Question Description
The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics. Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly ""accused-centric"" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected. Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days' delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries.Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the ""rarest of rare"" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall have the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroys the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction. Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for the benefit of the accused group, as they are also human beings.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics. Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly ""accused-centric"" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected. Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days' delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries.Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the ""rarest of rare"" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall have the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroys the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction. Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for the benefit of the accused group, as they are also human beings.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics. Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly ""accused-centric"" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected. Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days' delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries.Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the ""rarest of rare"" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall have the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroys the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction. Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for the benefit of the accused group, as they are also human beings.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics. Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly ""accused-centric"" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected. Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days' delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries.Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the ""rarest of rare"" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall have the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroys the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction. Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for the benefit of the accused group, as they are also human beings.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics. Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly ""accused-centric"" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected. Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days' delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries.Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the ""rarest of rare"" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall have the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroys the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction. Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for the benefit of the accused group, as they are also human beings.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics. Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly ""accused-centric"" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected. Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days' delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries.Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the ""rarest of rare"" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall have the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroys the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction. Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for the benefit of the accused group, as they are also human beings.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics. Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly ""accused-centric"" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected. Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days' delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries.Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the ""rarest of rare"" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall have the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroys the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction. Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for the benefit of the accused group, as they are also human beings.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics. Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly ""accused-centric"" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected. Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days' delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries.Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the ""rarest of rare"" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall have the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroys the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction. Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for the benefit of the accused group, as they are also human beings.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics. Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly ""accused-centric"" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected. Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days' delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries.Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the ""rarest of rare"" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall have the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroys the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction. Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for the benefit of the accused group, as they are also human beings.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.