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  >   Directions: Read the following passage and a... Start Learning for Free
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
To deal with sexual assaults and exploitation over children, the government has established special law, POCSO Act,2012.The said Act sanctions every recognised offences of sexual abuse against children by prescribing stringent punishment keeping in mind the gravity of the offence.
The POCSO Amendment Act,2019 was enacted to enhance the punishment up to the death penalty and to curb child pornography. However, the amendment seems to be arbitrary and vague.
Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, which was inserted by the POCSO Amendment Act of 2019 provides for a classification that is unreasonable and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 provides for the "equal protection of laws". It prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification of persons or things. The classic nexus test as outlined in the Anwar Ali Sarkar case is;
"To pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled viz.
(I) That the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and
(II) That the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them."
Before the POCSO Act was passed in 2019 the punishment for committing penetrative sexual assault as per POCSO Act 2012 was from seven years imprisonment till life and also fine. The Act of 2019 increased the minimum term of punishment from 'seven' to 'ten' years.
Now, the new amendment provides punishment for the offenders who commit penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age. By inserting this, the legislature makes a classification between a child who is below sixteen years of age and a child who is above the age of sixteen, but below eighteen. However, the legislature has defined a "child" as 'any person below the age of eighteen years', for this Act. Thus, the above classification should be a reasonable classification since it has been made within the same group, i.e., 'children'.
There can be no intelligible differentia in this classification. The differentia in this classification is vague, since there is an uncertainty in determining the age of maturity factor. It is to be noted that the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act.
This classification gives way for the thought that raping a child below sixteen years is a graver offence, whereas on the other hand raping a child of sixteen or seventeen years of age, who may have the same maturity as some children belonging to the other class is not considered to be a graver offence. This classification thus, is unreasonable and hence violative of Article 14.
Section 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act provides for the provisions regarding sexual harassment and punishment therefore. Section 11 states as "A person is said to commit sexual harassment of a child when such person with sexual intent..." Also, it has been provided that any question which involves "sexual intent" shall be a question of fact. It is an ascertained fact that the question involving intention is very difficult to prove before the Court of law. Also, there arises a question whether an offender performs the acts listed in Section 11 without sexual intention, will it not amount to sexual harassment? Even Section 354 A of the Indian Penal Code, which describes Sexual Harassment does not use the term "sexual intent", since it is not a mandatory requirement for committing sexual harassment. Thus, the term sexual intent creates a loophole in Section 11 of the Act, which will favour the offenders.
Q. What is the view author is trying to attribute in this paragraph ?
  • a)
    The death penalty should not be given in such cases and hence the new amendment is unconstitutional.
  • b)
    The differentia created by the new amendment, is not in conformity with the rules laid down in Anwar Ali Sarkar case.
  • c)
    The new amendment is somehow unfair to the accused as the punishment is arbitrary in relation to the offense.
  • d)
    The bill affects the right of employment of the children employed in Prostitution.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CLAT doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.To dea...
According to question,
The, differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them.
Hence, the correct answer is The differentia created by the new amendment, is not in conformity with the rules laid down in Anwar Ali Sarkar case.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Article 14 of the Indian constitution provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws in the Territory of India. Article 14 uses two expressions 'equality before law', which implies the absence of any special privileges in favour of individuals and the subject of all classes to the ordinary law, and 'equal protection of the law,' which implies equal treatment in equal circumstances.'Equality before law' means that among equals, the law should be equal and should be equally administered, that like should be treated alike. The right to sue and be sued, to prosecute and be prosecuted for the same kind of action should be same for all. Article 14 permits classification but prohibits class legislation. Class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring particular privileges upon a class of person arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons. Article 14 does not forbid reasonable classification of persons for the purpose of achieving specific ends, but the classification should be reasonable.Article 15 of the Constitution of India states:Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth–1. The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, place of residence or any of them.2. No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to:(

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens certain fundamental freedoms, which are recognized as their fundamental rights. However, these fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India are not absolute as no right can be. Each of these fundamental rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by the Parliament or the State Legislatures. Accordingly, the Constitution of India lays down the grounds and the purposes for which a legislature can impose reasonable restrictions on the rights guaranteed to citizens. The State cannot travel beyond the contours of these reasonable restrictions in curbing the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. While determining the constitutional validity of a restriction imposed on a fundamental right by a legislation, the Court is not concerned with the necessity of the restriction or the wisdom of the policy underlying it, but only whether the restriction is in excess of the requirement, and whether the legislature has overstepped the Constitutional limitations. Two of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of India are- the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the right to reside and settle in any part of India. However, the State may impose reasonable restrictions on these rights by law, in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled tribes.Q.A group of Indian students of XYZ University located in New Delhi, India posted on social networking sites that they would hold a demonstration outside the university campus, protesting against a recently passed law which made it compulsory for university students to wear uniforms while attending classes. The students further threatened to use whatever means necessary to stop the oppression of students. Therefore, the State Authorities placed barricades around the university campus in order to restrict movement of the students carrying out the demonstration and ensuring that the demonstration does not turn violent. In the given situation, which of the following statements is correct regarding the act of placing of barricades by State Authorities?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. A person approached the Supreme Court contending that a law passed by the Parliament takes away his fundamental right and prayed that the Court must stay the operation of law at first instance and then he would move forward to prove that law is unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights of the petitioner. Decide.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. Based on the arguments advanced in the first paragraph of the passage, if any legislation is challenged before the court, what is the best course of action that courts can take?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens certain fundamental freedoms, which are recognized as their fundamental rights. However, these fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India are not absolute as no right can be. Each of these fundamental rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by the Parliament or the State Legislatures. Accordingly, the Constitution of India lays down the grounds and the purposes for which a legislature can impose reasonable restrictions on the rights guaranteed to citizens. The State cannot travel beyond the contours of these reasonable restrictions in curbing the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. While determining the constitutional validity of a restriction imposed on a fundamental right by a legislation, the Court is not concerned with the necessity of the restriction or the wisdom of the policy underlying it, but only whether the restriction is in excess of the requirement, and whether the legislature has overstepped the Constitutional limitations. Two of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of India are- the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the right to reside and settle in any part of India. However, the State may impose reasonable restrictions on these rights by law, in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled tribes.Q.The appropriate authority in a State passed an externment order against Mr. A, a citizen of India. The externment order prohibited Mr. A, from residing within the State, from the date specified in such order. The externment order was passed by virtue of powers conferred on the appropriate authority by law, and the constitutional validity of this law had been upheld by the Supreme Court of India. The externment order was passed on the ground that Mr. A was found to be frequently engaged in illegal business of narcotic drugs and was also involved in several cases of riot and criminal intimidation. In the given situation, which of the following statements is correct regarding the externment order?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.To deal with sexual assaults and exploitation over children, the government has established special law, POCSO Act,2012.The said Act sanctions every recognised offences of sexual abuse against children by prescribing stringent punishment keeping in mind the gravity of the offence.The POCSO Amendment Act,2019 was enacted to enhance the punishment up to the death penalty and to curb child pornography. However, the amendment seems to be arbitrary and vague.Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, which was inserted by the POCSO Amendment Act of 2019 provides for a classification that is unreasonable and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 provides for the "equal protection of laws". It prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification of persons or things. The classic nexus test as outlined in the Anwar Ali Sarkar case is;"To pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled viz.(I) That the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and(II) That the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them."Before the POCSO Act was passed in 2019 the punishment for committing penetrative sexual assault as per POCSO Act 2012 was from seven years imprisonment till life and also fine. The Act of 2019 increased the minimum term of punishment from 'seven' to 'ten' years.Now, the new amendment provides punishment for the offenders who commit penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age. By inserting this, the legislature makes a classification between a child who is below sixteen years of age and a child who is above the age of sixteen, but below eighteen. However, the legislature has defined a "child" as 'any person below the age of eighteen years', for this Act. Thus, the above classification should be a reasonable classification since it has been made within the same group, i.e., 'children'.There can be no intelligible differentia in this classification. The differentia in this classification is vague, since there is an uncertainty in determining the age of maturity factor. It is to be noted that the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act.This classification gives way for the thought that raping a child below sixteen years is a graver offence, whereas on the other hand raping a child of sixteen or seventeen years of age, who may have the same maturity as some children belonging to the other class is not considered to be a graver offence. This classification thus, is unreasonable and hence violative of Article 14.Section 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act provides for the provisions regarding sexual harassment and punishment therefore. Section 11 states as "A person is said to commit sexual harassment of a child when such person with sexual intent..." Also, it has been provided that any question which involves "sexual intent" shall be a question of fact. It is an ascertained fact that the question involving intention is very difficult to prove before the Court of law. Also, there arises a question whether an offender performs the acts listed in Section 11 without sexual intention, will it not amount to sexual harassment? Even Section 354 A of the Indian Penal Code, which describes Sexual Harassment does not use the term "sexual intent", since it is not a mandatory requirement for committing sexual harassment. Thus, the term sexual intent creates a loophole in Section 11 of the Act, which will favour the offenders.Q. What is the view author is trying to attribute in this paragraph ?a)The death penalty should not be given in such cases and hence the new amendment is unconstitutional.b)The differentia created by the new amendment, is not in conformity with the rules laid down in Anwar Ali Sarkar case.c)The new amendment is somehow unfair to the accused as the punishment is arbitrary in relation to the offense.d)The bill affects the right of employment of the children employed in Prostitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.To deal with sexual assaults and exploitation over children, the government has established special law, POCSO Act,2012.The said Act sanctions every recognised offences of sexual abuse against children by prescribing stringent punishment keeping in mind the gravity of the offence.The POCSO Amendment Act,2019 was enacted to enhance the punishment up to the death penalty and to curb child pornography. However, the amendment seems to be arbitrary and vague.Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, which was inserted by the POCSO Amendment Act of 2019 provides for a classification that is unreasonable and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 provides for the "equal protection of laws". It prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification of persons or things. The classic nexus test as outlined in the Anwar Ali Sarkar case is;"To pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled viz.(I) That the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and(II) That the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them."Before the POCSO Act was passed in 2019 the punishment for committing penetrative sexual assault as per POCSO Act 2012 was from seven years imprisonment till life and also fine. The Act of 2019 increased the minimum term of punishment from 'seven' to 'ten' years.Now, the new amendment provides punishment for the offenders who commit penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age. By inserting this, the legislature makes a classification between a child who is below sixteen years of age and a child who is above the age of sixteen, but below eighteen. However, the legislature has defined a "child" as 'any person below the age of eighteen years', for this Act. Thus, the above classification should be a reasonable classification since it has been made within the same group, i.e., 'children'.There can be no intelligible differentia in this classification. The differentia in this classification is vague, since there is an uncertainty in determining the age of maturity factor. It is to be noted that the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act.This classification gives way for the thought that raping a child below sixteen years is a graver offence, whereas on the other hand raping a child of sixteen or seventeen years of age, who may have the same maturity as some children belonging to the other class is not considered to be a graver offence. This classification thus, is unreasonable and hence violative of Article 14.Section 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act provides for the provisions regarding sexual harassment and punishment therefore. Section 11 states as "A person is said to commit sexual harassment of a child when such person with sexual intent..." Also, it has been provided that any question which involves "sexual intent" shall be a question of fact. It is an ascertained fact that the question involving intention is very difficult to prove before the Court of law. Also, there arises a question whether an offender performs the acts listed in Section 11 without sexual intention, will it not amount to sexual harassment? Even Section 354 A of the Indian Penal Code, which describes Sexual Harassment does not use the term "sexual intent", since it is not a mandatory requirement for committing sexual harassment. Thus, the term sexual intent creates a loophole in Section 11 of the Act, which will favour the offenders.Q. What is the view author is trying to attribute in this paragraph ?a)The death penalty should not be given in such cases and hence the new amendment is unconstitutional.b)The differentia created by the new amendment, is not in conformity with the rules laid down in Anwar Ali Sarkar case.c)The new amendment is somehow unfair to the accused as the punishment is arbitrary in relation to the offense.d)The bill affects the right of employment of the children employed in Prostitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.To deal with sexual assaults and exploitation over children, the government has established special law, POCSO Act,2012.The said Act sanctions every recognised offences of sexual abuse against children by prescribing stringent punishment keeping in mind the gravity of the offence.The POCSO Amendment Act,2019 was enacted to enhance the punishment up to the death penalty and to curb child pornography. However, the amendment seems to be arbitrary and vague.Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, which was inserted by the POCSO Amendment Act of 2019 provides for a classification that is unreasonable and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 provides for the "equal protection of laws". It prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification of persons or things. The classic nexus test as outlined in the Anwar Ali Sarkar case is;"To pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled viz.(I) That the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and(II) That the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them."Before the POCSO Act was passed in 2019 the punishment for committing penetrative sexual assault as per POCSO Act 2012 was from seven years imprisonment till life and also fine. The Act of 2019 increased the minimum term of punishment from 'seven' to 'ten' years.Now, the new amendment provides punishment for the offenders who commit penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age. By inserting this, the legislature makes a classification between a child who is below sixteen years of age and a child who is above the age of sixteen, but below eighteen. However, the legislature has defined a "child" as 'any person below the age of eighteen years', for this Act. Thus, the above classification should be a reasonable classification since it has been made within the same group, i.e., 'children'.There can be no intelligible differentia in this classification. The differentia in this classification is vague, since there is an uncertainty in determining the age of maturity factor. It is to be noted that the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act.This classification gives way for the thought that raping a child below sixteen years is a graver offence, whereas on the other hand raping a child of sixteen or seventeen years of age, who may have the same maturity as some children belonging to the other class is not considered to be a graver offence. This classification thus, is unreasonable and hence violative of Article 14.Section 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act provides for the provisions regarding sexual harassment and punishment therefore. Section 11 states as "A person is said to commit sexual harassment of a child when such person with sexual intent..." Also, it has been provided that any question which involves "sexual intent" shall be a question of fact. It is an ascertained fact that the question involving intention is very difficult to prove before the Court of law. Also, there arises a question whether an offender performs the acts listed in Section 11 without sexual intention, will it not amount to sexual harassment? Even Section 354 A of the Indian Penal Code, which describes Sexual Harassment does not use the term "sexual intent", since it is not a mandatory requirement for committing sexual harassment. Thus, the term sexual intent creates a loophole in Section 11 of the Act, which will favour the offenders.Q. What is the view author is trying to attribute in this paragraph ?a)The death penalty should not be given in such cases and hence the new amendment is unconstitutional.b)The differentia created by the new amendment, is not in conformity with the rules laid down in Anwar Ali Sarkar case.c)The new amendment is somehow unfair to the accused as the punishment is arbitrary in relation to the offense.d)The bill affects the right of employment of the children employed in Prostitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.To deal with sexual assaults and exploitation over children, the government has established special law, POCSO Act,2012.The said Act sanctions every recognised offences of sexual abuse against children by prescribing stringent punishment keeping in mind the gravity of the offence.The POCSO Amendment Act,2019 was enacted to enhance the punishment up to the death penalty and to curb child pornography. However, the amendment seems to be arbitrary and vague.Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, which was inserted by the POCSO Amendment Act of 2019 provides for a classification that is unreasonable and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 provides for the "equal protection of laws". It prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification of persons or things. The classic nexus test as outlined in the Anwar Ali Sarkar case is;"To pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled viz.(I) That the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and(II) That the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them."Before the POCSO Act was passed in 2019 the punishment for committing penetrative sexual assault as per POCSO Act 2012 was from seven years imprisonment till life and also fine. The Act of 2019 increased the minimum term of punishment from 'seven' to 'ten' years.Now, the new amendment provides punishment for the offenders who commit penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age. By inserting this, the legislature makes a classification between a child who is below sixteen years of age and a child who is above the age of sixteen, but below eighteen. However, the legislature has defined a "child" as 'any person below the age of eighteen years', for this Act. Thus, the above classification should be a reasonable classification since it has been made within the same group, i.e., 'children'.There can be no intelligible differentia in this classification. The differentia in this classification is vague, since there is an uncertainty in determining the age of maturity factor. It is to be noted that the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act.This classification gives way for the thought that raping a child below sixteen years is a graver offence, whereas on the other hand raping a child of sixteen or seventeen years of age, who may have the same maturity as some children belonging to the other class is not considered to be a graver offence. This classification thus, is unreasonable and hence violative of Article 14.Section 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act provides for the provisions regarding sexual harassment and punishment therefore. Section 11 states as "A person is said to commit sexual harassment of a child when such person with sexual intent..." Also, it has been provided that any question which involves "sexual intent" shall be a question of fact. It is an ascertained fact that the question involving intention is very difficult to prove before the Court of law. Also, there arises a question whether an offender performs the acts listed in Section 11 without sexual intention, will it not amount to sexual harassment? Even Section 354 A of the Indian Penal Code, which describes Sexual Harassment does not use the term "sexual intent", since it is not a mandatory requirement for committing sexual harassment. Thus, the term sexual intent creates a loophole in Section 11 of the Act, which will favour the offenders.Q. What is the view author is trying to attribute in this paragraph ?a)The death penalty should not be given in such cases and hence the new amendment is unconstitutional.b)The differentia created by the new amendment, is not in conformity with the rules laid down in Anwar Ali Sarkar case.c)The new amendment is somehow unfair to the accused as the punishment is arbitrary in relation to the offense.d)The bill affects the right of employment of the children employed in Prostitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.To deal with sexual assaults and exploitation over children, the government has established special law, POCSO Act,2012.The said Act sanctions every recognised offences of sexual abuse against children by prescribing stringent punishment keeping in mind the gravity of the offence.The POCSO Amendment Act,2019 was enacted to enhance the punishment up to the death penalty and to curb child pornography. However, the amendment seems to be arbitrary and vague.Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, which was inserted by the POCSO Amendment Act of 2019 provides for a classification that is unreasonable and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 provides for the "equal protection of laws". It prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification of persons or things. The classic nexus test as outlined in the Anwar Ali Sarkar case is;"To pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled viz.(I) That the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and(II) That the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them."Before the POCSO Act was passed in 2019 the punishment for committing penetrative sexual assault as per POCSO Act 2012 was from seven years imprisonment till life and also fine. The Act of 2019 increased the minimum term of punishment from 'seven' to 'ten' years.Now, the new amendment provides punishment for the offenders who commit penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age. By inserting this, the legislature makes a classification between a child who is below sixteen years of age and a child who is above the age of sixteen, but below eighteen. However, the legislature has defined a "child" as 'any person below the age of eighteen years', for this Act. Thus, the above classification should be a reasonable classification since it has been made within the same group, i.e., 'children'.There can be no intelligible differentia in this classification. The differentia in this classification is vague, since there is an uncertainty in determining the age of maturity factor. It is to be noted that the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act.This classification gives way for the thought that raping a child below sixteen years is a graver offence, whereas on the other hand raping a child of sixteen or seventeen years of age, who may have the same maturity as some children belonging to the other class is not considered to be a graver offence. This classification thus, is unreasonable and hence violative of Article 14.Section 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act provides for the provisions regarding sexual harassment and punishment therefore. Section 11 states as "A person is said to commit sexual harassment of a child when such person with sexual intent..." Also, it has been provided that any question which involves "sexual intent" shall be a question of fact. It is an ascertained fact that the question involving intention is very difficult to prove before the Court of law. Also, there arises a question whether an offender performs the acts listed in Section 11 without sexual intention, will it not amount to sexual harassment? Even Section 354 A of the Indian Penal Code, which describes Sexual Harassment does not use the term "sexual intent", since it is not a mandatory requirement for committing sexual harassment. Thus, the term sexual intent creates a loophole in Section 11 of the Act, which will favour the offenders.Q. What is the view author is trying to attribute in this paragraph ?a)The death penalty should not be given in such cases and hence the new amendment is unconstitutional.b)The differentia created by the new amendment, is not in conformity with the rules laid down in Anwar Ali Sarkar case.c)The new amendment is somehow unfair to the accused as the punishment is arbitrary in relation to the offense.d)The bill affects the right of employment of the children employed in Prostitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.To deal with sexual assaults and exploitation over children, the government has established special law, POCSO Act,2012.The said Act sanctions every recognised offences of sexual abuse against children by prescribing stringent punishment keeping in mind the gravity of the offence.The POCSO Amendment Act,2019 was enacted to enhance the punishment up to the death penalty and to curb child pornography. However, the amendment seems to be arbitrary and vague.Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, which was inserted by the POCSO Amendment Act of 2019 provides for a classification that is unreasonable and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 provides for the "equal protection of laws". It prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification of persons or things. The classic nexus test as outlined in the Anwar Ali Sarkar case is;"To pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled viz.(I) That the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and(II) That the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them."Before the POCSO Act was passed in 2019 the punishment for committing penetrative sexual assault as per POCSO Act 2012 was from seven years imprisonment till life and also fine. The Act of 2019 increased the minimum term of punishment from 'seven' to 'ten' years.Now, the new amendment provides punishment for the offenders who commit penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age. By inserting this, the legislature makes a classification between a child who is below sixteen years of age and a child who is above the age of sixteen, but below eighteen. However, the legislature has defined a "child" as 'any person below the age of eighteen years', for this Act. Thus, the above classification should be a reasonable classification since it has been made within the same group, i.e., 'children'.There can be no intelligible differentia in this classification. The differentia in this classification is vague, since there is an uncertainty in determining the age of maturity factor. It is to be noted that the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act.This classification gives way for the thought that raping a child below sixteen years is a graver offence, whereas on the other hand raping a child of sixteen or seventeen years of age, who may have the same maturity as some children belonging to the other class is not considered to be a graver offence. This classification thus, is unreasonable and hence violative of Article 14.Section 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act provides for the provisions regarding sexual harassment and punishment therefore. Section 11 states as "A person is said to commit sexual harassment of a child when such person with sexual intent..." Also, it has been provided that any question which involves "sexual intent" shall be a question of fact. It is an ascertained fact that the question involving intention is very difficult to prove before the Court of law. Also, there arises a question whether an offender performs the acts listed in Section 11 without sexual intention, will it not amount to sexual harassment? Even Section 354 A of the Indian Penal Code, which describes Sexual Harassment does not use the term "sexual intent", since it is not a mandatory requirement for committing sexual harassment. Thus, the term sexual intent creates a loophole in Section 11 of the Act, which will favour the offenders.Q. What is the view author is trying to attribute in this paragraph ?a)The death penalty should not be given in such cases and hence the new amendment is unconstitutional.b)The differentia created by the new amendment, is not in conformity with the rules laid down in Anwar Ali Sarkar case.c)The new amendment is somehow unfair to the accused as the punishment is arbitrary in relation to the offense.d)The bill affects the right of employment of the children employed in Prostitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.To deal with sexual assaults and exploitation over children, the government has established special law, POCSO Act,2012.The said Act sanctions every recognised offences of sexual abuse against children by prescribing stringent punishment keeping in mind the gravity of the offence.The POCSO Amendment Act,2019 was enacted to enhance the punishment up to the death penalty and to curb child pornography. However, the amendment seems to be arbitrary and vague.Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, which was inserted by the POCSO Amendment Act of 2019 provides for a classification that is unreasonable and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 provides for the "equal protection of laws". It prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification of persons or things. The classic nexus test as outlined in the Anwar Ali Sarkar case is;"To pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled viz.(I) That the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and(II) That the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them."Before the POCSO Act was passed in 2019 the punishment for committing penetrative sexual assault as per POCSO Act 2012 was from seven years imprisonment till life and also fine. The Act of 2019 increased the minimum term of punishment from 'seven' to 'ten' years.Now, the new amendment provides punishment for the offenders who commit penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age. By inserting this, the legislature makes a classification between a child who is below sixteen years of age and a child who is above the age of sixteen, but below eighteen. However, the legislature has defined a "child" as 'any person below the age of eighteen years', for this Act. Thus, the above classification should be a reasonable classification since it has been made within the same group, i.e., 'children'.There can be no intelligible differentia in this classification. The differentia in this classification is vague, since there is an uncertainty in determining the age of maturity factor. It is to be noted that the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act.This classification gives way for the thought that raping a child below sixteen years is a graver offence, whereas on the other hand raping a child of sixteen or seventeen years of age, who may have the same maturity as some children belonging to the other class is not considered to be a graver offence. This classification thus, is unreasonable and hence violative of Article 14.Section 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act provides for the provisions regarding sexual harassment and punishment therefore. Section 11 states as "A person is said to commit sexual harassment of a child when such person with sexual intent..." Also, it has been provided that any question which involves "sexual intent" shall be a question of fact. It is an ascertained fact that the question involving intention is very difficult to prove before the Court of law. Also, there arises a question whether an offender performs the acts listed in Section 11 without sexual intention, will it not amount to sexual harassment? Even Section 354 A of the Indian Penal Code, which describes Sexual Harassment does not use the term "sexual intent", since it is not a mandatory requirement for committing sexual harassment. Thus, the term sexual intent creates a loophole in Section 11 of the Act, which will favour the offenders.Q. What is the view author is trying to attribute in this paragraph ?a)The death penalty should not be given in such cases and hence the new amendment is unconstitutional.b)The differentia created by the new amendment, is not in conformity with the rules laid down in Anwar Ali Sarkar case.c)The new amendment is somehow unfair to the accused as the punishment is arbitrary in relation to the offense.d)The bill affects the right of employment of the children employed in Prostitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.To deal with sexual assaults and exploitation over children, the government has established special law, POCSO Act,2012.The said Act sanctions every recognised offences of sexual abuse against children by prescribing stringent punishment keeping in mind the gravity of the offence.The POCSO Amendment Act,2019 was enacted to enhance the punishment up to the death penalty and to curb child pornography. However, the amendment seems to be arbitrary and vague.Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, which was inserted by the POCSO Amendment Act of 2019 provides for a classification that is unreasonable and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 provides for the "equal protection of laws". It prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification of persons or things. The classic nexus test as outlined in the Anwar Ali Sarkar case is;"To pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled viz.(I) That the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and(II) That the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them."Before the POCSO Act was passed in 2019 the punishment for committing penetrative sexual assault as per POCSO Act 2012 was from seven years imprisonment till life and also fine. The Act of 2019 increased the minimum term of punishment from 'seven' to 'ten' years.Now, the new amendment provides punishment for the offenders who commit penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age. By inserting this, the legislature makes a classification between a child who is below sixteen years of age and a child who is above the age of sixteen, but below eighteen. However, the legislature has defined a "child" as 'any person below the age of eighteen years', for this Act. Thus, the above classification should be a reasonable classification since it has been made within the same group, i.e., 'children'.There can be no intelligible differentia in this classification. The differentia in this classification is vague, since there is an uncertainty in determining the age of maturity factor. It is to be noted that the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act.This classification gives way for the thought that raping a child below sixteen years is a graver offence, whereas on the other hand raping a child of sixteen or seventeen years of age, who may have the same maturity as some children belonging to the other class is not considered to be a graver offence. This classification thus, is unreasonable and hence violative of Article 14.Section 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act provides for the provisions regarding sexual harassment and punishment therefore. Section 11 states as "A person is said to commit sexual harassment of a child when such person with sexual intent..." Also, it has been provided that any question which involves "sexual intent" shall be a question of fact. It is an ascertained fact that the question involving intention is very difficult to prove before the Court of law. Also, there arises a question whether an offender performs the acts listed in Section 11 without sexual intention, will it not amount to sexual harassment? Even Section 354 A of the Indian Penal Code, which describes Sexual Harassment does not use the term "sexual intent", since it is not a mandatory requirement for committing sexual harassment. Thus, the term sexual intent creates a loophole in Section 11 of the Act, which will favour the offenders.Q. What is the view author is trying to attribute in this paragraph ?a)The death penalty should not be given in such cases and hence the new amendment is unconstitutional.b)The differentia created by the new amendment, is not in conformity with the rules laid down in Anwar Ali Sarkar case.c)The new amendment is somehow unfair to the accused as the punishment is arbitrary in relation to the offense.d)The bill affects the right of employment of the children employed in Prostitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.To deal with sexual assaults and exploitation over children, the government has established special law, POCSO Act,2012.The said Act sanctions every recognised offences of sexual abuse against children by prescribing stringent punishment keeping in mind the gravity of the offence.The POCSO Amendment Act,2019 was enacted to enhance the punishment up to the death penalty and to curb child pornography. However, the amendment seems to be arbitrary and vague.Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, which was inserted by the POCSO Amendment Act of 2019 provides for a classification that is unreasonable and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 provides for the "equal protection of laws". It prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification of persons or things. The classic nexus test as outlined in the Anwar Ali Sarkar case is;"To pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled viz.(I) That the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and(II) That the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them."Before the POCSO Act was passed in 2019 the punishment for committing penetrative sexual assault as per POCSO Act 2012 was from seven years imprisonment till life and also fine. The Act of 2019 increased the minimum term of punishment from 'seven' to 'ten' years.Now, the new amendment provides punishment for the offenders who commit penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age. By inserting this, the legislature makes a classification between a child who is below sixteen years of age and a child who is above the age of sixteen, but below eighteen. However, the legislature has defined a "child" as 'any person below the age of eighteen years', for this Act. Thus, the above classification should be a reasonable classification since it has been made within the same group, i.e., 'children'.There can be no intelligible differentia in this classification. The differentia in this classification is vague, since there is an uncertainty in determining the age of maturity factor. It is to be noted that the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act.This classification gives way for the thought that raping a child below sixteen years is a graver offence, whereas on the other hand raping a child of sixteen or seventeen years of age, who may have the same maturity as some children belonging to the other class is not considered to be a graver offence. This classification thus, is unreasonable and hence violative of Article 14.Section 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act provides for the provisions regarding sexual harassment and punishment therefore. Section 11 states as "A person is said to commit sexual harassment of a child when such person with sexual intent..." Also, it has been provided that any question which involves "sexual intent" shall be a question of fact. It is an ascertained fact that the question involving intention is very difficult to prove before the Court of law. Also, there arises a question whether an offender performs the acts listed in Section 11 without sexual intention, will it not amount to sexual harassment? Even Section 354 A of the Indian Penal Code, which describes Sexual Harassment does not use the term "sexual intent", since it is not a mandatory requirement for committing sexual harassment. Thus, the term sexual intent creates a loophole in Section 11 of the Act, which will favour the offenders.Q. What is the view author is trying to attribute in this paragraph ?a)The death penalty should not be given in such cases and hence the new amendment is unconstitutional.b)The differentia created by the new amendment, is not in conformity with the rules laid down in Anwar Ali Sarkar case.c)The new amendment is somehow unfair to the accused as the punishment is arbitrary in relation to the offense.d)The bill affects the right of employment of the children employed in Prostitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.To deal with sexual assaults and exploitation over children, the government has established special law, POCSO Act,2012.The said Act sanctions every recognised offences of sexual abuse against children by prescribing stringent punishment keeping in mind the gravity of the offence.The POCSO Amendment Act,2019 was enacted to enhance the punishment up to the death penalty and to curb child pornography. However, the amendment seems to be arbitrary and vague.Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, which was inserted by the POCSO Amendment Act of 2019 provides for a classification that is unreasonable and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 provides for the "equal protection of laws". It prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification of persons or things. The classic nexus test as outlined in the Anwar Ali Sarkar case is;"To pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled viz.(I) That the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and(II) That the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them."Before the POCSO Act was passed in 2019 the punishment for committing penetrative sexual assault as per POCSO Act 2012 was from seven years imprisonment till life and also fine. The Act of 2019 increased the minimum term of punishment from 'seven' to 'ten' years.Now, the new amendment provides punishment for the offenders who commit penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age. By inserting this, the legislature makes a classification between a child who is below sixteen years of age and a child who is above the age of sixteen, but below eighteen. However, the legislature has defined a "child" as 'any person below the age of eighteen years', for this Act. Thus, the above classification should be a reasonable classification since it has been made within the same group, i.e., 'children'.There can be no intelligible differentia in this classification. The differentia in this classification is vague, since there is an uncertainty in determining the age of maturity factor. It is to be noted that the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act.This classification gives way for the thought that raping a child below sixteen years is a graver offence, whereas on the other hand raping a child of sixteen or seventeen years of age, who may have the same maturity as some children belonging to the other class is not considered to be a graver offence. This classification thus, is unreasonable and hence violative of Article 14.Section 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act provides for the provisions regarding sexual harassment and punishment therefore. Section 11 states as "A person is said to commit sexual harassment of a child when such person with sexual intent..." Also, it has been provided that any question which involves "sexual intent" shall be a question of fact. It is an ascertained fact that the question involving intention is very difficult to prove before the Court of law. Also, there arises a question whether an offender performs the acts listed in Section 11 without sexual intention, will it not amount to sexual harassment? Even Section 354 A of the Indian Penal Code, which describes Sexual Harassment does not use the term "sexual intent", since it is not a mandatory requirement for committing sexual harassment. Thus, the term sexual intent creates a loophole in Section 11 of the Act, which will favour the offenders.Q. What is the view author is trying to attribute in this paragraph ?a)The death penalty should not be given in such cases and hence the new amendment is unconstitutional.b)The differentia created by the new amendment, is not in conformity with the rules laid down in Anwar Ali Sarkar case.c)The new amendment is somehow unfair to the accused as the punishment is arbitrary in relation to the offense.d)The bill affects the right of employment of the children employed in Prostitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
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
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup