All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Secti... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.
Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?
From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.
In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.
We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.
Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.
Q. It is commonly observed that even after a law is declared unconstitutional, law remains a part of statute repository published on India Code. Based on the author's reasoning, which of the following would be most correct:
  • a)
    Retention of unconstitutional laws on official books will help in robust enforcement of law.
  • b)
    Law must not be wiped off because it will erase the legal history.
  • c)
    Retention of unconstitutional laws will hinder the rights and cost the exchequers.
  • d)
    Retention of unconstitutional penal laws is a guarantee towards the rule of law rather than rule of men.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information...

Retention of unconstitutional laws will hinder the rights and cost the exchequers

Retention of Unconstitutional Laws:
- Even after a law is declared unconstitutional, it remains a part of the statute repository published on India Code.
- This means that the law continues to exist in official records, despite being deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

Hindering Rights and Costing the Exchequers:
- By retaining unconstitutional laws on official books, it hinders the rights of individuals who may still be wrongly prosecuted under such laws.
- The enforcement of these unconstitutional laws can lead to violations of fundamental rights, such as the right to life and personal liberty.
- Moreover, the enforcement of such laws is a waste of public resources and taxpayer money, as it leads to unnecessary legal proceedings and incarcerations.

Addressing the Issue:
- It is crucial to remove unconstitutional laws from official records to prevent their misuse and protect the rights of individuals.
- Proper mechanisms should be established to ensure that judicial decisions declaring laws unconstitutional are effectively communicated and implemented throughout the legal system.
- This will not only prevent injustices caused by the enforcement of unconstitutional laws but also uphold the rule of law and the principles of justice and equality.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information...
Correct Answer is (c)
Option c is the most appropriate choice consistent with reasoning of the author. In the fourth paragraph of the passage, where the author says "enforcing unconstitutional laws is a sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights."
Incorrect AnswersChoice (a), Choice (b) & Choice (d) - There is nothing in the passage to support any of the options. The author offers no such reason.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.Q. Which of the following views can be correctly attributed to the author of the above passage?

In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.Q. Ignorance of law is no excuse is a well-entrenched principle in the legal system. Considering the essence of the passage, is the arrest of Tyagi consistent with the law?

In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.Q. A Bill is introduced in the Parliament obliging the Constitutional Courts and the Superior Judiciary to issue circulars to subordinate courts apprising about the recent orders and judgments. In such a situation, according to the author

In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.Q. Mansfield has filed a defamation suit against the Facepalm Inc, a social media platform. The allegation of the Mansfield is that various defamatory remarks and information including videos are being disseminated over the Facepalm Inc., The allegations contained in the videos, which have been uploaded on the Facepalm are in fact defamatory allegations.There was a court order restraining Facepalm from publishing the alleged information without deleting the offending portions. Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above

The demand for speedy retributive justice in the recent heinous crime done against a veterinarian has brought into light the question of extra-constitutional killings. The public sentiments, political demand of public lynching of rapists inter-alia have raised the debate whether a democratic country should follow the constitutional norms and adhere to the due process of law or shall it adopt the measures of retributive justice to bring instant and speedy justice to the victim.Retributive justice is a system of criminal justice based on thepunishment of offenders rather than on rehabilitation where as in REFORMATIVE THEORY the object of punishment should be the reform of the criminal, through the method of individualization. It is based on the humanistic principle that even if an offender commits a crime, he does not cease to be a human being.From protests on the ground, to the commentary on social media, to MPs in Parliament, the demand for the instant killing of the accused from all corners created the public opinion for theabandonment of the rule of lawthat appears to have led to the incident.Justice in any civilised society is not just about retribution, but also about deterrence, and in less serious crimes,rehabilitationof the offenders.There is a procedure prescribed by the law for criminal investigation which is embedded in constitutional principles.Article21of the Constitution (which is fundamental and non-derogabl e) states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.Also in theSalwa Judum case in 2011a core constitutional precept was set out that in modern constitutionalism no wielder of power can be allowed to claim the right to perpetrate state’s violence against anyone. This is also the touchstone of the constitutionally prescribed rule of law(Article 14).Hence,it is the responsibility of the police, being the officers of government, to follow the Constitutional principles and uphold the Right to Lifeof every individual whether an innocent one or a criminal.According toDr. B.R. Ambedkar,the pathways of justice are not linear nor without obstacles. But we have, as a people, chosen the route of democracy and the Constitution, so we really have no option but to school ourselves in constitutional morality that with time must replace public moralityQ.What does the author mean by Retributive Justice?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.Q. It is commonly observed that even after a law is declared unconstitutional, law remains a part of statute repository published on India Code. Based on the author's reasoning, which of the following would be most correct:a)Retention of unconstitutional laws on official books will help in robust enforcement of law.b)Law must not be wiped off because it will erase the legal history.c)Retention of unconstitutional laws will hinder the rights and cost the exchequers.d)Retention of unconstitutional penal laws is a guarantee towards the rule of law rather than rule of men.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.Q. It is commonly observed that even after a law is declared unconstitutional, law remains a part of statute repository published on India Code. Based on the author's reasoning, which of the following would be most correct:a)Retention of unconstitutional laws on official books will help in robust enforcement of law.b)Law must not be wiped off because it will erase the legal history.c)Retention of unconstitutional laws will hinder the rights and cost the exchequers.d)Retention of unconstitutional penal laws is a guarantee towards the rule of law rather than rule of men.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 In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.Q. It is commonly observed that even after a law is declared unconstitutional, law remains a part of statute repository published on India Code. Based on the author's reasoning, which of the following would be most correct:a)Retention of unconstitutional laws on official books will help in robust enforcement of law.b)Law must not be wiped off because it will erase the legal history.c)Retention of unconstitutional laws will hinder the rights and cost the exchequers.d)Retention of unconstitutional penal laws is a guarantee towards the rule of law rather than rule of men.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 In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.Q. It is commonly observed that even after a law is declared unconstitutional, law remains a part of statute repository published on India Code. Based on the author's reasoning, which of the following would be most correct:a)Retention of unconstitutional laws on official books will help in robust enforcement of law.b)Law must not be wiped off because it will erase the legal history.c)Retention of unconstitutional laws will hinder the rights and cost the exchequers.d)Retention of unconstitutional penal laws is a guarantee towards the rule of law rather than rule of men.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.Q. It is commonly observed that even after a law is declared unconstitutional, law remains a part of statute repository published on India Code. Based on the author's reasoning, which of the following would be most correct:a)Retention of unconstitutional laws on official books will help in robust enforcement of law.b)Law must not be wiped off because it will erase the legal history.c)Retention of unconstitutional laws will hinder the rights and cost the exchequers.d)Retention of unconstitutional penal laws is a guarantee towards the rule of law rather than rule of men.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 In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.Q. It is commonly observed that even after a law is declared unconstitutional, law remains a part of statute repository published on India Code. Based on the author's reasoning, which of the following would be most correct:a)Retention of unconstitutional laws on official books will help in robust enforcement of law.b)Law must not be wiped off because it will erase the legal history.c)Retention of unconstitutional laws will hinder the rights and cost the exchequers.d)Retention of unconstitutional penal laws is a guarantee towards the rule of law rather than rule of men.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.Q. It is commonly observed that even after a law is declared unconstitutional, law remains a part of statute repository published on India Code. Based on the author's reasoning, which of the following would be most correct:a)Retention of unconstitutional laws on official books will help in robust enforcement of law.b)Law must not be wiped off because it will erase the legal history.c)Retention of unconstitutional laws will hinder the rights and cost the exchequers.d)Retention of unconstitutional penal laws is a guarantee towards the rule of law rather than rule of men.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.Q. It is commonly observed that even after a law is declared unconstitutional, law remains a part of statute repository published on India Code. Based on the author's reasoning, which of the following would be most correct:a)Retention of unconstitutional laws on official books will help in robust enforcement of law.b)Law must not be wiped off because it will erase the legal history.c)Retention of unconstitutional laws will hinder the rights and cost the exchequers.d)Retention of unconstitutional penal laws is a guarantee towards the rule of law rather than rule of men.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.Q. It is commonly observed that even after a law is declared unconstitutional, law remains a part of statute repository published on India Code. Based on the author's reasoning, which of the following would be most correct:a)Retention of unconstitutional laws on official books will help in robust enforcement of law.b)Law must not be wiped off because it will erase the legal history.c)Retention of unconstitutional laws will hinder the rights and cost the exchequers.d)Retention of unconstitutional penal laws is a guarantee towards the rule of law rather than rule of men.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.Q. It is commonly observed that even after a law is declared unconstitutional, law remains a part of statute repository published on India Code. Based on the author's reasoning, which of the following would be most correct:a)Retention of unconstitutional laws on official books will help in robust enforcement of law.b)Law must not be wiped off because it will erase the legal history.c)Retention of unconstitutional laws will hinder the rights and cost the exchequers.d)Retention of unconstitutional penal laws is a guarantee towards the rule of law rather than rule of men.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup