Question Description
Passage:In 2017, a group called Human Rights Network, decided to collect and collate a set of state laws which imposed a blanket ban on cow slaughter. These laws, they believed, violated the fundamentalright to trade under Article 19(1)(g). In addition to that, they argued that such laws were often a potent tool to justify mob–lynching of butchers, or people who consumed beef as a part of their diet. Another group called Cow Savers decided to argue that the laws were formulated in line with the directive state policy, specifically Article 48, and thus could not be challenged before any Court as violative of fundamental rights. The Cow Savers further asked the Court to enforce Article 48 across states where no ban on cow slaughter existed. HRN argued that DPSPs are not justiciable.The HRN cited the case of Irreligious Society v. State of Kerala. Here, there was a clash between a policy enforcing the DPSP of enforcing the Uniform Civil Code and the fundamental right to religion. The Court attempted to read the two together, and wherever there was no compatibility, the right to religion prevailed.After the Supreme Court admitted the petition filed by HRN, Cow Savers intervened in the matter.While the case was going on, the government of Gau Land decided to start picking up butchers from their shops under the suspicion that they were slaughtering cows late in the night. There was a protest organized by HRN against this action of the government, during which some activists were also picked up. HRN tried extremely hard to locate the activists and the butchers, but to no avail. They decided that they would approach the court regarding this as well.Their legal advisors laid down the following writs before them–Habeas Corpus is „To have the body of.; Mandamus means „We command and is used by the court to order the public official who has failed to perform his duty or refused to do his duty. The literal meaning of the writ of “Certiorari is “To be certified or „To be informed.” This writ is against issued by a court higher in authority to a lower court. The literal meaning of the writ of „Quo– Warranto is „By what authority or warrant, which question ones appointment to a public office.Article 19(1)(g) grants the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens of India.Article 48 reads that the State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty exceptaccording to procedure established by law. This has been interpreted expansively to ensure a right to a wholesome life and not just guarantee bare existence.Q.Mr. Y, a chef, decides to explore recipes of beef delicacies across India and cookand consume them in the privacy of his house. However, he notices that due to the cow slaughter ban, beef is not available at all. He believes that this is a violation of his right to consume any food in the privacy of his home.Notwithstanding any decisions on the legality of cow slaughter and cow beef, his challenge as the violation of Right to Privacy will–a)Be successful as the right to privacy under Article 21 extends to non–citizens as well;b)Fail as the right to privacy under Article 21 does not extend to non–citizens;c)Fail as the right to privacy has not been recognized in India;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 Passage:In 2017, a group called Human Rights Network, decided to collect and collate a set of state laws which imposed a blanket ban on cow slaughter. These laws, they believed, violated the fundamentalright to trade under Article 19(1)(g). In addition to that, they argued that such laws were often a potent tool to justify mob–lynching of butchers, or people who consumed beef as a part of their diet. Another group called Cow Savers decided to argue that the laws were formulated in line with the directive state policy, specifically Article 48, and thus could not be challenged before any Court as violative of fundamental rights. The Cow Savers further asked the Court to enforce Article 48 across states where no ban on cow slaughter existed. HRN argued that DPSPs are not justiciable.The HRN cited the case of Irreligious Society v. State of Kerala. Here, there was a clash between a policy enforcing the DPSP of enforcing the Uniform Civil Code and the fundamental right to religion. The Court attempted to read the two together, and wherever there was no compatibility, the right to religion prevailed.After the Supreme Court admitted the petition filed by HRN, Cow Savers intervened in the matter.While the case was going on, the government of Gau Land decided to start picking up butchers from their shops under the suspicion that they were slaughtering cows late in the night. There was a protest organized by HRN against this action of the government, during which some activists were also picked up. HRN tried extremely hard to locate the activists and the butchers, but to no avail. They decided that they would approach the court regarding this as well.Their legal advisors laid down the following writs before them–Habeas Corpus is „To have the body of.; Mandamus means „We command and is used by the court to order the public official who has failed to perform his duty or refused to do his duty. The literal meaning of the writ of “Certiorari is “To be certified or „To be informed.” This writ is against issued by a court higher in authority to a lower court. The literal meaning of the writ of „Quo– Warranto is „By what authority or warrant, which question ones appointment to a public office.Article 19(1)(g) grants the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens of India.Article 48 reads that the State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty exceptaccording to procedure established by law. This has been interpreted expansively to ensure a right to a wholesome life and not just guarantee bare existence.Q.Mr. Y, a chef, decides to explore recipes of beef delicacies across India and cookand consume them in the privacy of his house. However, he notices that due to the cow slaughter ban, beef is not available at all. He believes that this is a violation of his right to consume any food in the privacy of his home.Notwithstanding any decisions on the legality of cow slaughter and cow beef, his challenge as the violation of Right to Privacy will–a)Be successful as the right to privacy under Article 21 extends to non–citizens as well;b)Fail as the right to privacy under Article 21 does not extend to non–citizens;c)Fail as the right to privacy has not been recognized in India;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 Passage:In 2017, a group called Human Rights Network, decided to collect and collate a set of state laws which imposed a blanket ban on cow slaughter. These laws, they believed, violated the fundamentalright to trade under Article 19(1)(g). In addition to that, they argued that such laws were often a potent tool to justify mob–lynching of butchers, or people who consumed beef as a part of their diet. Another group called Cow Savers decided to argue that the laws were formulated in line with the directive state policy, specifically Article 48, and thus could not be challenged before any Court as violative of fundamental rights. The Cow Savers further asked the Court to enforce Article 48 across states where no ban on cow slaughter existed. HRN argued that DPSPs are not justiciable.The HRN cited the case of Irreligious Society v. State of Kerala. Here, there was a clash between a policy enforcing the DPSP of enforcing the Uniform Civil Code and the fundamental right to religion. The Court attempted to read the two together, and wherever there was no compatibility, the right to religion prevailed.After the Supreme Court admitted the petition filed by HRN, Cow Savers intervened in the matter.While the case was going on, the government of Gau Land decided to start picking up butchers from their shops under the suspicion that they were slaughtering cows late in the night. There was a protest organized by HRN against this action of the government, during which some activists were also picked up. HRN tried extremely hard to locate the activists and the butchers, but to no avail. They decided that they would approach the court regarding this as well.Their legal advisors laid down the following writs before them–Habeas Corpus is „To have the body of.; Mandamus means „We command and is used by the court to order the public official who has failed to perform his duty or refused to do his duty. The literal meaning of the writ of “Certiorari is “To be certified or „To be informed.” This writ is against issued by a court higher in authority to a lower court. The literal meaning of the writ of „Quo– Warranto is „By what authority or warrant, which question ones appointment to a public office.Article 19(1)(g) grants the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens of India.Article 48 reads that the State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty exceptaccording to procedure established by law. This has been interpreted expansively to ensure a right to a wholesome life and not just guarantee bare existence.Q.Mr. Y, a chef, decides to explore recipes of beef delicacies across India and cookand consume them in the privacy of his house. However, he notices that due to the cow slaughter ban, beef is not available at all. He believes that this is a violation of his right to consume any food in the privacy of his home.Notwithstanding any decisions on the legality of cow slaughter and cow beef, his challenge as the violation of Right to Privacy will–a)Be successful as the right to privacy under Article 21 extends to non–citizens as well;b)Fail as the right to privacy under Article 21 does not extend to non–citizens;c)Fail as the right to privacy has not been recognized in India;d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Passage:In 2017, a group called Human Rights Network, decided to collect and collate a set of state laws which imposed a blanket ban on cow slaughter. These laws, they believed, violated the fundamentalright to trade under Article 19(1)(g). In addition to that, they argued that such laws were often a potent tool to justify mob–lynching of butchers, or people who consumed beef as a part of their diet. Another group called Cow Savers decided to argue that the laws were formulated in line with the directive state policy, specifically Article 48, and thus could not be challenged before any Court as violative of fundamental rights. The Cow Savers further asked the Court to enforce Article 48 across states where no ban on cow slaughter existed. HRN argued that DPSPs are not justiciable.The HRN cited the case of Irreligious Society v. State of Kerala. Here, there was a clash between a policy enforcing the DPSP of enforcing the Uniform Civil Code and the fundamental right to religion. The Court attempted to read the two together, and wherever there was no compatibility, the right to religion prevailed.After the Supreme Court admitted the petition filed by HRN, Cow Savers intervened in the matter.While the case was going on, the government of Gau Land decided to start picking up butchers from their shops under the suspicion that they were slaughtering cows late in the night. There was a protest organized by HRN against this action of the government, during which some activists were also picked up. HRN tried extremely hard to locate the activists and the butchers, but to no avail. They decided that they would approach the court regarding this as well.Their legal advisors laid down the following writs before them–Habeas Corpus is „To have the body of.; Mandamus means „We command and is used by the court to order the public official who has failed to perform his duty or refused to do his duty. The literal meaning of the writ of “Certiorari is “To be certified or „To be informed.” This writ is against issued by a court higher in authority to a lower court. The literal meaning of the writ of „Quo– Warranto is „By what authority or warrant, which question ones appointment to a public office.Article 19(1)(g) grants the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens of India.Article 48 reads that the State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty exceptaccording to procedure established by law. This has been interpreted expansively to ensure a right to a wholesome life and not just guarantee bare existence.Q.Mr. Y, a chef, decides to explore recipes of beef delicacies across India and cookand consume them in the privacy of his house. However, he notices that due to the cow slaughter ban, beef is not available at all. He believes that this is a violation of his right to consume any food in the privacy of his home.Notwithstanding any decisions on the legality of cow slaughter and cow beef, his challenge as the violation of Right to Privacy will–a)Be successful as the right to privacy under Article 21 extends to non–citizens as well;b)Fail as the right to privacy under Article 21 does not extend to non–citizens;c)Fail as the right to privacy has not been recognized in India;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 Passage:In 2017, a group called Human Rights Network, decided to collect and collate a set of state laws which imposed a blanket ban on cow slaughter. These laws, they believed, violated the fundamentalright to trade under Article 19(1)(g). In addition to that, they argued that such laws were often a potent tool to justify mob–lynching of butchers, or people who consumed beef as a part of their diet. Another group called Cow Savers decided to argue that the laws were formulated in line with the directive state policy, specifically Article 48, and thus could not be challenged before any Court as violative of fundamental rights. The Cow Savers further asked the Court to enforce Article 48 across states where no ban on cow slaughter existed. HRN argued that DPSPs are not justiciable.The HRN cited the case of Irreligious Society v. State of Kerala. Here, there was a clash between a policy enforcing the DPSP of enforcing the Uniform Civil Code and the fundamental right to religion. The Court attempted to read the two together, and wherever there was no compatibility, the right to religion prevailed.After the Supreme Court admitted the petition filed by HRN, Cow Savers intervened in the matter.While the case was going on, the government of Gau Land decided to start picking up butchers from their shops under the suspicion that they were slaughtering cows late in the night. There was a protest organized by HRN against this action of the government, during which some activists were also picked up. HRN tried extremely hard to locate the activists and the butchers, but to no avail. They decided that they would approach the court regarding this as well.Their legal advisors laid down the following writs before them–Habeas Corpus is „To have the body of.; Mandamus means „We command and is used by the court to order the public official who has failed to perform his duty or refused to do his duty. The literal meaning of the writ of “Certiorari is “To be certified or „To be informed.” This writ is against issued by a court higher in authority to a lower court. The literal meaning of the writ of „Quo– Warranto is „By what authority or warrant, which question ones appointment to a public office.Article 19(1)(g) grants the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens of India.Article 48 reads that the State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty exceptaccording to procedure established by law. This has been interpreted expansively to ensure a right to a wholesome life and not just guarantee bare existence.Q.Mr. Y, a chef, decides to explore recipes of beef delicacies across India and cookand consume them in the privacy of his house. However, he notices that due to the cow slaughter ban, beef is not available at all. He believes that this is a violation of his right to consume any food in the privacy of his home.Notwithstanding any decisions on the legality of cow slaughter and cow beef, his challenge as the violation of Right to Privacy will–a)Be successful as the right to privacy under Article 21 extends to non–citizens as well;b)Fail as the right to privacy under Article 21 does not extend to non–citizens;c)Fail as the right to privacy has not been recognized in India;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 Passage:In 2017, a group called Human Rights Network, decided to collect and collate a set of state laws which imposed a blanket ban on cow slaughter. These laws, they believed, violated the fundamentalright to trade under Article 19(1)(g). In addition to that, they argued that such laws were often a potent tool to justify mob–lynching of butchers, or people who consumed beef as a part of their diet. Another group called Cow Savers decided to argue that the laws were formulated in line with the directive state policy, specifically Article 48, and thus could not be challenged before any Court as violative of fundamental rights. The Cow Savers further asked the Court to enforce Article 48 across states where no ban on cow slaughter existed. HRN argued that DPSPs are not justiciable.The HRN cited the case of Irreligious Society v. State of Kerala. Here, there was a clash between a policy enforcing the DPSP of enforcing the Uniform Civil Code and the fundamental right to religion. The Court attempted to read the two together, and wherever there was no compatibility, the right to religion prevailed.After the Supreme Court admitted the petition filed by HRN, Cow Savers intervened in the matter.While the case was going on, the government of Gau Land decided to start picking up butchers from their shops under the suspicion that they were slaughtering cows late in the night. There was a protest organized by HRN against this action of the government, during which some activists were also picked up. HRN tried extremely hard to locate the activists and the butchers, but to no avail. They decided that they would approach the court regarding this as well.Their legal advisors laid down the following writs before them–Habeas Corpus is „To have the body of.; Mandamus means „We command and is used by the court to order the public official who has failed to perform his duty or refused to do his duty. The literal meaning of the writ of “Certiorari is “To be certified or „To be informed.” This writ is against issued by a court higher in authority to a lower court. The literal meaning of the writ of „Quo– Warranto is „By what authority or warrant, which question ones appointment to a public office.Article 19(1)(g) grants the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens of India.Article 48 reads that the State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty exceptaccording to procedure established by law. This has been interpreted expansively to ensure a right to a wholesome life and not just guarantee bare existence.Q.Mr. Y, a chef, decides to explore recipes of beef delicacies across India and cookand consume them in the privacy of his house. However, he notices that due to the cow slaughter ban, beef is not available at all. He believes that this is a violation of his right to consume any food in the privacy of his home.Notwithstanding any decisions on the legality of cow slaughter and cow beef, his challenge as the violation of Right to Privacy will–a)Be successful as the right to privacy under Article 21 extends to non–citizens as well;b)Fail as the right to privacy under Article 21 does not extend to non–citizens;c)Fail as the right to privacy has not been recognized in India;d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Passage:In 2017, a group called Human Rights Network, decided to collect and collate a set of state laws which imposed a blanket ban on cow slaughter. These laws, they believed, violated the fundamentalright to trade under Article 19(1)(g). In addition to that, they argued that such laws were often a potent tool to justify mob–lynching of butchers, or people who consumed beef as a part of their diet. Another group called Cow Savers decided to argue that the laws were formulated in line with the directive state policy, specifically Article 48, and thus could not be challenged before any Court as violative of fundamental rights. The Cow Savers further asked the Court to enforce Article 48 across states where no ban on cow slaughter existed. HRN argued that DPSPs are not justiciable.The HRN cited the case of Irreligious Society v. State of Kerala. Here, there was a clash between a policy enforcing the DPSP of enforcing the Uniform Civil Code and the fundamental right to religion. The Court attempted to read the two together, and wherever there was no compatibility, the right to religion prevailed.After the Supreme Court admitted the petition filed by HRN, Cow Savers intervened in the matter.While the case was going on, the government of Gau Land decided to start picking up butchers from their shops under the suspicion that they were slaughtering cows late in the night. There was a protest organized by HRN against this action of the government, during which some activists were also picked up. HRN tried extremely hard to locate the activists and the butchers, but to no avail. They decided that they would approach the court regarding this as well.Their legal advisors laid down the following writs before them–Habeas Corpus is „To have the body of.; Mandamus means „We command and is used by the court to order the public official who has failed to perform his duty or refused to do his duty. The literal meaning of the writ of “Certiorari is “To be certified or „To be informed.” This writ is against issued by a court higher in authority to a lower court. The literal meaning of the writ of „Quo– Warranto is „By what authority or warrant, which question ones appointment to a public office.Article 19(1)(g) grants the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens of India.Article 48 reads that the State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty exceptaccording to procedure established by law. This has been interpreted expansively to ensure a right to a wholesome life and not just guarantee bare existence.Q.Mr. Y, a chef, decides to explore recipes of beef delicacies across India and cookand consume them in the privacy of his house. However, he notices that due to the cow slaughter ban, beef is not available at all. He believes that this is a violation of his right to consume any food in the privacy of his home.Notwithstanding any decisions on the legality of cow slaughter and cow beef, his challenge as the violation of Right to Privacy will–a)Be successful as the right to privacy under Article 21 extends to non–citizens as well;b)Fail as the right to privacy under Article 21 does not extend to non–citizens;c)Fail as the right to privacy has not been recognized in India;d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Passage:In 2017, a group called Human Rights Network, decided to collect and collate a set of state laws which imposed a blanket ban on cow slaughter. These laws, they believed, violated the fundamentalright to trade under Article 19(1)(g). In addition to that, they argued that such laws were often a potent tool to justify mob–lynching of butchers, or people who consumed beef as a part of their diet. Another group called Cow Savers decided to argue that the laws were formulated in line with the directive state policy, specifically Article 48, and thus could not be challenged before any Court as violative of fundamental rights. The Cow Savers further asked the Court to enforce Article 48 across states where no ban on cow slaughter existed. HRN argued that DPSPs are not justiciable.The HRN cited the case of Irreligious Society v. State of Kerala. Here, there was a clash between a policy enforcing the DPSP of enforcing the Uniform Civil Code and the fundamental right to religion. The Court attempted to read the two together, and wherever there was no compatibility, the right to religion prevailed.After the Supreme Court admitted the petition filed by HRN, Cow Savers intervened in the matter.While the case was going on, the government of Gau Land decided to start picking up butchers from their shops under the suspicion that they were slaughtering cows late in the night. There was a protest organized by HRN against this action of the government, during which some activists were also picked up. HRN tried extremely hard to locate the activists and the butchers, but to no avail. They decided that they would approach the court regarding this as well.Their legal advisors laid down the following writs before them–Habeas Corpus is „To have the body of.; Mandamus means „We command and is used by the court to order the public official who has failed to perform his duty or refused to do his duty. The literal meaning of the writ of “Certiorari is “To be certified or „To be informed.” This writ is against issued by a court higher in authority to a lower court. The literal meaning of the writ of „Quo– Warranto is „By what authority or warrant, which question ones appointment to a public office.Article 19(1)(g) grants the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens of India.Article 48 reads that the State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty exceptaccording to procedure established by law. This has been interpreted expansively to ensure a right to a wholesome life and not just guarantee bare existence.Q.Mr. Y, a chef, decides to explore recipes of beef delicacies across India and cookand consume them in the privacy of his house. However, he notices that due to the cow slaughter ban, beef is not available at all. He believes that this is a violation of his right to consume any food in the privacy of his home.Notwithstanding any decisions on the legality of cow slaughter and cow beef, his challenge as the violation of Right to Privacy will–a)Be successful as the right to privacy under Article 21 extends to non–citizens as well;b)Fail as the right to privacy under Article 21 does not extend to non–citizens;c)Fail as the right to privacy has not been recognized in India;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 Passage:In 2017, a group called Human Rights Network, decided to collect and collate a set of state laws which imposed a blanket ban on cow slaughter. These laws, they believed, violated the fundamentalright to trade under Article 19(1)(g). In addition to that, they argued that such laws were often a potent tool to justify mob–lynching of butchers, or people who consumed beef as a part of their diet. Another group called Cow Savers decided to argue that the laws were formulated in line with the directive state policy, specifically Article 48, and thus could not be challenged before any Court as violative of fundamental rights. The Cow Savers further asked the Court to enforce Article 48 across states where no ban on cow slaughter existed. HRN argued that DPSPs are not justiciable.The HRN cited the case of Irreligious Society v. State of Kerala. Here, there was a clash between a policy enforcing the DPSP of enforcing the Uniform Civil Code and the fundamental right to religion. The Court attempted to read the two together, and wherever there was no compatibility, the right to religion prevailed.After the Supreme Court admitted the petition filed by HRN, Cow Savers intervened in the matter.While the case was going on, the government of Gau Land decided to start picking up butchers from their shops under the suspicion that they were slaughtering cows late in the night. There was a protest organized by HRN against this action of the government, during which some activists were also picked up. HRN tried extremely hard to locate the activists and the butchers, but to no avail. They decided that they would approach the court regarding this as well.Their legal advisors laid down the following writs before them–Habeas Corpus is „To have the body of.; Mandamus means „We command and is used by the court to order the public official who has failed to perform his duty or refused to do his duty. The literal meaning of the writ of “Certiorari is “To be certified or „To be informed.” This writ is against issued by a court higher in authority to a lower court. The literal meaning of the writ of „Quo– Warranto is „By what authority or warrant, which question ones appointment to a public office.Article 19(1)(g) grants the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens of India.Article 48 reads that the State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty exceptaccording to procedure established by law. This has been interpreted expansively to ensure a right to a wholesome life and not just guarantee bare existence.Q.Mr. Y, a chef, decides to explore recipes of beef delicacies across India and cookand consume them in the privacy of his house. However, he notices that due to the cow slaughter ban, beef is not available at all. He believes that this is a violation of his right to consume any food in the privacy of his home.Notwithstanding any decisions on the legality of cow slaughter and cow beef, his challenge as the violation of Right to Privacy will–a)Be successful as the right to privacy under Article 21 extends to non–citizens as well;b)Fail as the right to privacy under Article 21 does not extend to non–citizens;c)Fail as the right to privacy has not been recognized in India;d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.