Question Description
It was submitted to the Supreme Court that there is a need to link the social media profiles of users with their Aadhar numbers, and if required, have platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp share this number (which acts like a unique identity) with law enforcement agencies to help detect crimes. This is needed to check fake news, defamatory articles, anti-national content, etc.To briefly characterize social media, it refers to any interactive technology mediated by a computer, which enables the creation and dissemination of ideas, information, opinions, career interests, and other kinds of expression through virtual communities and networks. The Supreme Court, declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution in the Puttaswamy judgment. The court noted that the right to bodily integrity, autonomy over personal decisions, and protection of personal information – all fall within the right to privacy. At the same time, the court also noted that this right was not absolute – it permitted exceptions, should there be a legitimate aim of the state, and the invasion of privacy was proportional to the object sought to be achieved.When the constitutional validity of the Aadhar had to be ascertained the majority opinion held that the Act was legal and intra vires the Constitution in all but some respects. It was clarified that only those benefits and services that were in the nature of a ‘subsidy’ or a ‘government welfare scheme’ could require linking of Aadhar.The curbing of fake news, defamatory content, etc. does come across as a legitimate goal of the State. However, the proportionality of this measure cannot easily be understood or justified, as the linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would necessarily involve a highly intrusive presence of the state in our daily lives, and make it difficult for people to express their opinions without concerns of incarceration. A notable point is the precarious situation that such a linking would create for the right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)Option A of the Constitution, making it illusory and cosmetic.This move would bolster the already-rampant use of the unconstitutional section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would increase the incidence of such use of section 66A as tracing content and information back to individuals would become easier and more persons could be charged with this section. It is essential that social media be a ‘free’ platform, where individuals can speak their minds without the fear.Legislation is passed by the government the mandate of which prohibits smoking at public spaces. The object of the legislation is to save people from the injurious effect of smoking and to regulate the circulation of tobacco products.Q. Would this be termed as legitimate on the basis of the given passage?a)Yes, as the object of legislation covers a specific contour and an exception has been made on basis of reasonable classification of smoking at public place and smoking in private space.b)No, as the object of the legislation is in contravention to right to life, as it restricts people from smoking who chose to do this willfully.c)Yes, as regulation of tobacco products is an important aspect and the state should acquire the protectionist role for its people.d)Yes, as smoking in public places also affects people who do not smoke and state shall always strive to create a balance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about It was submitted to the Supreme Court that there is a need to link the social media profiles of users with their Aadhar numbers, and if required, have platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp share this number (which acts like a unique identity) with law enforcement agencies to help detect crimes. This is needed to check fake news, defamatory articles, anti-national content, etc.To briefly characterize social media, it refers to any interactive technology mediated by a computer, which enables the creation and dissemination of ideas, information, opinions, career interests, and other kinds of expression through virtual communities and networks. The Supreme Court, declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution in the Puttaswamy judgment. The court noted that the right to bodily integrity, autonomy over personal decisions, and protection of personal information – all fall within the right to privacy. At the same time, the court also noted that this right was not absolute – it permitted exceptions, should there be a legitimate aim of the state, and the invasion of privacy was proportional to the object sought to be achieved.When the constitutional validity of the Aadhar had to be ascertained the majority opinion held that the Act was legal and intra vires the Constitution in all but some respects. It was clarified that only those benefits and services that were in the nature of a ‘subsidy’ or a ‘government welfare scheme’ could require linking of Aadhar.The curbing of fake news, defamatory content, etc. does come across as a legitimate goal of the State. However, the proportionality of this measure cannot easily be understood or justified, as the linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would necessarily involve a highly intrusive presence of the state in our daily lives, and make it difficult for people to express their opinions without concerns of incarceration. A notable point is the precarious situation that such a linking would create for the right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)Option A of the Constitution, making it illusory and cosmetic.This move would bolster the already-rampant use of the unconstitutional section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would increase the incidence of such use of section 66A as tracing content and information back to individuals would become easier and more persons could be charged with this section. It is essential that social media be a ‘free’ platform, where individuals can speak their minds without the fear.Legislation is passed by the government the mandate of which prohibits smoking at public spaces. The object of the legislation is to save people from the injurious effect of smoking and to regulate the circulation of tobacco products.Q. Would this be termed as legitimate on the basis of the given passage?a)Yes, as the object of legislation covers a specific contour and an exception has been made on basis of reasonable classification of smoking at public place and smoking in private space.b)No, as the object of the legislation is in contravention to right to life, as it restricts people from smoking who chose to do this willfully.c)Yes, as regulation of tobacco products is an important aspect and the state should acquire the protectionist role for its people.d)Yes, as smoking in public places also affects people who do not smoke and state shall always strive to create a balance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for It was submitted to the Supreme Court that there is a need to link the social media profiles of users with their Aadhar numbers, and if required, have platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp share this number (which acts like a unique identity) with law enforcement agencies to help detect crimes. This is needed to check fake news, defamatory articles, anti-national content, etc.To briefly characterize social media, it refers to any interactive technology mediated by a computer, which enables the creation and dissemination of ideas, information, opinions, career interests, and other kinds of expression through virtual communities and networks. The Supreme Court, declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution in the Puttaswamy judgment. The court noted that the right to bodily integrity, autonomy over personal decisions, and protection of personal information – all fall within the right to privacy. At the same time, the court also noted that this right was not absolute – it permitted exceptions, should there be a legitimate aim of the state, and the invasion of privacy was proportional to the object sought to be achieved.When the constitutional validity of the Aadhar had to be ascertained the majority opinion held that the Act was legal and intra vires the Constitution in all but some respects. It was clarified that only those benefits and services that were in the nature of a ‘subsidy’ or a ‘government welfare scheme’ could require linking of Aadhar.The curbing of fake news, defamatory content, etc. does come across as a legitimate goal of the State. However, the proportionality of this measure cannot easily be understood or justified, as the linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would necessarily involve a highly intrusive presence of the state in our daily lives, and make it difficult for people to express their opinions without concerns of incarceration. A notable point is the precarious situation that such a linking would create for the right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)Option A of the Constitution, making it illusory and cosmetic.This move would bolster the already-rampant use of the unconstitutional section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would increase the incidence of such use of section 66A as tracing content and information back to individuals would become easier and more persons could be charged with this section. It is essential that social media be a ‘free’ platform, where individuals can speak their minds without the fear.Legislation is passed by the government the mandate of which prohibits smoking at public spaces. The object of the legislation is to save people from the injurious effect of smoking and to regulate the circulation of tobacco products.Q. Would this be termed as legitimate on the basis of the given passage?a)Yes, as the object of legislation covers a specific contour and an exception has been made on basis of reasonable classification of smoking at public place and smoking in private space.b)No, as the object of the legislation is in contravention to right to life, as it restricts people from smoking who chose to do this willfully.c)Yes, as regulation of tobacco products is an important aspect and the state should acquire the protectionist role for its people.d)Yes, as smoking in public places also affects people who do not smoke and state shall always strive to create a balance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for It was submitted to the Supreme Court that there is a need to link the social media profiles of users with their Aadhar numbers, and if required, have platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp share this number (which acts like a unique identity) with law enforcement agencies to help detect crimes. This is needed to check fake news, defamatory articles, anti-national content, etc.To briefly characterize social media, it refers to any interactive technology mediated by a computer, which enables the creation and dissemination of ideas, information, opinions, career interests, and other kinds of expression through virtual communities and networks. The Supreme Court, declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution in the Puttaswamy judgment. The court noted that the right to bodily integrity, autonomy over personal decisions, and protection of personal information – all fall within the right to privacy. At the same time, the court also noted that this right was not absolute – it permitted exceptions, should there be a legitimate aim of the state, and the invasion of privacy was proportional to the object sought to be achieved.When the constitutional validity of the Aadhar had to be ascertained the majority opinion held that the Act was legal and intra vires the Constitution in all but some respects. It was clarified that only those benefits and services that were in the nature of a ‘subsidy’ or a ‘government welfare scheme’ could require linking of Aadhar.The curbing of fake news, defamatory content, etc. does come across as a legitimate goal of the State. However, the proportionality of this measure cannot easily be understood or justified, as the linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would necessarily involve a highly intrusive presence of the state in our daily lives, and make it difficult for people to express their opinions without concerns of incarceration. A notable point is the precarious situation that such a linking would create for the right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)Option A of the Constitution, making it illusory and cosmetic.This move would bolster the already-rampant use of the unconstitutional section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would increase the incidence of such use of section 66A as tracing content and information back to individuals would become easier and more persons could be charged with this section. It is essential that social media be a ‘free’ platform, where individuals can speak their minds without the fear.Legislation is passed by the government the mandate of which prohibits smoking at public spaces. The object of the legislation is to save people from the injurious effect of smoking and to regulate the circulation of tobacco products.Q. Would this be termed as legitimate on the basis of the given passage?a)Yes, as the object of legislation covers a specific contour and an exception has been made on basis of reasonable classification of smoking at public place and smoking in private space.b)No, as the object of the legislation is in contravention to right to life, as it restricts people from smoking who chose to do this willfully.c)Yes, as regulation of tobacco products is an important aspect and the state should acquire the protectionist role for its people.d)Yes, as smoking in public places also affects people who do not smoke and state shall always strive to create a balance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of It was submitted to the Supreme Court that there is a need to link the social media profiles of users with their Aadhar numbers, and if required, have platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp share this number (which acts like a unique identity) with law enforcement agencies to help detect crimes. This is needed to check fake news, defamatory articles, anti-national content, etc.To briefly characterize social media, it refers to any interactive technology mediated by a computer, which enables the creation and dissemination of ideas, information, opinions, career interests, and other kinds of expression through virtual communities and networks. The Supreme Court, declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution in the Puttaswamy judgment. The court noted that the right to bodily integrity, autonomy over personal decisions, and protection of personal information – all fall within the right to privacy. At the same time, the court also noted that this right was not absolute – it permitted exceptions, should there be a legitimate aim of the state, and the invasion of privacy was proportional to the object sought to be achieved.When the constitutional validity of the Aadhar had to be ascertained the majority opinion held that the Act was legal and intra vires the Constitution in all but some respects. It was clarified that only those benefits and services that were in the nature of a ‘subsidy’ or a ‘government welfare scheme’ could require linking of Aadhar.The curbing of fake news, defamatory content, etc. does come across as a legitimate goal of the State. However, the proportionality of this measure cannot easily be understood or justified, as the linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would necessarily involve a highly intrusive presence of the state in our daily lives, and make it difficult for people to express their opinions without concerns of incarceration. A notable point is the precarious situation that such a linking would create for the right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)Option A of the Constitution, making it illusory and cosmetic.This move would bolster the already-rampant use of the unconstitutional section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would increase the incidence of such use of section 66A as tracing content and information back to individuals would become easier and more persons could be charged with this section. It is essential that social media be a ‘free’ platform, where individuals can speak their minds without the fear.Legislation is passed by the government the mandate of which prohibits smoking at public spaces. The object of the legislation is to save people from the injurious effect of smoking and to regulate the circulation of tobacco products.Q. Would this be termed as legitimate on the basis of the given passage?a)Yes, as the object of legislation covers a specific contour and an exception has been made on basis of reasonable classification of smoking at public place and smoking in private space.b)No, as the object of the legislation is in contravention to right to life, as it restricts people from smoking who chose to do this willfully.c)Yes, as regulation of tobacco products is an important aspect and the state should acquire the protectionist role for its people.d)Yes, as smoking in public places also affects people who do not smoke and state shall always strive to create a balance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of It was submitted to the Supreme Court that there is a need to link the social media profiles of users with their Aadhar numbers, and if required, have platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp share this number (which acts like a unique identity) with law enforcement agencies to help detect crimes. This is needed to check fake news, defamatory articles, anti-national content, etc.To briefly characterize social media, it refers to any interactive technology mediated by a computer, which enables the creation and dissemination of ideas, information, opinions, career interests, and other kinds of expression through virtual communities and networks. The Supreme Court, declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution in the Puttaswamy judgment. The court noted that the right to bodily integrity, autonomy over personal decisions, and protection of personal information – all fall within the right to privacy. At the same time, the court also noted that this right was not absolute – it permitted exceptions, should there be a legitimate aim of the state, and the invasion of privacy was proportional to the object sought to be achieved.When the constitutional validity of the Aadhar had to be ascertained the majority opinion held that the Act was legal and intra vires the Constitution in all but some respects. It was clarified that only those benefits and services that were in the nature of a ‘subsidy’ or a ‘government welfare scheme’ could require linking of Aadhar.The curbing of fake news, defamatory content, etc. does come across as a legitimate goal of the State. However, the proportionality of this measure cannot easily be understood or justified, as the linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would necessarily involve a highly intrusive presence of the state in our daily lives, and make it difficult for people to express their opinions without concerns of incarceration. A notable point is the precarious situation that such a linking would create for the right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)Option A of the Constitution, making it illusory and cosmetic.This move would bolster the already-rampant use of the unconstitutional section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would increase the incidence of such use of section 66A as tracing content and information back to individuals would become easier and more persons could be charged with this section. It is essential that social media be a ‘free’ platform, where individuals can speak their minds without the fear.Legislation is passed by the government the mandate of which prohibits smoking at public spaces. The object of the legislation is to save people from the injurious effect of smoking and to regulate the circulation of tobacco products.Q. Would this be termed as legitimate on the basis of the given passage?a)Yes, as the object of legislation covers a specific contour and an exception has been made on basis of reasonable classification of smoking at public place and smoking in private space.b)No, as the object of the legislation is in contravention to right to life, as it restricts people from smoking who chose to do this willfully.c)Yes, as regulation of tobacco products is an important aspect and the state should acquire the protectionist role for its people.d)Yes, as smoking in public places also affects people who do not smoke and state shall always strive to create a balance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for It was submitted to the Supreme Court that there is a need to link the social media profiles of users with their Aadhar numbers, and if required, have platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp share this number (which acts like a unique identity) with law enforcement agencies to help detect crimes. This is needed to check fake news, defamatory articles, anti-national content, etc.To briefly characterize social media, it refers to any interactive technology mediated by a computer, which enables the creation and dissemination of ideas, information, opinions, career interests, and other kinds of expression through virtual communities and networks. The Supreme Court, declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution in the Puttaswamy judgment. The court noted that the right to bodily integrity, autonomy over personal decisions, and protection of personal information – all fall within the right to privacy. At the same time, the court also noted that this right was not absolute – it permitted exceptions, should there be a legitimate aim of the state, and the invasion of privacy was proportional to the object sought to be achieved.When the constitutional validity of the Aadhar had to be ascertained the majority opinion held that the Act was legal and intra vires the Constitution in all but some respects. It was clarified that only those benefits and services that were in the nature of a ‘subsidy’ or a ‘government welfare scheme’ could require linking of Aadhar.The curbing of fake news, defamatory content, etc. does come across as a legitimate goal of the State. However, the proportionality of this measure cannot easily be understood or justified, as the linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would necessarily involve a highly intrusive presence of the state in our daily lives, and make it difficult for people to express their opinions without concerns of incarceration. A notable point is the precarious situation that such a linking would create for the right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)Option A of the Constitution, making it illusory and cosmetic.This move would bolster the already-rampant use of the unconstitutional section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would increase the incidence of such use of section 66A as tracing content and information back to individuals would become easier and more persons could be charged with this section. It is essential that social media be a ‘free’ platform, where individuals can speak their minds without the fear.Legislation is passed by the government the mandate of which prohibits smoking at public spaces. The object of the legislation is to save people from the injurious effect of smoking and to regulate the circulation of tobacco products.Q. Would this be termed as legitimate on the basis of the given passage?a)Yes, as the object of legislation covers a specific contour and an exception has been made on basis of reasonable classification of smoking at public place and smoking in private space.b)No, as the object of the legislation is in contravention to right to life, as it restricts people from smoking who chose to do this willfully.c)Yes, as regulation of tobacco products is an important aspect and the state should acquire the protectionist role for its people.d)Yes, as smoking in public places also affects people who do not smoke and state shall always strive to create a balance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of It was submitted to the Supreme Court that there is a need to link the social media profiles of users with their Aadhar numbers, and if required, have platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp share this number (which acts like a unique identity) with law enforcement agencies to help detect crimes. This is needed to check fake news, defamatory articles, anti-national content, etc.To briefly characterize social media, it refers to any interactive technology mediated by a computer, which enables the creation and dissemination of ideas, information, opinions, career interests, and other kinds of expression through virtual communities and networks. The Supreme Court, declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution in the Puttaswamy judgment. The court noted that the right to bodily integrity, autonomy over personal decisions, and protection of personal information – all fall within the right to privacy. At the same time, the court also noted that this right was not absolute – it permitted exceptions, should there be a legitimate aim of the state, and the invasion of privacy was proportional to the object sought to be achieved.When the constitutional validity of the Aadhar had to be ascertained the majority opinion held that the Act was legal and intra vires the Constitution in all but some respects. It was clarified that only those benefits and services that were in the nature of a ‘subsidy’ or a ‘government welfare scheme’ could require linking of Aadhar.The curbing of fake news, defamatory content, etc. does come across as a legitimate goal of the State. However, the proportionality of this measure cannot easily be understood or justified, as the linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would necessarily involve a highly intrusive presence of the state in our daily lives, and make it difficult for people to express their opinions without concerns of incarceration. A notable point is the precarious situation that such a linking would create for the right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)Option A of the Constitution, making it illusory and cosmetic.This move would bolster the already-rampant use of the unconstitutional section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would increase the incidence of such use of section 66A as tracing content and information back to individuals would become easier and more persons could be charged with this section. It is essential that social media be a ‘free’ platform, where individuals can speak their minds without the fear.Legislation is passed by the government the mandate of which prohibits smoking at public spaces. The object of the legislation is to save people from the injurious effect of smoking and to regulate the circulation of tobacco products.Q. Would this be termed as legitimate on the basis of the given passage?a)Yes, as the object of legislation covers a specific contour and an exception has been made on basis of reasonable classification of smoking at public place and smoking in private space.b)No, as the object of the legislation is in contravention to right to life, as it restricts people from smoking who chose to do this willfully.c)Yes, as regulation of tobacco products is an important aspect and the state should acquire the protectionist role for its people.d)Yes, as smoking in public places also affects people who do not smoke and state shall always strive to create a balance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice It was submitted to the Supreme Court that there is a need to link the social media profiles of users with their Aadhar numbers, and if required, have platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp share this number (which acts like a unique identity) with law enforcement agencies to help detect crimes. This is needed to check fake news, defamatory articles, anti-national content, etc.To briefly characterize social media, it refers to any interactive technology mediated by a computer, which enables the creation and dissemination of ideas, information, opinions, career interests, and other kinds of expression through virtual communities and networks. The Supreme Court, declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution in the Puttaswamy judgment. The court noted that the right to bodily integrity, autonomy over personal decisions, and protection of personal information – all fall within the right to privacy. At the same time, the court also noted that this right was not absolute – it permitted exceptions, should there be a legitimate aim of the state, and the invasion of privacy was proportional to the object sought to be achieved.When the constitutional validity of the Aadhar had to be ascertained the majority opinion held that the Act was legal and intra vires the Constitution in all but some respects. It was clarified that only those benefits and services that were in the nature of a ‘subsidy’ or a ‘government welfare scheme’ could require linking of Aadhar.The curbing of fake news, defamatory content, etc. does come across as a legitimate goal of the State. However, the proportionality of this measure cannot easily be understood or justified, as the linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would necessarily involve a highly intrusive presence of the state in our daily lives, and make it difficult for people to express their opinions without concerns of incarceration. A notable point is the precarious situation that such a linking would create for the right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)Option A of the Constitution, making it illusory and cosmetic.This move would bolster the already-rampant use of the unconstitutional section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Linking of social media accounts to Aadhar would increase the incidence of such use of section 66A as tracing content and information back to individuals would become easier and more persons could be charged with this section. It is essential that social media be a ‘free’ platform, where individuals can speak their minds without the fear.Legislation is passed by the government the mandate of which prohibits smoking at public spaces. The object of the legislation is to save people from the injurious effect of smoking and to regulate the circulation of tobacco products.Q. Would this be termed as legitimate on the basis of the given passage?a)Yes, as the object of legislation covers a specific contour and an exception has been made on basis of reasonable classification of smoking at public place and smoking in private space.b)No, as the object of the legislation is in contravention to right to life, as it restricts people from smoking who chose to do this willfully.c)Yes, as regulation of tobacco products is an important aspect and the state should acquire the protectionist role for its people.d)Yes, as smoking in public places also affects people who do not smoke and state shall always strive to create a balance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.