Question Description
Counsel for Uttarakhand said FIRs had been filed in the case of earlier events of similar nature. He said two communities “who are at loggerheads with each other” were both holding such events. The State had taken action in the past without any communal bias. He said preventive action against untoward statements being made in the Roorkee event were under way. “We do not know what they will say in their speeches... But we are taking steps... Your Lordships may have faith in us,” the lawyer said. “There is no problem of trust... The doctrine of trust is applicable 24x7. But we want action and we want to see you take corrective measures and not explain yourselves here in court,” Justice Khanwilkar responded.The Uttarakhand lawyers said the “community he (Mr. Sibal) is trying to protect is also holding events”. “This is not the way you (State of Uttarakhand) present yourself here... And if you are so confident about yourself, we will hold your Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Inspector­General concerned responsible,” Justice Khanwilkar said. The court ordered the Himachal Pradesh Home Secretary to file an affidavit by May 7 on the action taken, in terms of the Supreme Court judgments, against those responsible for making hate speeches in the State. The court further recorded the statements of the Uttarakhand counsel that the State authorities were “more than confident” that no untoward statements would be made in the Roorkee event. The court directed the Uttarakhand Chief Secretary to file a report stating the corrective measures which were taken before the next date of hearing on May 9.Q. It proposed amendment to Section 153 C of IPC (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity), punishable by five years. Tell the name of the Committee ______a)Viswanathan Committee 2019b)Lodha Committee 2015c)P. Vasudevan 2020d)Bezbaruah CommitteeCorrect 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 Counsel for Uttarakhand said FIRs had been filed in the case of earlier events of similar nature. He said two communities “who are at loggerheads with each other” were both holding such events. The State had taken action in the past without any communal bias. He said preventive action against untoward statements being made in the Roorkee event were under way. “We do not know what they will say in their speeches... But we are taking steps... Your Lordships may have faith in us,” the lawyer said. “There is no problem of trust... The doctrine of trust is applicable 24x7. But we want action and we want to see you take corrective measures and not explain yourselves here in court,” Justice Khanwilkar responded.The Uttarakhand lawyers said the “community he (Mr. Sibal) is trying to protect is also holding events”. “This is not the way you (State of Uttarakhand) present yourself here... And if you are so confident about yourself, we will hold your Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Inspector­General concerned responsible,” Justice Khanwilkar said. The court ordered the Himachal Pradesh Home Secretary to file an affidavit by May 7 on the action taken, in terms of the Supreme Court judgments, against those responsible for making hate speeches in the State. The court further recorded the statements of the Uttarakhand counsel that the State authorities were “more than confident” that no untoward statements would be made in the Roorkee event. The court directed the Uttarakhand Chief Secretary to file a report stating the corrective measures which were taken before the next date of hearing on May 9.Q. It proposed amendment to Section 153 C of IPC (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity), punishable by five years. Tell the name of the Committee ______a)Viswanathan Committee 2019b)Lodha Committee 2015c)P. Vasudevan 2020d)Bezbaruah CommitteeCorrect 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 Counsel for Uttarakhand said FIRs had been filed in the case of earlier events of similar nature. He said two communities “who are at loggerheads with each other” were both holding such events. The State had taken action in the past without any communal bias. He said preventive action against untoward statements being made in the Roorkee event were under way. “We do not know what they will say in their speeches... But we are taking steps... Your Lordships may have faith in us,” the lawyer said. “There is no problem of trust... The doctrine of trust is applicable 24x7. But we want action and we want to see you take corrective measures and not explain yourselves here in court,” Justice Khanwilkar responded.The Uttarakhand lawyers said the “community he (Mr. Sibal) is trying to protect is also holding events”. “This is not the way you (State of Uttarakhand) present yourself here... And if you are so confident about yourself, we will hold your Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Inspector­General concerned responsible,” Justice Khanwilkar said. The court ordered the Himachal Pradesh Home Secretary to file an affidavit by May 7 on the action taken, in terms of the Supreme Court judgments, against those responsible for making hate speeches in the State. The court further recorded the statements of the Uttarakhand counsel that the State authorities were “more than confident” that no untoward statements would be made in the Roorkee event. The court directed the Uttarakhand Chief Secretary to file a report stating the corrective measures which were taken before the next date of hearing on May 9.Q. It proposed amendment to Section 153 C of IPC (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity), punishable by five years. Tell the name of the Committee ______a)Viswanathan Committee 2019b)Lodha Committee 2015c)P. Vasudevan 2020d)Bezbaruah CommitteeCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Counsel for Uttarakhand said FIRs had been filed in the case of earlier events of similar nature. He said two communities “who are at loggerheads with each other” were both holding such events. The State had taken action in the past without any communal bias. He said preventive action against untoward statements being made in the Roorkee event were under way. “We do not know what they will say in their speeches... But we are taking steps... Your Lordships may have faith in us,” the lawyer said. “There is no problem of trust... The doctrine of trust is applicable 24x7. But we want action and we want to see you take corrective measures and not explain yourselves here in court,” Justice Khanwilkar responded.The Uttarakhand lawyers said the “community he (Mr. Sibal) is trying to protect is also holding events”. “This is not the way you (State of Uttarakhand) present yourself here... And if you are so confident about yourself, we will hold your Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Inspector­General concerned responsible,” Justice Khanwilkar said. The court ordered the Himachal Pradesh Home Secretary to file an affidavit by May 7 on the action taken, in terms of the Supreme Court judgments, against those responsible for making hate speeches in the State. The court further recorded the statements of the Uttarakhand counsel that the State authorities were “more than confident” that no untoward statements would be made in the Roorkee event. The court directed the Uttarakhand Chief Secretary to file a report stating the corrective measures which were taken before the next date of hearing on May 9.Q. It proposed amendment to Section 153 C of IPC (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity), punishable by five years. Tell the name of the Committee ______a)Viswanathan Committee 2019b)Lodha Committee 2015c)P. Vasudevan 2020d)Bezbaruah CommitteeCorrect 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 Counsel for Uttarakhand said FIRs had been filed in the case of earlier events of similar nature. He said two communities “who are at loggerheads with each other” were both holding such events. The State had taken action in the past without any communal bias. He said preventive action against untoward statements being made in the Roorkee event were under way. “We do not know what they will say in their speeches... But we are taking steps... Your Lordships may have faith in us,” the lawyer said. “There is no problem of trust... The doctrine of trust is applicable 24x7. But we want action and we want to see you take corrective measures and not explain yourselves here in court,” Justice Khanwilkar responded.The Uttarakhand lawyers said the “community he (Mr. Sibal) is trying to protect is also holding events”. “This is not the way you (State of Uttarakhand) present yourself here... And if you are so confident about yourself, we will hold your Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Inspector­General concerned responsible,” Justice Khanwilkar said. The court ordered the Himachal Pradesh Home Secretary to file an affidavit by May 7 on the action taken, in terms of the Supreme Court judgments, against those responsible for making hate speeches in the State. The court further recorded the statements of the Uttarakhand counsel that the State authorities were “more than confident” that no untoward statements would be made in the Roorkee event. The court directed the Uttarakhand Chief Secretary to file a report stating the corrective measures which were taken before the next date of hearing on May 9.Q. It proposed amendment to Section 153 C of IPC (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity), punishable by five years. Tell the name of the Committee ______a)Viswanathan Committee 2019b)Lodha Committee 2015c)P. Vasudevan 2020d)Bezbaruah CommitteeCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Counsel for Uttarakhand said FIRs had been filed in the case of earlier events of similar nature. He said two communities “who are at loggerheads with each other” were both holding such events. The State had taken action in the past without any communal bias. He said preventive action against untoward statements being made in the Roorkee event were under way. “We do not know what they will say in their speeches... But we are taking steps... Your Lordships may have faith in us,” the lawyer said. “There is no problem of trust... The doctrine of trust is applicable 24x7. But we want action and we want to see you take corrective measures and not explain yourselves here in court,” Justice Khanwilkar responded.The Uttarakhand lawyers said the “community he (Mr. Sibal) is trying to protect is also holding events”. “This is not the way you (State of Uttarakhand) present yourself here... And if you are so confident about yourself, we will hold your Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Inspector­General concerned responsible,” Justice Khanwilkar said. The court ordered the Himachal Pradesh Home Secretary to file an affidavit by May 7 on the action taken, in terms of the Supreme Court judgments, against those responsible for making hate speeches in the State. The court further recorded the statements of the Uttarakhand counsel that the State authorities were “more than confident” that no untoward statements would be made in the Roorkee event. The court directed the Uttarakhand Chief Secretary to file a report stating the corrective measures which were taken before the next date of hearing on May 9.Q. It proposed amendment to Section 153 C of IPC (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity), punishable by five years. Tell the name of the Committee ______a)Viswanathan Committee 2019b)Lodha Committee 2015c)P. Vasudevan 2020d)Bezbaruah CommitteeCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Counsel for Uttarakhand said FIRs had been filed in the case of earlier events of similar nature. He said two communities “who are at loggerheads with each other” were both holding such events. The State had taken action in the past without any communal bias. He said preventive action against untoward statements being made in the Roorkee event were under way. “We do not know what they will say in their speeches... But we are taking steps... Your Lordships may have faith in us,” the lawyer said. “There is no problem of trust... The doctrine of trust is applicable 24x7. But we want action and we want to see you take corrective measures and not explain yourselves here in court,” Justice Khanwilkar responded.The Uttarakhand lawyers said the “community he (Mr. Sibal) is trying to protect is also holding events”. “This is not the way you (State of Uttarakhand) present yourself here... And if you are so confident about yourself, we will hold your Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Inspector­General concerned responsible,” Justice Khanwilkar said. The court ordered the Himachal Pradesh Home Secretary to file an affidavit by May 7 on the action taken, in terms of the Supreme Court judgments, against those responsible for making hate speeches in the State. The court further recorded the statements of the Uttarakhand counsel that the State authorities were “more than confident” that no untoward statements would be made in the Roorkee event. The court directed the Uttarakhand Chief Secretary to file a report stating the corrective measures which were taken before the next date of hearing on May 9.Q. It proposed amendment to Section 153 C of IPC (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity), punishable by five years. Tell the name of the Committee ______a)Viswanathan Committee 2019b)Lodha Committee 2015c)P. Vasudevan 2020d)Bezbaruah CommitteeCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Counsel for Uttarakhand said FIRs had been filed in the case of earlier events of similar nature. He said two communities “who are at loggerheads with each other” were both holding such events. The State had taken action in the past without any communal bias. He said preventive action against untoward statements being made in the Roorkee event were under way. “We do not know what they will say in their speeches... But we are taking steps... Your Lordships may have faith in us,” the lawyer said. “There is no problem of trust... The doctrine of trust is applicable 24x7. But we want action and we want to see you take corrective measures and not explain yourselves here in court,” Justice Khanwilkar responded.The Uttarakhand lawyers said the “community he (Mr. Sibal) is trying to protect is also holding events”. “This is not the way you (State of Uttarakhand) present yourself here... And if you are so confident about yourself, we will hold your Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Inspector­General concerned responsible,” Justice Khanwilkar said. The court ordered the Himachal Pradesh Home Secretary to file an affidavit by May 7 on the action taken, in terms of the Supreme Court judgments, against those responsible for making hate speeches in the State. The court further recorded the statements of the Uttarakhand counsel that the State authorities were “more than confident” that no untoward statements would be made in the Roorkee event. The court directed the Uttarakhand Chief Secretary to file a report stating the corrective measures which were taken before the next date of hearing on May 9.Q. It proposed amendment to Section 153 C of IPC (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity), punishable by five years. Tell the name of the Committee ______a)Viswanathan Committee 2019b)Lodha Committee 2015c)P. Vasudevan 2020d)Bezbaruah CommitteeCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Counsel for Uttarakhand said FIRs had been filed in the case of earlier events of similar nature. He said two communities “who are at loggerheads with each other” were both holding such events. The State had taken action in the past without any communal bias. He said preventive action against untoward statements being made in the Roorkee event were under way. “We do not know what they will say in their speeches... But we are taking steps... Your Lordships may have faith in us,” the lawyer said. “There is no problem of trust... The doctrine of trust is applicable 24x7. But we want action and we want to see you take corrective measures and not explain yourselves here in court,” Justice Khanwilkar responded.The Uttarakhand lawyers said the “community he (Mr. Sibal) is trying to protect is also holding events”. “This is not the way you (State of Uttarakhand) present yourself here... And if you are so confident about yourself, we will hold your Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Inspector­General concerned responsible,” Justice Khanwilkar said. The court ordered the Himachal Pradesh Home Secretary to file an affidavit by May 7 on the action taken, in terms of the Supreme Court judgments, against those responsible for making hate speeches in the State. The court further recorded the statements of the Uttarakhand counsel that the State authorities were “more than confident” that no untoward statements would be made in the Roorkee event. The court directed the Uttarakhand Chief Secretary to file a report stating the corrective measures which were taken before the next date of hearing on May 9.Q. It proposed amendment to Section 153 C of IPC (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity), punishable by five years. Tell the name of the Committee ______a)Viswanathan Committee 2019b)Lodha Committee 2015c)P. Vasudevan 2020d)Bezbaruah CommitteeCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.