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

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Passage: Unlike the US, free speech in India ...

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

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

a)
The author supports the concept of judicial review
b)
The author does not support the concept of judicial review
c)
Can't say

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Passage: Unlike the US, free speech in India is not absolute. Our Cons...

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

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

Passage: Unlike the US, free speech in India is not absolute. Our Cons...

Understanding Judicial Review in the Context of Free Speech
Judicial review is a fundamental principle that allows the judiciary to evaluate and determine the validity of laws. In the context of the passage regarding free speech in India, the author implicitly supports the concept of judicial review through several key arguments.

Support for Judicial Oversight
- The passage highlights the importance of governance structures and grievance mechanisms for intermediaries, ensuring that illegal content is removed based on judicial determinations.
- By advocating for a law that empowers the judiciary to decide what constitutes illegal content, the author underscores the role of judicial review in protecting citizens' rights.

Promotion of Constitutional Principles
- The author emphasizes that the government should adhere to constitutionally mandated principles. This implies a need for judicial oversight to ensure that laws align with constitutional rights, including free speech.
- The reference to "multi-stakeholder consultations" indicates that diverse viewpoints should be considered, and judicial review can play a crucial role in mediating these interests.

Critique of Arbitrary Actions
- The passage criticizes the arbitrary nature of content takedowns by social media companies and state authorities.
- By calling for judicial involvement to validate such actions, the author implicitly suggests that judicial review is essential for maintaining checks and balances against potential abuses of power.
In conclusion, the author’s emphasis on judicial mechanisms to address issues of content regulation and free speech indicates strong support for the concept of judicial review.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

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

View answer

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

View answer

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

View answer

Direction: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.Several countries have already felt the need to have in place robust responses to disinformation. The European Union (EU) has put out the Code of Practice on Disinformation 2022. Some of the strengthened initiatives of the EU Code include transparency in Political advertising, empowerment of factcheckers and researchers, tools to flag disinformation, and measures to reduce manipulative behaviour. The United Kingdom has proposed enacting an Online Safety Bill which will expect social media platforms (intermediaries) to actively monitor problematic content. Even as the U.K. Bill is being reviewed by a committee in the House of Lords, there are already calls from a number of companies, including WhatsApp and Signal, to scrap the legislation in the interest of privacy. During the progress of the U.K. Bill, the provisions to monitor “legal but harmful” content have already been replaced with greater onus on social media platforms to enforce their terms and conditions in accordance with their policies.A more studied, comprehensive and calculated set of legislative actions is required if there is to be a balance between allowing free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, and protecting citizens from falling prey to malicious disinformation. In the case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs Union Of India (2018) the Supreme Court of India had held that it is the duty of the Union and State governments to take steps to curb dissemination of “irresponsible and explosive messages and videos having content which is likely to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind”. Many people can recollect the panic India witnessed in many instances as a result of fake news during the early months of the COVID19 pandemic. The Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava vs Union Of India (2020) dealt with a Public Interest Litigation on the plight of migrant workers walking thousands of kilometres back home when the country went into its first lockdown. Such instances illustrate the real dangers to public order as a result of the dissemination of fake news.Rather than coming up with a robust framework to tackle the root causes of disinformation, the Union has granted itself greater powers to strike down any content that is found to be unpalatable. With the use of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Union Government has blocked access to any information online that it considers necessary in the interest of the sovereignty and the integrity of India, the security of the state or public order. More recently, the Union brought out the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Cod e) Rules, 2021, or IT Rules, 2021, to regulate content by online publishers of news and social media intermediaries. The recent draft amendments to the IT Rules, 2021, empower the Press Information Bureau, which functions under the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to ‘flag inaccurate and fake news related to government bodies on social media platforms’ amounts to disinformation. It is apparent that the focus has more to do with containing criticism against the Union Government and its leaders than about blocking fake news as such.Q.Considering the information provided in the passage, which of the following statements is most likely to be accurate?

View answer

Direction: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.Several countries have already felt the need to have in place robust responses to disinformation. The European Union (EU) has put out the Code of Practice on Disinformation 2022. Some of the strengthened initiatives of the EU Code include transparency in Political advertising, empowerment of factcheckers and researchers, tools to flag disinformation, and measures to reduce manipulative behaviour. The United Kingdom has proposed enacting an Online Safety Bill which will expect social media platforms (intermediaries) to actively monitor problematic content. Even as the U.K. Bill is being reviewed by a committee in the House of Lords, there are already calls from a number of companies, including WhatsApp and Signal, to scrap the legislation in the interest of privacy. During the progress of the U.K. Bill, the provisions to monitor “legal but harmful” content have already been replaced with greater onus on social media platforms to enforce their terms and conditions in accordance with their policies.A more studied, comprehensive and calculated set of legislative actions is required if there is to be a balance between allowing free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, and protecting citizens from falling prey to malicious disinformation. In the case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs Union Of India (2018) the Supreme Court of India had held that it is the duty of the Union and State governments to take steps to curb dissemination of “irresponsible and explosive messages and videos having content which is likely to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind”. Many people can recollect the panic India witnessed in many instances as a result of fake news during the early months of the COVID19 pandemic. The Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava vs Union Of India (2020) dealt with a Public Interest Litigation on the plight of migrant workers walking thousands of kilometres back home when the country went into its first lockdown. Such instances illustrate the real dangers to public order as a result of the dissemination of fake news.Rather than coming up with a robust framework to tackle the root causes of disinformation, the Union has granted itself greater powers to strike down any content that is found to be unpalatable. With the use of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Union Government has blocked access to any information online that it considers necessary in the interest of the sovereignty and the integrity of India, the security of the state or public order. More recently, the Union brought out the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Cod e) Rules, 2021, or IT Rules, 2021, to regulate content by online publishers of news and social media intermediaries. The recent draft amendments to the IT Rules, 2021, empower the Press Information Bureau, which functions under the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to ‘flag inaccurate and fake news related to government bodies on social media platforms’ amounts to disinformation. It is apparent that the focus has more to do with containing criticism against the Union Government and its leaders than about blocking fake news as such.Q.Which of the following represents a valid rationale for believing that robust responses are necessary to combat disinformation effectively?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

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

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

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

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

Explore Courses for CLAT exam