Question Description
On February 10, the Supreme Court (SC) issued a notice to prohibit children from entering the areas where Anti – CAA protests were held. The notice was issued in a matter where the SC took suo moto cognisance of the involvement of children in protests in a letter addressing the death of a four-month-old. This order violates children’s right to protest. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to protest. This right reasonably extends to children. According to Article 19(2), the right to protest can be restricted for various reasons, including protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality. Considering the fact that the children were protesting peacefully and for legitimate reasons, the restriction on their right to protest does not fall under any of the possible basis in Article 19(2).Another right engaged by this restriction is children’s right to education and development. In Unnikrishnan v State of A.P., the SC held that Article 21 includes the protection of children’s right to educational opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. This arguably encompasses their rights to protest and freedom of expression. Preventing children from expressing their opinions compromises the freedom to express their opinions and arguably curtails their right to develop in conditions of freedom and dignity. The jurisprudence of Indian courts has not had an opportunity to set out the scope of the rights to protest and expression in the context of children.Under international law, Article 13 of the UNCRC, ratified by India in 1992, provides that children have the right to freedom of expression, this includes, “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”. Further, Article 15 of the UNCRC protects children’s freedom to associate and peaceful assembly. These rights can only be restricted by provisions which are ‘necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ There may be reasons to restrict the presence of very young and unsupervised children at protests. However, the court’s order arbitrarily banned all children from the Shaheen-Bagh protest site, irrespective of their age and for an indefinite period. This wide ban is arbitrary and a manifestly disproportionate tool for realising any laudable aims under the Indian Constitution and in international law. In addition to violating children’s right to protest, the order also limits the participation of parents and other child caregivers. This will have a disproportionate impact on women as they bear the larger share of child care, limiting their right to freedom of expression and protest.Which of the following is the major disagreement of the author with the Supreme Court judgment?a)That the court took a suo motu cognisance of the matter.b)That the UNCRC is in contravention of the ethos of Indian Constitution.c)That the CAA is violative of the constitutional rights of Indian citizens.d)That the court order is arbitrary and disproportionate.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 On February 10, the Supreme Court (SC) issued a notice to prohibit children from entering the areas where Anti – CAA protests were held. The notice was issued in a matter where the SC took suo moto cognisance of the involvement of children in protests in a letter addressing the death of a four-month-old. This order violates children’s right to protest. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to protest. This right reasonably extends to children. According to Article 19(2), the right to protest can be restricted for various reasons, including protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality. Considering the fact that the children were protesting peacefully and for legitimate reasons, the restriction on their right to protest does not fall under any of the possible basis in Article 19(2).Another right engaged by this restriction is children’s right to education and development. In Unnikrishnan v State of A.P., the SC held that Article 21 includes the protection of children’s right to educational opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. This arguably encompasses their rights to protest and freedom of expression. Preventing children from expressing their opinions compromises the freedom to express their opinions and arguably curtails their right to develop in conditions of freedom and dignity. The jurisprudence of Indian courts has not had an opportunity to set out the scope of the rights to protest and expression in the context of children.Under international law, Article 13 of the UNCRC, ratified by India in 1992, provides that children have the right to freedom of expression, this includes, “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”. Further, Article 15 of the UNCRC protects children’s freedom to associate and peaceful assembly. These rights can only be restricted by provisions which are ‘necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ There may be reasons to restrict the presence of very young and unsupervised children at protests. However, the court’s order arbitrarily banned all children from the Shaheen-Bagh protest site, irrespective of their age and for an indefinite period. This wide ban is arbitrary and a manifestly disproportionate tool for realising any laudable aims under the Indian Constitution and in international law. In addition to violating children’s right to protest, the order also limits the participation of parents and other child caregivers. This will have a disproportionate impact on women as they bear the larger share of child care, limiting their right to freedom of expression and protest.Which of the following is the major disagreement of the author with the Supreme Court judgment?a)That the court took a suo motu cognisance of the matter.b)That the UNCRC is in contravention of the ethos of Indian Constitution.c)That the CAA is violative of the constitutional rights of Indian citizens.d)That the court order is arbitrary and disproportionate.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 On February 10, the Supreme Court (SC) issued a notice to prohibit children from entering the areas where Anti – CAA protests were held. The notice was issued in a matter where the SC took suo moto cognisance of the involvement of children in protests in a letter addressing the death of a four-month-old. This order violates children’s right to protest. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to protest. This right reasonably extends to children. According to Article 19(2), the right to protest can be restricted for various reasons, including protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality. Considering the fact that the children were protesting peacefully and for legitimate reasons, the restriction on their right to protest does not fall under any of the possible basis in Article 19(2).Another right engaged by this restriction is children’s right to education and development. In Unnikrishnan v State of A.P., the SC held that Article 21 includes the protection of children’s right to educational opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. This arguably encompasses their rights to protest and freedom of expression. Preventing children from expressing their opinions compromises the freedom to express their opinions and arguably curtails their right to develop in conditions of freedom and dignity. The jurisprudence of Indian courts has not had an opportunity to set out the scope of the rights to protest and expression in the context of children.Under international law, Article 13 of the UNCRC, ratified by India in 1992, provides that children have the right to freedom of expression, this includes, “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”. Further, Article 15 of the UNCRC protects children’s freedom to associate and peaceful assembly. These rights can only be restricted by provisions which are ‘necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ There may be reasons to restrict the presence of very young and unsupervised children at protests. However, the court’s order arbitrarily banned all children from the Shaheen-Bagh protest site, irrespective of their age and for an indefinite period. This wide ban is arbitrary and a manifestly disproportionate tool for realising any laudable aims under the Indian Constitution and in international law. In addition to violating children’s right to protest, the order also limits the participation of parents and other child caregivers. This will have a disproportionate impact on women as they bear the larger share of child care, limiting their right to freedom of expression and protest.Which of the following is the major disagreement of the author with the Supreme Court judgment?a)That the court took a suo motu cognisance of the matter.b)That the UNCRC is in contravention of the ethos of Indian Constitution.c)That the CAA is violative of the constitutional rights of Indian citizens.d)That the court order is arbitrary and disproportionate.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for On February 10, the Supreme Court (SC) issued a notice to prohibit children from entering the areas where Anti – CAA protests were held. The notice was issued in a matter where the SC took suo moto cognisance of the involvement of children in protests in a letter addressing the death of a four-month-old. This order violates children’s right to protest. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to protest. This right reasonably extends to children. According to Article 19(2), the right to protest can be restricted for various reasons, including protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality. Considering the fact that the children were protesting peacefully and for legitimate reasons, the restriction on their right to protest does not fall under any of the possible basis in Article 19(2).Another right engaged by this restriction is children’s right to education and development. In Unnikrishnan v State of A.P., the SC held that Article 21 includes the protection of children’s right to educational opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. This arguably encompasses their rights to protest and freedom of expression. Preventing children from expressing their opinions compromises the freedom to express their opinions and arguably curtails their right to develop in conditions of freedom and dignity. The jurisprudence of Indian courts has not had an opportunity to set out the scope of the rights to protest and expression in the context of children.Under international law, Article 13 of the UNCRC, ratified by India in 1992, provides that children have the right to freedom of expression, this includes, “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”. Further, Article 15 of the UNCRC protects children’s freedom to associate and peaceful assembly. These rights can only be restricted by provisions which are ‘necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ There may be reasons to restrict the presence of very young and unsupervised children at protests. However, the court’s order arbitrarily banned all children from the Shaheen-Bagh protest site, irrespective of their age and for an indefinite period. This wide ban is arbitrary and a manifestly disproportionate tool for realising any laudable aims under the Indian Constitution and in international law. In addition to violating children’s right to protest, the order also limits the participation of parents and other child caregivers. This will have a disproportionate impact on women as they bear the larger share of child care, limiting their right to freedom of expression and protest.Which of the following is the major disagreement of the author with the Supreme Court judgment?a)That the court took a suo motu cognisance of the matter.b)That the UNCRC is in contravention of the ethos of Indian Constitution.c)That the CAA is violative of the constitutional rights of Indian citizens.d)That the court order is arbitrary and disproportionate.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 On February 10, the Supreme Court (SC) issued a notice to prohibit children from entering the areas where Anti – CAA protests were held. The notice was issued in a matter where the SC took suo moto cognisance of the involvement of children in protests in a letter addressing the death of a four-month-old. This order violates children’s right to protest. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to protest. This right reasonably extends to children. According to Article 19(2), the right to protest can be restricted for various reasons, including protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality. Considering the fact that the children were protesting peacefully and for legitimate reasons, the restriction on their right to protest does not fall under any of the possible basis in Article 19(2).Another right engaged by this restriction is children’s right to education and development. In Unnikrishnan v State of A.P., the SC held that Article 21 includes the protection of children’s right to educational opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. This arguably encompasses their rights to protest and freedom of expression. Preventing children from expressing their opinions compromises the freedom to express their opinions and arguably curtails their right to develop in conditions of freedom and dignity. The jurisprudence of Indian courts has not had an opportunity to set out the scope of the rights to protest and expression in the context of children.Under international law, Article 13 of the UNCRC, ratified by India in 1992, provides that children have the right to freedom of expression, this includes, “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”. Further, Article 15 of the UNCRC protects children’s freedom to associate and peaceful assembly. These rights can only be restricted by provisions which are ‘necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ There may be reasons to restrict the presence of very young and unsupervised children at protests. However, the court’s order arbitrarily banned all children from the Shaheen-Bagh protest site, irrespective of their age and for an indefinite period. This wide ban is arbitrary and a manifestly disproportionate tool for realising any laudable aims under the Indian Constitution and in international law. In addition to violating children’s right to protest, the order also limits the participation of parents and other child caregivers. This will have a disproportionate impact on women as they bear the larger share of child care, limiting their right to freedom of expression and protest.Which of the following is the major disagreement of the author with the Supreme Court judgment?a)That the court took a suo motu cognisance of the matter.b)That the UNCRC is in contravention of the ethos of Indian Constitution.c)That the CAA is violative of the constitutional rights of Indian citizens.d)That the court order is arbitrary and disproportionate.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of On February 10, the Supreme Court (SC) issued a notice to prohibit children from entering the areas where Anti – CAA protests were held. The notice was issued in a matter where the SC took suo moto cognisance of the involvement of children in protests in a letter addressing the death of a four-month-old. This order violates children’s right to protest. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to protest. This right reasonably extends to children. According to Article 19(2), the right to protest can be restricted for various reasons, including protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality. Considering the fact that the children were protesting peacefully and for legitimate reasons, the restriction on their right to protest does not fall under any of the possible basis in Article 19(2).Another right engaged by this restriction is children’s right to education and development. In Unnikrishnan v State of A.P., the SC held that Article 21 includes the protection of children’s right to educational opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. This arguably encompasses their rights to protest and freedom of expression. Preventing children from expressing their opinions compromises the freedom to express their opinions and arguably curtails their right to develop in conditions of freedom and dignity. The jurisprudence of Indian courts has not had an opportunity to set out the scope of the rights to protest and expression in the context of children.Under international law, Article 13 of the UNCRC, ratified by India in 1992, provides that children have the right to freedom of expression, this includes, “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”. Further, Article 15 of the UNCRC protects children’s freedom to associate and peaceful assembly. These rights can only be restricted by provisions which are ‘necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ There may be reasons to restrict the presence of very young and unsupervised children at protests. However, the court’s order arbitrarily banned all children from the Shaheen-Bagh protest site, irrespective of their age and for an indefinite period. This wide ban is arbitrary and a manifestly disproportionate tool for realising any laudable aims under the Indian Constitution and in international law. In addition to violating children’s right to protest, the order also limits the participation of parents and other child caregivers. This will have a disproportionate impact on women as they bear the larger share of child care, limiting their right to freedom of expression and protest.Which of the following is the major disagreement of the author with the Supreme Court judgment?a)That the court took a suo motu cognisance of the matter.b)That the UNCRC is in contravention of the ethos of Indian Constitution.c)That the CAA is violative of the constitutional rights of Indian citizens.d)That the court order is arbitrary and disproportionate.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for On February 10, the Supreme Court (SC) issued a notice to prohibit children from entering the areas where Anti – CAA protests were held. The notice was issued in a matter where the SC took suo moto cognisance of the involvement of children in protests in a letter addressing the death of a four-month-old. This order violates children’s right to protest. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to protest. This right reasonably extends to children. According to Article 19(2), the right to protest can be restricted for various reasons, including protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality. Considering the fact that the children were protesting peacefully and for legitimate reasons, the restriction on their right to protest does not fall under any of the possible basis in Article 19(2).Another right engaged by this restriction is children’s right to education and development. In Unnikrishnan v State of A.P., the SC held that Article 21 includes the protection of children’s right to educational opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. This arguably encompasses their rights to protest and freedom of expression. Preventing children from expressing their opinions compromises the freedom to express their opinions and arguably curtails their right to develop in conditions of freedom and dignity. The jurisprudence of Indian courts has not had an opportunity to set out the scope of the rights to protest and expression in the context of children.Under international law, Article 13 of the UNCRC, ratified by India in 1992, provides that children have the right to freedom of expression, this includes, “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”. Further, Article 15 of the UNCRC protects children’s freedom to associate and peaceful assembly. These rights can only be restricted by provisions which are ‘necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ There may be reasons to restrict the presence of very young and unsupervised children at protests. However, the court’s order arbitrarily banned all children from the Shaheen-Bagh protest site, irrespective of their age and for an indefinite period. This wide ban is arbitrary and a manifestly disproportionate tool for realising any laudable aims under the Indian Constitution and in international law. In addition to violating children’s right to protest, the order also limits the participation of parents and other child caregivers. This will have a disproportionate impact on women as they bear the larger share of child care, limiting their right to freedom of expression and protest.Which of the following is the major disagreement of the author with the Supreme Court judgment?a)That the court took a suo motu cognisance of the matter.b)That the UNCRC is in contravention of the ethos of Indian Constitution.c)That the CAA is violative of the constitutional rights of Indian citizens.d)That the court order is arbitrary and disproportionate.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of On February 10, the Supreme Court (SC) issued a notice to prohibit children from entering the areas where Anti – CAA protests were held. The notice was issued in a matter where the SC took suo moto cognisance of the involvement of children in protests in a letter addressing the death of a four-month-old. This order violates children’s right to protest. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to protest. This right reasonably extends to children. According to Article 19(2), the right to protest can be restricted for various reasons, including protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality. Considering the fact that the children were protesting peacefully and for legitimate reasons, the restriction on their right to protest does not fall under any of the possible basis in Article 19(2).Another right engaged by this restriction is children’s right to education and development. In Unnikrishnan v State of A.P., the SC held that Article 21 includes the protection of children’s right to educational opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. This arguably encompasses their rights to protest and freedom of expression. Preventing children from expressing their opinions compromises the freedom to express their opinions and arguably curtails their right to develop in conditions of freedom and dignity. The jurisprudence of Indian courts has not had an opportunity to set out the scope of the rights to protest and expression in the context of children.Under international law, Article 13 of the UNCRC, ratified by India in 1992, provides that children have the right to freedom of expression, this includes, “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”. Further, Article 15 of the UNCRC protects children’s freedom to associate and peaceful assembly. These rights can only be restricted by provisions which are ‘necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ There may be reasons to restrict the presence of very young and unsupervised children at protests. However, the court’s order arbitrarily banned all children from the Shaheen-Bagh protest site, irrespective of their age and for an indefinite period. This wide ban is arbitrary and a manifestly disproportionate tool for realising any laudable aims under the Indian Constitution and in international law. In addition to violating children’s right to protest, the order also limits the participation of parents and other child caregivers. This will have a disproportionate impact on women as they bear the larger share of child care, limiting their right to freedom of expression and protest.Which of the following is the major disagreement of the author with the Supreme Court judgment?a)That the court took a suo motu cognisance of the matter.b)That the UNCRC is in contravention of the ethos of Indian Constitution.c)That the CAA is violative of the constitutional rights of Indian citizens.d)That the court order is arbitrary and disproportionate.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice On February 10, the Supreme Court (SC) issued a notice to prohibit children from entering the areas where Anti – CAA protests were held. The notice was issued in a matter where the SC took suo moto cognisance of the involvement of children in protests in a letter addressing the death of a four-month-old. This order violates children’s right to protest. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to protest. This right reasonably extends to children. According to Article 19(2), the right to protest can be restricted for various reasons, including protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality. Considering the fact that the children were protesting peacefully and for legitimate reasons, the restriction on their right to protest does not fall under any of the possible basis in Article 19(2).Another right engaged by this restriction is children’s right to education and development. In Unnikrishnan v State of A.P., the SC held that Article 21 includes the protection of children’s right to educational opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. This arguably encompasses their rights to protest and freedom of expression. Preventing children from expressing their opinions compromises the freedom to express their opinions and arguably curtails their right to develop in conditions of freedom and dignity. The jurisprudence of Indian courts has not had an opportunity to set out the scope of the rights to protest and expression in the context of children.Under international law, Article 13 of the UNCRC, ratified by India in 1992, provides that children have the right to freedom of expression, this includes, “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”. Further, Article 15 of the UNCRC protects children’s freedom to associate and peaceful assembly. These rights can only be restricted by provisions which are ‘necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ There may be reasons to restrict the presence of very young and unsupervised children at protests. However, the court’s order arbitrarily banned all children from the Shaheen-Bagh protest site, irrespective of their age and for an indefinite period. This wide ban is arbitrary and a manifestly disproportionate tool for realising any laudable aims under the Indian Constitution and in international law. In addition to violating children’s right to protest, the order also limits the participation of parents and other child caregivers. This will have a disproportionate impact on women as they bear the larger share of child care, limiting their right to freedom of expression and protest.Which of the following is the major disagreement of the author with the Supreme Court judgment?a)That the court took a suo motu cognisance of the matter.b)That the UNCRC is in contravention of the ethos of Indian Constitution.c)That the CAA is violative of the constitutional rights of Indian citizens.d)That the court order is arbitrary and disproportionate.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.