogmatic and unproven statement) and is hardly a valid ground for detaining him. There is no allegation that Omar Abdullah ever gave a call for violence or organised violence. In fact, his entire political record shows that he has always abided by India’s Constitution. Criticising the government is no crime, as it is a democratic right protected by the freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. A person approached the Supreme Court contending that a law passed by the Parliament takes away his fundamental right and prayed that the Court must stay the operation of law at first instance and then he would move forward to prove that law is unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights of the petitioner. Decide.

The Constitution which lays down the basic structure of a nation's polity is built on the foundations of certain fundamental values. The vision of socio-economic change through the Constitution is reflected in its lofty Preamble.The Preamble expresses the ideals and aspirations of a renascent India. By the year 1949, the Constituent Assembly had completed the drafting of the Fundamental Rights Chapter. Fundamental Rights are constitutional guarantees for the human rights of our people. These rights were one of the persistent demands of our leaders throughout the freedom struggle. The founding fathers were conscious of the fact that mere political democracy, i.e., getting the right to vote once in five years or so was meaningless unless it was accompanied by social and economic democracy. Dr. Ambedkar had said:"We do not want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people to come and capture power. The Constitution also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would be forming the government. That ideal is of economic democracy."Our founding fathers, however, were far-sighted people therefore they consolidated the principles of good governance as Directive Principles contradistinguished from issues of rights, government and politics.That is how the vision of our founding fathers and the aims and objectives which they wanted to achieve through the Constitution are contained in the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. These three may be described as the soul of the Constitution and the testament of the founding fathers to the succeeding generations together with the later Part on Fundamental Duties.Q. It is fundamental right of every citizen not to be discriminated on the ground of religion, race, sex, place of birth or any of them. However, nothing in the fundamental rights shall prevent the state from making any special provision for women, children or elderly. State of XYZ enacted a law granting reservation of 50% in National Law School XYZ - to the native students scoring more than 75% percent in XII Examination. Based on the essence of the passage, decide whether the move of reservation is constitutional or not

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage.The most remarkable achievement in post-constitution India is the exercise of the power of the judicial review by the superior courts. So long as this power is wielded by the courts effectively and fearlessly, democracy will remain ensured in India and, with all its shortcomings, the Constitution will survive. The numerous applications for the constitutional writs before the High Courts and the Supreme Court and their results testify to the establishment in India of 'limited government', or, 'the government of laws, not of men', as they call it in the United States of America. The Supreme Court has well performed its task of protecting the rights of the individual against the executive, against oppressive legislations and even against the Legislature itself, when it becomes overzealous in asserting its privileges not only against the individual citizens but even against the judges.At the same time, it should be observed that neither the guarantee of the Fundamental Rights nor its adjunct 'Judicial Review' could have full play during the first quarter of a century of the working of our Constitution owing to their erosion by Proclamations of Emergency over a substantial period of time. It is true that the Emergency provisions are as much a part of the Constitution of India as any other, and that history has proved the need for such powers to meet extraordinary situations, but, broadly speaking, if the application of the Emergency provisions overshadows the other features of the Constitution, the balance between the 'normal' and 'emergency' provisions is palpably destroyed. Even, apart from Emergency, there has been an astounding erosion of Fundamental Rights owing to multiple amendments of the Constitution.The means to prevent any such conflict between competing interests is to process all proposals for constitutional amendments through an expert and objective machinery, which would ensure the progressive adaptation of the Constitution to the Copernican changes in the social, economic and political background.Q. Reading of the passage leads to the conclusion that the author is of the view that

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage.The most remarkable achievement in post-constitution India is the exercise of the power of the judicial review by the superior courts. So long as this power is wielded by the courts effectively and fearlessly, democracy will remain ensured in India and, with all its shortcomings, the Constitution will survive. The numerous applications for the constitutional writs before the High Courts and the Supreme Court and their results testify to the establishment in India of 'limited government', or, 'the government of laws, not of men', as they call it in the United States of America. The Supreme Court has well performed its task of protecting the rights of the individual against the executive, against oppressive legislations and even against the Legislature itself, when it becomes overzealous in asserting its privileges not only against the individual citizens but even against the judges.At the same time, it should be observed that neither the guarantee of the Fundamental Rights nor its adjunct 'Judicial Review' could have full play during the first quarter of a century of the working of our Constitution owing to their erosion by Proclamations of Emergency over a substantial period of time. It is true that the Emergency provisions are as much a part of the Constitution of India as any other, and that history has proved the need for such powers to meet extraordinary situations, but, broadly speaking, if the application of the Emergency provisions overshadows the other features of the Constitution, the balance between the 'normal' and 'emergency' provisions is palpably destroyed. Even, apart from Emergency, there has been an astounding erosion of Fundamental Rights owing to multiple amendments of the Constitution.The means to prevent any such conflict between competing interests is to process all proposals for constitutional amendments through an expert and objective machinery, which would ensure the progressive adaptation of the Constitution to the Copernican changes in the social, economic and political background.Q. What, according to the passage, is the biggest concern of the author?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Paragraph:Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), has been in detention since August 5, 2019, under the Public Safety Act. Every moment of his detention has been a gross violation of the right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The allegations against Omar are totally frivolous. In a three-page dossier served on him, it is said he made statements to the Kashmiri public against the dilution of Articles 35A and 370.All this is ipse dixit (a dogmatic and unproven statement) and is hardly a valid ground for detaining him. There is no allegation that Omar Abdullah ever gave a call for violence or organised violence. In fact, his entire political record shows that he has always abided by India’s Constitution. Criticising the government is no crime, as it is a democratic right protected by the freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This was laid down by the constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court in RomeshThapparvs State of Madras in 1950 and several other decisions of the court thereafter.As held in the historic decision of the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg vs Ohio (1969), which still holds the field, free speech can only be prohibited by the state when “it is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action”. This decision of the US Supreme Court has been followed in two decisions of the Indian Supreme Court, Arup Bhuyanvs State of Assam and Sri Indra Das vs the State of Assam, both delivered in 2011. Hence, it is the law of the land in India too. There is no allegation that Omar said anything to incite or produce imminent lawless action.In Ghanivs Jones (1970), Lord Denning observed that “a man’s liberty of movement is regarded so highly by the laws of England that it is not to be hindered or prevented except on the surest grounds”, and this statement has been quoted with approval by the seven-judge constitution bench judgment of our Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India and thereafter in Govt of Andhra Pradesh vs P. Laxmi Devi. Hence it is the law of the land in India too.Omar Abdullahs sister has termed the renewed detention orders under the PSA as "unconstitutional" and a "flagrant violation of his fundamental rights".The petition explained that Mr. Abdullah’s detention from August 5 under Section 107 CrPC (security for keeping the peace) was scheduled to end on February 5, 2020. His release was imminent. He had served the maximum period of detention.Section 107 (1) of CrPC is used to deter any person likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and the Magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.Q. Mr. Bond is a vocal critic of the incumbent Government. Fed up of the corruption, he writes a book outlining the shortcomings of the ruling dispensation. However, Mr. Bond is arrested fearing that his book would disturb the public tranquillity. Can the Government do that?a)Yes, the book was bound to cause dissatisfaction and unrest in the public.b)No, Mr. Bond did not have any intention of breaching public tranquility.c)Yes, it was Mr. Bond’s intention to create public outrage and disharmony; hence there was sufficient ground.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Paragraph:Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), has been in detention since August 5, 2019, under the Public Safety Act. Every moment of his detention has been a gross violation of the right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The allegations against Omar are totally frivolous. In a three-page dossier served on him, it is said he made statements to the Kashmiri public against the dilution of Articles 35A and 370.All this is ipse dixit (a dogmatic and unproven statement) and is hardly a valid ground for detaining him. There is no allegation that Omar Abdullah ever gave a call for violence or organised violence. In fact, his entire political record shows that he has always abided by India’s Constitution. Criticising the government is no crime, as it is a democratic right protected by the freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This was laid down by the constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court in RomeshThapparvs State of Madras in 1950 and several other decisions of the court thereafter.As held in the historic decision of the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg vs Ohio (1969), which still holds the field, free speech can only be prohibited by the state when “it is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action”. This decision of the US Supreme Court has been followed in two decisions of the Indian Supreme Court, Arup Bhuyanvs State of Assam and Sri Indra Das vs the State of Assam, both delivered in 2011. Hence, it is the law of the land in India too. There is no allegation that Omar said anything to incite or produce imminent lawless action.In Ghanivs Jones (1970), Lord Denning observed that “a man’s liberty of movement is regarded so highly by the laws of England that it is not to be hindered or prevented except on the surest grounds”, and this statement has been quoted with approval by the seven-judge constitution bench judgment of our Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India and thereafter in Govt of Andhra Pradesh vs P. Laxmi Devi. Hence it is the law of the land in India too.Omar Abdullahs sister has termed the renewed detention orders under the PSA as "unconstitutional" and a "flagrant violation of his fundamental rights".The petition explained that Mr. Abdullah’s detention from August 5 under Section 107 CrPC (security for keeping the peace) was scheduled to end on February 5, 2020. His release was imminent. He had served the maximum period of detention.Section 107 (1) of CrPC is used to deter any person likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and the Magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.Q. Mr. Bond is a vocal critic of the incumbent Government. Fed up of the corruption, he writes a book outlining the shortcomings of the ruling dispensation. However, Mr. Bond is arrested fearing that his book would disturb the public tranquillity. Can the Government do that?a)Yes, the book was bound to cause dissatisfaction and unrest in the public.b)No, Mr. Bond did not have any intention of breaching public tranquility.c)Yes, it was Mr. Bond’s intention to create public outrage and disharmony; hence there was sufficient ground.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Paragraph:Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), has been in detention since August 5, 2019, under the Public Safety Act. Every moment of his detention has been a gross violation of the right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The allegations against Omar are totally frivolous. In a three-page dossier served on him, it is said he made statements to the Kashmiri public against the dilution of Articles 35A and 370.All this is ipse dixit (a dogmatic and unproven statement) and is hardly a valid ground for detaining him. There is no allegation that Omar Abdullah ever gave a call for violence or organised violence. In fact, his entire political record shows that he has always abided by India’s Constitution. Criticising the government is no crime, as it is a democratic right protected by the freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This was laid down by the constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court in RomeshThapparvs State of Madras in 1950 and several other decisions of the court thereafter.As held in the historic decision of the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg vs Ohio (1969), which still holds the field, free speech can only be prohibited by the state when “it is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action”. This decision of the US Supreme Court has been followed in two decisions of the Indian Supreme Court, Arup Bhuyanvs State of Assam and Sri Indra Das vs the State of Assam, both delivered in 2011. Hence, it is the law of the land in India too. There is no allegation that Omar said anything to incite or produce imminent lawless action.In Ghanivs Jones (1970), Lord Denning observed that “a man’s liberty of movement is regarded so highly by the laws of England that it is not to be hindered or prevented except on the surest grounds”, and this statement has been quoted with approval by the seven-judge constitution bench judgment of our Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India and thereafter in Govt of Andhra Pradesh vs P. Laxmi Devi. Hence it is the law of the land in India too.Omar Abdullahs sister has termed the renewed detention orders under the PSA as "unconstitutional" and a "flagrant violation of his fundamental rights".The petition explained that Mr. Abdullah’s detention from August 5 under Section 107 CrPC (security for keeping the peace) was scheduled to end on February 5, 2020. His release was imminent. He had served the maximum period of detention.Section 107 (1) of CrPC is used to deter any person likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and the Magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.Q. Mr. Bond is a vocal critic of the incumbent Government. Fed up of the corruption, he writes a book outlining the shortcomings of the ruling dispensation. However, Mr. Bond is arrested fearing that his book would disturb the public tranquillity. Can the Government do that?a)Yes, the book was bound to cause dissatisfaction and unrest in the public.b)No, Mr. Bond did not have any intention of breaching public tranquility.c)Yes, it was Mr. Bond’s intention to create public outrage and disharmony; hence there was sufficient ground.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Paragraph:Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), has been in detention since August 5, 2019, under the Public Safety Act. Every moment of his detention has been a gross violation of the right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The allegations against Omar are totally frivolous. In a three-page dossier served on him, it is said he made statements to the Kashmiri public against the dilution of Articles 35A and 370.All this is ipse dixit (a dogmatic and unproven statement) and is hardly a valid ground for detaining him. There is no allegation that Omar Abdullah ever gave a call for violence or organised violence. In fact, his entire political record shows that he has always abided by India’s Constitution. Criticising the government is no crime, as it is a democratic right protected by the freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This was laid down by the constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court in RomeshThapparvs State of Madras in 1950 and several other decisions of the court thereafter.As held in the historic decision of the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg vs Ohio (1969), which still holds the field, free speech can only be prohibited by the state when “it is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action”. This decision of the US Supreme Court has been followed in two decisions of the Indian Supreme Court, Arup Bhuyanvs State of Assam and Sri Indra Das vs the State of Assam, both delivered in 2011. Hence, it is the law of the land in India too. There is no allegation that Omar said anything to incite or produce imminent lawless action.In Ghanivs Jones (1970), Lord Denning observed that “a man’s liberty of movement is regarded so highly by the laws of England that it is not to be hindered or prevented except on the surest grounds”, and this statement has been quoted with approval by the seven-judge constitution bench judgment of our Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India and thereafter in Govt of Andhra Pradesh vs P. Laxmi Devi. Hence it is the law of the land in India too.Omar Abdullahs sister has termed the renewed detention orders under the PSA as "unconstitutional" and a "flagrant violation of his fundamental rights".The petition explained that Mr. Abdullah’s detention from August 5 under Section 107 CrPC (security for keeping the peace) was scheduled to end on February 5, 2020. His release was imminent. He had served the maximum period of detention.Section 107 (1) of CrPC is used to deter any person likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and the Magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.Q. Mr. Bond is a vocal critic of the incumbent Government. Fed up of the corruption, he writes a book outlining the shortcomings of the ruling dispensation. However, Mr. Bond is arrested fearing that his book would disturb the public tranquillity. Can the Government do that?a)Yes, the book was bound to cause dissatisfaction and unrest in the public.b)No, Mr. Bond did not have any intention of breaching public tranquility.c)Yes, it was Mr. Bond’s intention to create public outrage and disharmony; hence there was sufficient ground.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Paragraph:Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), has been in detention since August 5, 2019, under the Public Safety Act. Every moment of his detention has been a gross violation of the right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The allegations against Omar are totally frivolous. In a three-page dossier served on him, it is said he made statements to the Kashmiri public against the dilution of Articles 35A and 370.All this is ipse dixit (a dogmatic and unproven statement) and is hardly a valid ground for detaining him. There is no allegation that Omar Abdullah ever gave a call for violence or organised violence. In fact, his entire political record shows that he has always abided by India’s Constitution. Criticising the government is no crime, as it is a democratic right protected by the freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This was laid down by the constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court in RomeshThapparvs State of Madras in 1950 and several other decisions of the court thereafter.As held in the historic decision of the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg vs Ohio (1969), which still holds the field, free speech can only be prohibited by the state when “it is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action”. This decision of the US Supreme Court has been followed in two decisions of the Indian Supreme Court, Arup Bhuyanvs State of Assam and Sri Indra Das vs the State of Assam, both delivered in 2011. Hence, it is the law of the land in India too. There is no allegation that Omar said anything to incite or produce imminent lawless action.In Ghanivs Jones (1970), Lord Denning observed that “a man’s liberty of movement is regarded so highly by the laws of England that it is not to be hindered or prevented except on the surest grounds”, and this statement has been quoted with approval by the seven-judge constitution bench judgment of our Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India and thereafter in Govt of Andhra Pradesh vs P. Laxmi Devi. Hence it is the law of the land in India too.Omar Abdullahs sister has termed the renewed detention orders under the PSA as "unconstitutional" and a "flagrant violation of his fundamental rights".The petition explained that Mr. Abdullah’s detention from August 5 under Section 107 CrPC (security for keeping the peace) was scheduled to end on February 5, 2020. His release was imminent. He had served the maximum period of detention.Section 107 (1) of CrPC is used to deter any person likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and the Magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.Q. Mr. Bond is a vocal critic of the incumbent Government. Fed up of the corruption, he writes a book outlining the shortcomings of the ruling dispensation. However, Mr. Bond is arrested fearing that his book would disturb the public tranquillity. Can the Government do that?a)Yes, the book was bound to cause dissatisfaction and unrest in the public.b)No, Mr. Bond did not have any intention of breaching public tranquility.c)Yes, it was Mr. Bond’s intention to create public outrage and disharmony; hence there was sufficient ground.d)None of the above.Correct 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 Paragraph:Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), has been in detention since August 5, 2019, under the Public Safety Act. Every moment of his detention has been a gross violation of the right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The allegations against Omar are totally frivolous. In a three-page dossier served on him, it is said he made statements to the Kashmiri public against the dilution of Articles 35A and 370.All this is ipse dixit (a dogmatic and unproven statement) and is hardly a valid ground for detaining him. There is no allegation that Omar Abdullah ever gave a call for violence or organised violence. In fact, his entire political record shows that he has always abided by India’s Constitution. Criticising the government is no crime, as it is a democratic right protected by the freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This was laid down by the constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court in RomeshThapparvs State of Madras in 1950 and several other decisions of the court thereafter.As held in the historic decision of the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg vs Ohio (1969), which still holds the field, free speech can only be prohibited by the state when “it is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action”. This decision of the US Supreme Court has been followed in two decisions of the Indian Supreme Court, Arup Bhuyanvs State of Assam and Sri Indra Das vs the State of Assam, both delivered in 2011. Hence, it is the law of the land in India too. There is no allegation that Omar said anything to incite or produce imminent lawless action.In Ghanivs Jones (1970), Lord Denning observed that “a man’s liberty of movement is regarded so highly by the laws of England that it is not to be hindered or prevented except on the surest grounds”, and this statement has been quoted with approval by the seven-judge constitution bench judgment of our Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India and thereafter in Govt of Andhra Pradesh vs P. Laxmi Devi. Hence it is the law of the land in India too.Omar Abdullahs sister has termed the renewed detention orders under the PSA as "unconstitutional" and a "flagrant violation of his fundamental rights".The petition explained that Mr. Abdullah’s detention from August 5 under Section 107 CrPC (security for keeping the peace) was scheduled to end on February 5, 2020. His release was imminent. He had served the maximum period of detention.Section 107 (1) of CrPC is used to deter any person likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and the Magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.Q. Mr. Bond is a vocal critic of the incumbent Government. Fed up of the corruption, he writes a book outlining the shortcomings of the ruling dispensation. However, Mr. Bond is arrested fearing that his book would disturb the public tranquillity. Can the Government do that?a)Yes, the book was bound to cause dissatisfaction and unrest in the public.b)No, Mr. Bond did not have any intention of breaching public tranquility.c)Yes, it was Mr. Bond’s intention to create public outrage and disharmony; hence there was sufficient ground.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Paragraph:Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), has been in detention since August 5, 2019, under the Public Safety Act. Every moment of his detention has been a gross violation of the right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The allegations against Omar are totally frivolous. In a three-page dossier served on him, it is said he made statements to the Kashmiri public against the dilution of Articles 35A and 370.All this is ipse dixit (a dogmatic and unproven statement) and is hardly a valid ground for detaining him. There is no allegation that Omar Abdullah ever gave a call for violence or organised violence. In fact, his entire political record shows that he has always abided by India’s Constitution. Criticising the government is no crime, as it is a democratic right protected by the freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This was laid down by the constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court in RomeshThapparvs State of Madras in 1950 and several other decisions of the court thereafter.As held in the historic decision of the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg vs Ohio (1969), which still holds the field, free speech can only be prohibited by the state when “it is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action”. This decision of the US Supreme Court has been followed in two decisions of the Indian Supreme Court, Arup Bhuyanvs State of Assam and Sri Indra Das vs the State of Assam, both delivered in 2011. Hence, it is the law of the land in India too. There is no allegation that Omar said anything to incite or produce imminent lawless action.In Ghanivs Jones (1970), Lord Denning observed that “a man’s liberty of movement is regarded so highly by the laws of England that it is not to be hindered or prevented except on the surest grounds”, and this statement has been quoted with approval by the seven-judge constitution bench judgment of our Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India and thereafter in Govt of Andhra Pradesh vs P. Laxmi Devi. Hence it is the law of the land in India too.Omar Abdullahs sister has termed the renewed detention orders under the PSA as "unconstitutional" and a "flagrant violation of his fundamental rights".The petition explained that Mr. Abdullah’s detention from August 5 under Section 107 CrPC (security for keeping the peace) was scheduled to end on February 5, 2020. His release was imminent. He had served the maximum period of detention.Section 107 (1) of CrPC is used to deter any person likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and the Magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.Q. Mr. Bond is a vocal critic of the incumbent Government. Fed up of the corruption, he writes a book outlining the shortcomings of the ruling dispensation. However, Mr. Bond is arrested fearing that his book would disturb the public tranquillity. Can the Government do that?a)Yes, the book was bound to cause dissatisfaction and unrest in the public.b)No, Mr. Bond did not have any intention of breaching public tranquility.c)Yes, it was Mr. Bond’s intention to create public outrage and disharmony; hence there was sufficient ground.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Paragraph:Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), has been in detention since August 5, 2019, under the Public Safety Act. Every moment of his detention has been a gross violation of the right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The allegations against Omar are totally frivolous. In a three-page dossier served on him, it is said he made statements to the Kashmiri public against the dilution of Articles 35A and 370.All this is ipse dixit (a dogmatic and unproven statement) and is hardly a valid ground for detaining him. There is no allegation that Omar Abdullah ever gave a call for violence or organised violence. In fact, his entire political record shows that he has always abided by India’s Constitution. Criticising the government is no crime, as it is a democratic right protected by the freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This was laid down by the constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court in RomeshThapparvs State of Madras in 1950 and several other decisions of the court thereafter.As held in the historic decision of the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg vs Ohio (1969), which still holds the field, free speech can only be prohibited by the state when “it is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action”. This decision of the US Supreme Court has been followed in two decisions of the Indian Supreme Court, Arup Bhuyanvs State of Assam and Sri Indra Das vs the State of Assam, both delivered in 2011. Hence, it is the law of the land in India too. There is no allegation that Omar said anything to incite or produce imminent lawless action.In Ghanivs Jones (1970), Lord Denning observed that “a man’s liberty of movement is regarded so highly by the laws of England that it is not to be hindered or prevented except on the surest grounds”, and this statement has been quoted with approval by the seven-judge constitution bench judgment of our Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India and thereafter in Govt of Andhra Pradesh vs P. Laxmi Devi. Hence it is the law of the land in India too.Omar Abdullahs sister has termed the renewed detention orders under the PSA as "unconstitutional" and a "flagrant violation of his fundamental rights".The petition explained that Mr. Abdullah’s detention from August 5 under Section 107 CrPC (security for keeping the peace) was scheduled to end on February 5, 2020. His release was imminent. He had served the maximum period of detention.Section 107 (1) of CrPC is used to deter any person likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and the Magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.Q. Mr. Bond is a vocal critic of the incumbent Government. Fed up of the corruption, he writes a book outlining the shortcomings of the ruling dispensation. However, Mr. Bond is arrested fearing that his book would disturb the public tranquillity. Can the Government do that?a)Yes, the book was bound to cause dissatisfaction and unrest in the public.b)No, Mr. Bond did not have any intention of breaching public tranquility.c)Yes, it was Mr. Bond’s intention to create public outrage and disharmony; hence there was sufficient ground.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Paragraph:Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), has been in detention since August 5, 2019, under the Public Safety Act. Every moment of his detention has been a gross violation of the right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The allegations against Omar are totally frivolous. In a three-page dossier served on him, it is said he made statements to the Kashmiri public against the dilution of Articles 35A and 370.All this is ipse dixit (a dogmatic and unproven statement) and is hardly a valid ground for detaining him. There is no allegation that Omar Abdullah ever gave a call for violence or organised violence. In fact, his entire political record shows that he has always abided by India’s Constitution. Criticising the government is no crime, as it is a democratic right protected by the freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This was laid down by the constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court in RomeshThapparvs State of Madras in 1950 and several other decisions of the court thereafter.As held in the historic decision of the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg vs Ohio (1969), which still holds the field, free speech can only be prohibited by the state when “it is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action”. This decision of the US Supreme Court has been followed in two decisions of the Indian Supreme Court, Arup Bhuyanvs State of Assam and Sri Indra Das vs the State of Assam, both delivered in 2011. Hence, it is the law of the land in India too. There is no allegation that Omar said anything to incite or produce imminent lawless action.In Ghanivs Jones (1970), Lord Denning observed that “a man’s liberty of movement is regarded so highly by the laws of England that it is not to be hindered or prevented except on the surest grounds”, and this statement has been quoted with approval by the seven-judge constitution bench judgment of our Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India and thereafter in Govt of Andhra Pradesh vs P. Laxmi Devi. Hence it is the law of the land in India too.Omar Abdullahs sister has termed the renewed detention orders under the PSA as "unconstitutional" and a "flagrant violation of his fundamental rights".The petition explained that Mr. Abdullah’s detention from August 5 under Section 107 CrPC (security for keeping the peace) was scheduled to end on February 5, 2020. His release was imminent. He had served the maximum period of detention.Section 107 (1) of CrPC is used to deter any person likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and the Magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.Q. Mr. Bond is a vocal critic of the incumbent Government. Fed up of the corruption, he writes a book outlining the shortcomings of the ruling dispensation. However, Mr. Bond is arrested fearing that his book would disturb the public tranquillity. Can the Government do that?a)Yes, the book was bound to cause dissatisfaction and unrest in the public.b)No, Mr. Bond did not have any intention of breaching public tranquility.c)Yes, it was Mr. Bond’s intention to create public outrage and disharmony; hence there was sufficient ground.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Paragraph:Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), has been in detention since August 5, 2019, under the Public Safety Act. Every moment of his detention has been a gross violation of the right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The allegations against Omar are totally frivolous. In a three-page dossier served on him, it is said he made statements to the Kashmiri public against the dilution of Articles 35A and 370.All this is ipse dixit (a dogmatic and unproven statement) and is hardly a valid ground for detaining him. There is no allegation that Omar Abdullah ever gave a call for violence or organised violence. In fact, his entire political record shows that he has always abided by India’s Constitution. Criticising the government is no crime, as it is a democratic right protected by the freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This was laid down by the constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court in RomeshThapparvs State of Madras in 1950 and several other decisions of the court thereafter.As held in the historic decision of the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg vs Ohio (1969), which still holds the field, free speech can only be prohibited by the state when “it is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action”. This decision of the US Supreme Court has been followed in two decisions of the Indian Supreme Court, Arup Bhuyanvs State of Assam and Sri Indra Das vs the State of Assam, both delivered in 2011. Hence, it is the law of the land in India too. There is no allegation that Omar said anything to incite or produce imminent lawless action.In Ghanivs Jones (1970), Lord Denning observed that “a man’s liberty of movement is regarded so highly by the laws of England that it is not to be hindered or prevented except on the surest grounds”, and this statement has been quoted with approval by the seven-judge constitution bench judgment of our Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India and thereafter in Govt of Andhra Pradesh vs P. Laxmi Devi. Hence it is the law of the land in India too.Omar Abdullahs sister has termed the renewed detention orders under the PSA as "unconstitutional" and a "flagrant violation of his fundamental rights".The petition explained that Mr. Abdullah’s detention from August 5 under Section 107 CrPC (security for keeping the peace) was scheduled to end on February 5, 2020. His release was imminent. He had served the maximum period of detention.Section 107 (1) of CrPC is used to deter any person likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and the Magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.Q. Mr. Bond is a vocal critic of the incumbent Government. Fed up of the corruption, he writes a book outlining the shortcomings of the ruling dispensation. However, Mr. Bond is arrested fearing that his book would disturb the public tranquillity. Can the Government do that?a)Yes, the book was bound to cause dissatisfaction and unrest in the public.b)No, Mr. Bond did not have any intention of breaching public tranquility.c)Yes, it was Mr. Bond’s intention to create public outrage and disharmony; hence there was sufficient ground.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup