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. 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:a)Facepalm need not to enforce the order unless the order has been communicated to it.b)Facepalm is a web platform. It is impossible to check every information floating on it.c)Facepalm only has to follow the order when there is a structural transformation of judicial set up.d)Facepalm has to strictly adhere to the Court order irrespective of communication in order to safeguard Mansfield reputation.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. 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:a)Facepalm need not to enforce the order unless the order has been communicated to it.b)Facepalm is a web platform. It is impossible to check every information floating on it.c)Facepalm only has to follow the order when there is a structural transformation of judicial set up.d)Facepalm has to strictly adhere to the Court order irrespective of communication in order to safeguard Mansfield reputation.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. 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:a)Facepalm need not to enforce the order unless the order has been communicated to it.b)Facepalm is a web platform. It is impossible to check every information floating on it.c)Facepalm only has to follow the order when there is a structural transformation of judicial set up.d)Facepalm has to strictly adhere to the Court order irrespective of communication in order to safeguard Mansfield reputation.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. 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:a)Facepalm need not to enforce the order unless the order has been communicated to it.b)Facepalm is a web platform. It is impossible to check every information floating on it.c)Facepalm only has to follow the order when there is a structural transformation of judicial set up.d)Facepalm has to strictly adhere to the Court order irrespective of communication in order to safeguard Mansfield reputation.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of 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:a)Facepalm need not to enforce the order unless the order has been communicated to it.b)Facepalm is a web platform. It is impossible to check every information floating on it.c)Facepalm only has to follow the order when there is a structural transformation of judicial set up.d)Facepalm has to strictly adhere to the Court order irrespective of communication in order to safeguard Mansfield reputation.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. 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:a)Facepalm need not to enforce the order unless the order has been communicated to it.b)Facepalm is a web platform. It is impossible to check every information floating on it.c)Facepalm only has to follow the order when there is a structural transformation of judicial set up.d)Facepalm has to strictly adhere to the Court order irrespective of communication in order to safeguard Mansfield reputation.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. 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:a)Facepalm need not to enforce the order unless the order has been communicated to it.b)Facepalm is a web platform. It is impossible to check every information floating on it.c)Facepalm only has to follow the order when there is a structural transformation of judicial set up.d)Facepalm has to strictly adhere to the Court order irrespective of communication in order to safeguard Mansfield reputation.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. 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:a)Facepalm need not to enforce the order unless the order has been communicated to it.b)Facepalm is a web platform. It is impossible to check every information floating on it.c)Facepalm only has to follow the order when there is a structural transformation of judicial set up.d)Facepalm has to strictly adhere to the Court order irrespective of communication in order to safeguard Mansfield reputation.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. 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:a)Facepalm need not to enforce the order unless the order has been communicated to it.b)Facepalm is a web platform. It is impossible to check every information floating on it.c)Facepalm only has to follow the order when there is a structural transformation of judicial set up.d)Facepalm has to strictly adhere to the Court order irrespective of communication in order to safeguard Mansfield reputation.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.