Question Description
The UAPA Bill proposes to include the names of ‘terrorists’ in the Fourth Schedule proposed to be added to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The law was originally enacted in 1967 with the ostensible object of national integration. An individual may be designated as a terrorist if he commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes terrorism or is otherwise involved in terrorism. The Bill also allows a Review Committee constituted by the Central Government to exercise the power of review and de-notify an individual classified as a ‘terrorist’. The amendment is likely to empower the executive to initiate a witch-hunt against political opponents of the ruling dispensation or religious minorities, with no institutional mechanism for judicial review.Categorization as a ‘terrorist’ by the executive bears serious consequences, such as social boycott or loss of employment. Labelling by the executive could also encourage a spiral of intolerance and lead to mob lynching by vigilante groups. The constitutionality of the proposed law deserves to be keenly contested since it could be viewed as colourable legislation which bears the potential for abuse by the executive.The SC, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, had identified ‘vagueness’ as one of the grounds for striking down Section 66A in India’s IT Act. The law imposed an unreasonable restraint on online speech. Likewise, the proposed amendment can cause a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression which is enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 19 (1) (a) of India’s Constitution. SC had also held that Article 19 (1) (a) would protect free speech to the extent that there is mere advocacy of opinion and no incitement of violence.In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, SC recently recognized the right to privacy as an integral part of Article 21 which guarantees a right to life and personal liberty. The apex court held that the right to be left alone is a reflection of the inviolable nature of the human personality. Profiling by the executive is thus a violation of Article 21 as it infringes upon the personal autonomy of an individual.The proposed amendment also violates the mandate of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 2018, the judiciary played an admirable counter-majoritarian role to read down a colonial-era provision in the IPC which criminalized homosexual acts. The UAPA Bill, 2019 echoes laws made under the colonial regime to crush the freedom movement in the garb of ensuring public order. On the contrary, India’s constitution-makers had envisaged a transformative role for its constitution to usher in an environment where civil rights are protected and not left at the mercy of executive supremacy.Q. Which of the following has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India with regards to the fundamental right of the citizens?1. Vagueness in the wording of law could be a ground to hold the law as unconstitutional if it causes chilling effect.2. Right to privacy falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.3. Right to be left alone falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.4. Profiling by executives is violation of a Fundamental Right.a)1, 2, 3 and 4b)1, 2 and 3c)Only 1d)2 and 3Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 The UAPA Bill proposes to include the names of ‘terrorists’ in the Fourth Schedule proposed to be added to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The law was originally enacted in 1967 with the ostensible object of national integration. An individual may be designated as a terrorist if he commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes terrorism or is otherwise involved in terrorism. The Bill also allows a Review Committee constituted by the Central Government to exercise the power of review and de-notify an individual classified as a ‘terrorist’. The amendment is likely to empower the executive to initiate a witch-hunt against political opponents of the ruling dispensation or religious minorities, with no institutional mechanism for judicial review.Categorization as a ‘terrorist’ by the executive bears serious consequences, such as social boycott or loss of employment. Labelling by the executive could also encourage a spiral of intolerance and lead to mob lynching by vigilante groups. The constitutionality of the proposed law deserves to be keenly contested since it could be viewed as colourable legislation which bears the potential for abuse by the executive.The SC, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, had identified ‘vagueness’ as one of the grounds for striking down Section 66A in India’s IT Act. The law imposed an unreasonable restraint on online speech. Likewise, the proposed amendment can cause a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression which is enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 19 (1) (a) of India’s Constitution. SC had also held that Article 19 (1) (a) would protect free speech to the extent that there is mere advocacy of opinion and no incitement of violence.In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, SC recently recognized the right to privacy as an integral part of Article 21 which guarantees a right to life and personal liberty. The apex court held that the right to be left alone is a reflection of the inviolable nature of the human personality. Profiling by the executive is thus a violation of Article 21 as it infringes upon the personal autonomy of an individual.The proposed amendment also violates the mandate of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 2018, the judiciary played an admirable counter-majoritarian role to read down a colonial-era provision in the IPC which criminalized homosexual acts. The UAPA Bill, 2019 echoes laws made under the colonial regime to crush the freedom movement in the garb of ensuring public order. On the contrary, India’s constitution-makers had envisaged a transformative role for its constitution to usher in an environment where civil rights are protected and not left at the mercy of executive supremacy.Q. Which of the following has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India with regards to the fundamental right of the citizens?1. Vagueness in the wording of law could be a ground to hold the law as unconstitutional if it causes chilling effect.2. Right to privacy falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.3. Right to be left alone falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.4. Profiling by executives is violation of a Fundamental Right.a)1, 2, 3 and 4b)1, 2 and 3c)Only 1d)2 and 3Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The UAPA Bill proposes to include the names of ‘terrorists’ in the Fourth Schedule proposed to be added to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The law was originally enacted in 1967 with the ostensible object of national integration. An individual may be designated as a terrorist if he commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes terrorism or is otherwise involved in terrorism. The Bill also allows a Review Committee constituted by the Central Government to exercise the power of review and de-notify an individual classified as a ‘terrorist’. The amendment is likely to empower the executive to initiate a witch-hunt against political opponents of the ruling dispensation or religious minorities, with no institutional mechanism for judicial review.Categorization as a ‘terrorist’ by the executive bears serious consequences, such as social boycott or loss of employment. Labelling by the executive could also encourage a spiral of intolerance and lead to mob lynching by vigilante groups. The constitutionality of the proposed law deserves to be keenly contested since it could be viewed as colourable legislation which bears the potential for abuse by the executive.The SC, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, had identified ‘vagueness’ as one of the grounds for striking down Section 66A in India’s IT Act. The law imposed an unreasonable restraint on online speech. Likewise, the proposed amendment can cause a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression which is enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 19 (1) (a) of India’s Constitution. SC had also held that Article 19 (1) (a) would protect free speech to the extent that there is mere advocacy of opinion and no incitement of violence.In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, SC recently recognized the right to privacy as an integral part of Article 21 which guarantees a right to life and personal liberty. The apex court held that the right to be left alone is a reflection of the inviolable nature of the human personality. Profiling by the executive is thus a violation of Article 21 as it infringes upon the personal autonomy of an individual.The proposed amendment also violates the mandate of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 2018, the judiciary played an admirable counter-majoritarian role to read down a colonial-era provision in the IPC which criminalized homosexual acts. The UAPA Bill, 2019 echoes laws made under the colonial regime to crush the freedom movement in the garb of ensuring public order. On the contrary, India’s constitution-makers had envisaged a transformative role for its constitution to usher in an environment where civil rights are protected and not left at the mercy of executive supremacy.Q. Which of the following has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India with regards to the fundamental right of the citizens?1. Vagueness in the wording of law could be a ground to hold the law as unconstitutional if it causes chilling effect.2. Right to privacy falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.3. Right to be left alone falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.4. Profiling by executives is violation of a Fundamental Right.a)1, 2, 3 and 4b)1, 2 and 3c)Only 1d)2 and 3Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The UAPA Bill proposes to include the names of ‘terrorists’ in the Fourth Schedule proposed to be added to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The law was originally enacted in 1967 with the ostensible object of national integration. An individual may be designated as a terrorist if he commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes terrorism or is otherwise involved in terrorism. The Bill also allows a Review Committee constituted by the Central Government to exercise the power of review and de-notify an individual classified as a ‘terrorist’. The amendment is likely to empower the executive to initiate a witch-hunt against political opponents of the ruling dispensation or religious minorities, with no institutional mechanism for judicial review.Categorization as a ‘terrorist’ by the executive bears serious consequences, such as social boycott or loss of employment. Labelling by the executive could also encourage a spiral of intolerance and lead to mob lynching by vigilante groups. The constitutionality of the proposed law deserves to be keenly contested since it could be viewed as colourable legislation which bears the potential for abuse by the executive.The SC, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, had identified ‘vagueness’ as one of the grounds for striking down Section 66A in India’s IT Act. The law imposed an unreasonable restraint on online speech. Likewise, the proposed amendment can cause a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression which is enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 19 (1) (a) of India’s Constitution. SC had also held that Article 19 (1) (a) would protect free speech to the extent that there is mere advocacy of opinion and no incitement of violence.In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, SC recently recognized the right to privacy as an integral part of Article 21 which guarantees a right to life and personal liberty. The apex court held that the right to be left alone is a reflection of the inviolable nature of the human personality. Profiling by the executive is thus a violation of Article 21 as it infringes upon the personal autonomy of an individual.The proposed amendment also violates the mandate of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 2018, the judiciary played an admirable counter-majoritarian role to read down a colonial-era provision in the IPC which criminalized homosexual acts. The UAPA Bill, 2019 echoes laws made under the colonial regime to crush the freedom movement in the garb of ensuring public order. On the contrary, India’s constitution-makers had envisaged a transformative role for its constitution to usher in an environment where civil rights are protected and not left at the mercy of executive supremacy.Q. Which of the following has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India with regards to the fundamental right of the citizens?1. Vagueness in the wording of law could be a ground to hold the law as unconstitutional if it causes chilling effect.2. Right to privacy falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.3. Right to be left alone falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.4. Profiling by executives is violation of a Fundamental Right.a)1, 2, 3 and 4b)1, 2 and 3c)Only 1d)2 and 3Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 The UAPA Bill proposes to include the names of ‘terrorists’ in the Fourth Schedule proposed to be added to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The law was originally enacted in 1967 with the ostensible object of national integration. An individual may be designated as a terrorist if he commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes terrorism or is otherwise involved in terrorism. The Bill also allows a Review Committee constituted by the Central Government to exercise the power of review and de-notify an individual classified as a ‘terrorist’. The amendment is likely to empower the executive to initiate a witch-hunt against political opponents of the ruling dispensation or religious minorities, with no institutional mechanism for judicial review.Categorization as a ‘terrorist’ by the executive bears serious consequences, such as social boycott or loss of employment. Labelling by the executive could also encourage a spiral of intolerance and lead to mob lynching by vigilante groups. The constitutionality of the proposed law deserves to be keenly contested since it could be viewed as colourable legislation which bears the potential for abuse by the executive.The SC, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, had identified ‘vagueness’ as one of the grounds for striking down Section 66A in India’s IT Act. The law imposed an unreasonable restraint on online speech. Likewise, the proposed amendment can cause a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression which is enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 19 (1) (a) of India’s Constitution. SC had also held that Article 19 (1) (a) would protect free speech to the extent that there is mere advocacy of opinion and no incitement of violence.In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, SC recently recognized the right to privacy as an integral part of Article 21 which guarantees a right to life and personal liberty. The apex court held that the right to be left alone is a reflection of the inviolable nature of the human personality. Profiling by the executive is thus a violation of Article 21 as it infringes upon the personal autonomy of an individual.The proposed amendment also violates the mandate of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 2018, the judiciary played an admirable counter-majoritarian role to read down a colonial-era provision in the IPC which criminalized homosexual acts. The UAPA Bill, 2019 echoes laws made under the colonial regime to crush the freedom movement in the garb of ensuring public order. On the contrary, India’s constitution-makers had envisaged a transformative role for its constitution to usher in an environment where civil rights are protected and not left at the mercy of executive supremacy.Q. Which of the following has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India with regards to the fundamental right of the citizens?1. Vagueness in the wording of law could be a ground to hold the law as unconstitutional if it causes chilling effect.2. Right to privacy falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.3. Right to be left alone falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.4. Profiling by executives is violation of a Fundamental Right.a)1, 2, 3 and 4b)1, 2 and 3c)Only 1d)2 and 3Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The UAPA Bill proposes to include the names of ‘terrorists’ in the Fourth Schedule proposed to be added to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The law was originally enacted in 1967 with the ostensible object of national integration. An individual may be designated as a terrorist if he commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes terrorism or is otherwise involved in terrorism. The Bill also allows a Review Committee constituted by the Central Government to exercise the power of review and de-notify an individual classified as a ‘terrorist’. The amendment is likely to empower the executive to initiate a witch-hunt against political opponents of the ruling dispensation or religious minorities, with no institutional mechanism for judicial review.Categorization as a ‘terrorist’ by the executive bears serious consequences, such as social boycott or loss of employment. Labelling by the executive could also encourage a spiral of intolerance and lead to mob lynching by vigilante groups. The constitutionality of the proposed law deserves to be keenly contested since it could be viewed as colourable legislation which bears the potential for abuse by the executive.The SC, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, had identified ‘vagueness’ as one of the grounds for striking down Section 66A in India’s IT Act. The law imposed an unreasonable restraint on online speech. Likewise, the proposed amendment can cause a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression which is enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 19 (1) (a) of India’s Constitution. SC had also held that Article 19 (1) (a) would protect free speech to the extent that there is mere advocacy of opinion and no incitement of violence.In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, SC recently recognized the right to privacy as an integral part of Article 21 which guarantees a right to life and personal liberty. The apex court held that the right to be left alone is a reflection of the inviolable nature of the human personality. Profiling by the executive is thus a violation of Article 21 as it infringes upon the personal autonomy of an individual.The proposed amendment also violates the mandate of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 2018, the judiciary played an admirable counter-majoritarian role to read down a colonial-era provision in the IPC which criminalized homosexual acts. The UAPA Bill, 2019 echoes laws made under the colonial regime to crush the freedom movement in the garb of ensuring public order. On the contrary, India’s constitution-makers had envisaged a transformative role for its constitution to usher in an environment where civil rights are protected and not left at the mercy of executive supremacy.Q. Which of the following has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India with regards to the fundamental right of the citizens?1. Vagueness in the wording of law could be a ground to hold the law as unconstitutional if it causes chilling effect.2. Right to privacy falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.3. Right to be left alone falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.4. Profiling by executives is violation of a Fundamental Right.a)1, 2, 3 and 4b)1, 2 and 3c)Only 1d)2 and 3Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The UAPA Bill proposes to include the names of ‘terrorists’ in the Fourth Schedule proposed to be added to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The law was originally enacted in 1967 with the ostensible object of national integration. An individual may be designated as a terrorist if he commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes terrorism or is otherwise involved in terrorism. The Bill also allows a Review Committee constituted by the Central Government to exercise the power of review and de-notify an individual classified as a ‘terrorist’. The amendment is likely to empower the executive to initiate a witch-hunt against political opponents of the ruling dispensation or religious minorities, with no institutional mechanism for judicial review.Categorization as a ‘terrorist’ by the executive bears serious consequences, such as social boycott or loss of employment. Labelling by the executive could also encourage a spiral of intolerance and lead to mob lynching by vigilante groups. The constitutionality of the proposed law deserves to be keenly contested since it could be viewed as colourable legislation which bears the potential for abuse by the executive.The SC, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, had identified ‘vagueness’ as one of the grounds for striking down Section 66A in India’s IT Act. The law imposed an unreasonable restraint on online speech. Likewise, the proposed amendment can cause a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression which is enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 19 (1) (a) of India’s Constitution. SC had also held that Article 19 (1) (a) would protect free speech to the extent that there is mere advocacy of opinion and no incitement of violence.In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, SC recently recognized the right to privacy as an integral part of Article 21 which guarantees a right to life and personal liberty. The apex court held that the right to be left alone is a reflection of the inviolable nature of the human personality. Profiling by the executive is thus a violation of Article 21 as it infringes upon the personal autonomy of an individual.The proposed amendment also violates the mandate of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 2018, the judiciary played an admirable counter-majoritarian role to read down a colonial-era provision in the IPC which criminalized homosexual acts. The UAPA Bill, 2019 echoes laws made under the colonial regime to crush the freedom movement in the garb of ensuring public order. On the contrary, India’s constitution-makers had envisaged a transformative role for its constitution to usher in an environment where civil rights are protected and not left at the mercy of executive supremacy.Q. Which of the following has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India with regards to the fundamental right of the citizens?1. Vagueness in the wording of law could be a ground to hold the law as unconstitutional if it causes chilling effect.2. Right to privacy falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.3. Right to be left alone falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.4. Profiling by executives is violation of a Fundamental Right.a)1, 2, 3 and 4b)1, 2 and 3c)Only 1d)2 and 3Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The UAPA Bill proposes to include the names of ‘terrorists’ in the Fourth Schedule proposed to be added to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The law was originally enacted in 1967 with the ostensible object of national integration. An individual may be designated as a terrorist if he commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes terrorism or is otherwise involved in terrorism. The Bill also allows a Review Committee constituted by the Central Government to exercise the power of review and de-notify an individual classified as a ‘terrorist’. The amendment is likely to empower the executive to initiate a witch-hunt against political opponents of the ruling dispensation or religious minorities, with no institutional mechanism for judicial review.Categorization as a ‘terrorist’ by the executive bears serious consequences, such as social boycott or loss of employment. Labelling by the executive could also encourage a spiral of intolerance and lead to mob lynching by vigilante groups. The constitutionality of the proposed law deserves to be keenly contested since it could be viewed as colourable legislation which bears the potential for abuse by the executive.The SC, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, had identified ‘vagueness’ as one of the grounds for striking down Section 66A in India’s IT Act. The law imposed an unreasonable restraint on online speech. Likewise, the proposed amendment can cause a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression which is enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 19 (1) (a) of India’s Constitution. SC had also held that Article 19 (1) (a) would protect free speech to the extent that there is mere advocacy of opinion and no incitement of violence.In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, SC recently recognized the right to privacy as an integral part of Article 21 which guarantees a right to life and personal liberty. The apex court held that the right to be left alone is a reflection of the inviolable nature of the human personality. Profiling by the executive is thus a violation of Article 21 as it infringes upon the personal autonomy of an individual.The proposed amendment also violates the mandate of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 2018, the judiciary played an admirable counter-majoritarian role to read down a colonial-era provision in the IPC which criminalized homosexual acts. The UAPA Bill, 2019 echoes laws made under the colonial regime to crush the freedom movement in the garb of ensuring public order. On the contrary, India’s constitution-makers had envisaged a transformative role for its constitution to usher in an environment where civil rights are protected and not left at the mercy of executive supremacy.Q. Which of the following has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India with regards to the fundamental right of the citizens?1. Vagueness in the wording of law could be a ground to hold the law as unconstitutional if it causes chilling effect.2. Right to privacy falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.3. Right to be left alone falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.4. Profiling by executives is violation of a Fundamental Right.a)1, 2, 3 and 4b)1, 2 and 3c)Only 1d)2 and 3Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The UAPA Bill proposes to include the names of ‘terrorists’ in the Fourth Schedule proposed to be added to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The law was originally enacted in 1967 with the ostensible object of national integration. An individual may be designated as a terrorist if he commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes terrorism or is otherwise involved in terrorism. The Bill also allows a Review Committee constituted by the Central Government to exercise the power of review and de-notify an individual classified as a ‘terrorist’. The amendment is likely to empower the executive to initiate a witch-hunt against political opponents of the ruling dispensation or religious minorities, with no institutional mechanism for judicial review.Categorization as a ‘terrorist’ by the executive bears serious consequences, such as social boycott or loss of employment. Labelling by the executive could also encourage a spiral of intolerance and lead to mob lynching by vigilante groups. The constitutionality of the proposed law deserves to be keenly contested since it could be viewed as colourable legislation which bears the potential for abuse by the executive.The SC, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, had identified ‘vagueness’ as one of the grounds for striking down Section 66A in India’s IT Act. The law imposed an unreasonable restraint on online speech. Likewise, the proposed amendment can cause a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression which is enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 19 (1) (a) of India’s Constitution. SC had also held that Article 19 (1) (a) would protect free speech to the extent that there is mere advocacy of opinion and no incitement of violence.In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, SC recently recognized the right to privacy as an integral part of Article 21 which guarantees a right to life and personal liberty. The apex court held that the right to be left alone is a reflection of the inviolable nature of the human personality. Profiling by the executive is thus a violation of Article 21 as it infringes upon the personal autonomy of an individual.The proposed amendment also violates the mandate of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 2018, the judiciary played an admirable counter-majoritarian role to read down a colonial-era provision in the IPC which criminalized homosexual acts. The UAPA Bill, 2019 echoes laws made under the colonial regime to crush the freedom movement in the garb of ensuring public order. On the contrary, India’s constitution-makers had envisaged a transformative role for its constitution to usher in an environment where civil rights are protected and not left at the mercy of executive supremacy.Q. Which of the following has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India with regards to the fundamental right of the citizens?1. Vagueness in the wording of law could be a ground to hold the law as unconstitutional if it causes chilling effect.2. Right to privacy falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.3. Right to be left alone falls under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty.4. Profiling by executives is violation of a Fundamental Right.a)1, 2, 3 and 4b)1, 2 and 3c)Only 1d)2 and 3Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.