Question Description
Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Hate speech as defined by the 267th report of the Law Commission of India is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and the like. To effectively curb hate speech, the Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to examine the issue. The 267th report of the Law Commission was of the clear opinion that new provisions in the IPC such as Section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatred) and Section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) were needed to address the issue.As the Constituent Assembly deliberated on Article 13 of the Draft Constitution, which would later become Article 19 in the enacted Constitution, intense apprehensions were expressed on the proposed proviso to Article 13 listing restrictions to the freedom of speech and expression. These restrictions finally became Article 19(2). The exceptions under the same clause fell under four broad categories: 'libel, slander, defamation', 'contempt of court', 'offends against decency or morality' and 'undermines the security of or tends to overthrow the state'. The term 'public order' was added later by an amendment which is now known as the First Amendment. Jawaharlal Nehru was a staunch supporter of the First Amendment.The proposed restrictions were resisted on the ground that these sought to rein in free speech and are not seen in the American Constitution, which had tremendously inspired members of the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar sought to douse the fire of concern by declaring, It is wrong to say that fundamental rights in America are absolute. The difference between the position under the American Constitution and the Draft Constitution is one of form and not of substance. That the fundamental rights in America are not absolute rights is beyond dispute. In support of every exception to the fundamental rights set out in the Draft Constitution, one can refer to at least one judgment of the United States Supreme Court.Q. After reading the passage, two students discussed it; Rajesh pointed out that Sections 153C and 505A of the IPC need to be imposed on those who deliver hate speech, and Rohit pointed out that it cannot be done in the present scenario. Who has the correct observation?a)Rajesh is partially correct because Section 153C can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.b)Rajesh is correct because both Sections 153C and 505A can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.c)Rohit is correct because Section 153C and 505A cannot be imposed on those who deliver hate speech in the current scenario.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 passage and answer the question that follows.Hate speech as defined by the 267th report of the Law Commission of India is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and the like. To effectively curb hate speech, the Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to examine the issue. The 267th report of the Law Commission was of the clear opinion that new provisions in the IPC such as Section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatred) and Section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) were needed to address the issue.As the Constituent Assembly deliberated on Article 13 of the Draft Constitution, which would later become Article 19 in the enacted Constitution, intense apprehensions were expressed on the proposed proviso to Article 13 listing restrictions to the freedom of speech and expression. These restrictions finally became Article 19(2). The exceptions under the same clause fell under four broad categories: 'libel, slander, defamation', 'contempt of court', 'offends against decency or morality' and 'undermines the security of or tends to overthrow the state'. The term 'public order' was added later by an amendment which is now known as the First Amendment. Jawaharlal Nehru was a staunch supporter of the First Amendment.The proposed restrictions were resisted on the ground that these sought to rein in free speech and are not seen in the American Constitution, which had tremendously inspired members of the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar sought to douse the fire of concern by declaring, It is wrong to say that fundamental rights in America are absolute. The difference between the position under the American Constitution and the Draft Constitution is one of form and not of substance. That the fundamental rights in America are not absolute rights is beyond dispute. In support of every exception to the fundamental rights set out in the Draft Constitution, one can refer to at least one judgment of the United States Supreme Court.Q. After reading the passage, two students discussed it; Rajesh pointed out that Sections 153C and 505A of the IPC need to be imposed on those who deliver hate speech, and Rohit pointed out that it cannot be done in the present scenario. Who has the correct observation?a)Rajesh is partially correct because Section 153C can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.b)Rajesh is correct because both Sections 153C and 505A can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.c)Rohit is correct because Section 153C and 505A cannot be imposed on those who deliver hate speech in the current scenario.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 passage and answer the question that follows.Hate speech as defined by the 267th report of the Law Commission of India is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and the like. To effectively curb hate speech, the Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to examine the issue. The 267th report of the Law Commission was of the clear opinion that new provisions in the IPC such as Section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatred) and Section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) were needed to address the issue.As the Constituent Assembly deliberated on Article 13 of the Draft Constitution, which would later become Article 19 in the enacted Constitution, intense apprehensions were expressed on the proposed proviso to Article 13 listing restrictions to the freedom of speech and expression. These restrictions finally became Article 19(2). The exceptions under the same clause fell under four broad categories: 'libel, slander, defamation', 'contempt of court', 'offends against decency or morality' and 'undermines the security of or tends to overthrow the state'. The term 'public order' was added later by an amendment which is now known as the First Amendment. Jawaharlal Nehru was a staunch supporter of the First Amendment.The proposed restrictions were resisted on the ground that these sought to rein in free speech and are not seen in the American Constitution, which had tremendously inspired members of the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar sought to douse the fire of concern by declaring, It is wrong to say that fundamental rights in America are absolute. The difference between the position under the American Constitution and the Draft Constitution is one of form and not of substance. That the fundamental rights in America are not absolute rights is beyond dispute. In support of every exception to the fundamental rights set out in the Draft Constitution, one can refer to at least one judgment of the United States Supreme Court.Q. After reading the passage, two students discussed it; Rajesh pointed out that Sections 153C and 505A of the IPC need to be imposed on those who deliver hate speech, and Rohit pointed out that it cannot be done in the present scenario. Who has the correct observation?a)Rajesh is partially correct because Section 153C can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.b)Rajesh is correct because both Sections 153C and 505A can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.c)Rohit is correct because Section 153C and 505A cannot be imposed on those who deliver hate speech in the current scenario.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Hate speech as defined by the 267th report of the Law Commission of India is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and the like. To effectively curb hate speech, the Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to examine the issue. The 267th report of the Law Commission was of the clear opinion that new provisions in the IPC such as Section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatred) and Section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) were needed to address the issue.As the Constituent Assembly deliberated on Article 13 of the Draft Constitution, which would later become Article 19 in the enacted Constitution, intense apprehensions were expressed on the proposed proviso to Article 13 listing restrictions to the freedom of speech and expression. These restrictions finally became Article 19(2). The exceptions under the same clause fell under four broad categories: 'libel, slander, defamation', 'contempt of court', 'offends against decency or morality' and 'undermines the security of or tends to overthrow the state'. The term 'public order' was added later by an amendment which is now known as the First Amendment. Jawaharlal Nehru was a staunch supporter of the First Amendment.The proposed restrictions were resisted on the ground that these sought to rein in free speech and are not seen in the American Constitution, which had tremendously inspired members of the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar sought to douse the fire of concern by declaring, It is wrong to say that fundamental rights in America are absolute. The difference between the position under the American Constitution and the Draft Constitution is one of form and not of substance. That the fundamental rights in America are not absolute rights is beyond dispute. In support of every exception to the fundamental rights set out in the Draft Constitution, one can refer to at least one judgment of the United States Supreme Court.Q. After reading the passage, two students discussed it; Rajesh pointed out that Sections 153C and 505A of the IPC need to be imposed on those who deliver hate speech, and Rohit pointed out that it cannot be done in the present scenario. Who has the correct observation?a)Rajesh is partially correct because Section 153C can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.b)Rajesh is correct because both Sections 153C and 505A can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.c)Rohit is correct because Section 153C and 505A cannot be imposed on those who deliver hate speech in the current scenario.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Hate speech as defined by the 267th report of the Law Commission of India is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and the like. To effectively curb hate speech, the Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to examine the issue. The 267th report of the Law Commission was of the clear opinion that new provisions in the IPC such as Section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatred) and Section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) were needed to address the issue.As the Constituent Assembly deliberated on Article 13 of the Draft Constitution, which would later become Article 19 in the enacted Constitution, intense apprehensions were expressed on the proposed proviso to Article 13 listing restrictions to the freedom of speech and expression. These restrictions finally became Article 19(2). The exceptions under the same clause fell under four broad categories: 'libel, slander, defamation', 'contempt of court', 'offends against decency or morality' and 'undermines the security of or tends to overthrow the state'. The term 'public order' was added later by an amendment which is now known as the First Amendment. Jawaharlal Nehru was a staunch supporter of the First Amendment.The proposed restrictions were resisted on the ground that these sought to rein in free speech and are not seen in the American Constitution, which had tremendously inspired members of the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar sought to douse the fire of concern by declaring, It is wrong to say that fundamental rights in America are absolute. The difference between the position under the American Constitution and the Draft Constitution is one of form and not of substance. That the fundamental rights in America are not absolute rights is beyond dispute. In support of every exception to the fundamental rights set out in the Draft Constitution, one can refer to at least one judgment of the United States Supreme Court.Q. After reading the passage, two students discussed it; Rajesh pointed out that Sections 153C and 505A of the IPC need to be imposed on those who deliver hate speech, and Rohit pointed out that it cannot be done in the present scenario. Who has the correct observation?a)Rajesh is partially correct because Section 153C can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.b)Rajesh is correct because both Sections 153C and 505A can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.c)Rohit is correct because Section 153C and 505A cannot be imposed on those who deliver hate speech in the current scenario.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Hate speech as defined by the 267th report of the Law Commission of India is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and the like. To effectively curb hate speech, the Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to examine the issue. The 267th report of the Law Commission was of the clear opinion that new provisions in the IPC such as Section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatred) and Section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) were needed to address the issue.As the Constituent Assembly deliberated on Article 13 of the Draft Constitution, which would later become Article 19 in the enacted Constitution, intense apprehensions were expressed on the proposed proviso to Article 13 listing restrictions to the freedom of speech and expression. These restrictions finally became Article 19(2). The exceptions under the same clause fell under four broad categories: 'libel, slander, defamation', 'contempt of court', 'offends against decency or morality' and 'undermines the security of or tends to overthrow the state'. The term 'public order' was added later by an amendment which is now known as the First Amendment. Jawaharlal Nehru was a staunch supporter of the First Amendment.The proposed restrictions were resisted on the ground that these sought to rein in free speech and are not seen in the American Constitution, which had tremendously inspired members of the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar sought to douse the fire of concern by declaring, It is wrong to say that fundamental rights in America are absolute. The difference between the position under the American Constitution and the Draft Constitution is one of form and not of substance. That the fundamental rights in America are not absolute rights is beyond dispute. In support of every exception to the fundamental rights set out in the Draft Constitution, one can refer to at least one judgment of the United States Supreme Court.Q. After reading the passage, two students discussed it; Rajesh pointed out that Sections 153C and 505A of the IPC need to be imposed on those who deliver hate speech, and Rohit pointed out that it cannot be done in the present scenario. Who has the correct observation?a)Rajesh is partially correct because Section 153C can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.b)Rajesh is correct because both Sections 153C and 505A can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.c)Rohit is correct because Section 153C and 505A cannot be imposed on those who deliver hate speech in the current scenario.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Hate speech as defined by the 267th report of the Law Commission of India is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and the like. To effectively curb hate speech, the Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to examine the issue. The 267th report of the Law Commission was of the clear opinion that new provisions in the IPC such as Section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatred) and Section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) were needed to address the issue.As the Constituent Assembly deliberated on Article 13 of the Draft Constitution, which would later become Article 19 in the enacted Constitution, intense apprehensions were expressed on the proposed proviso to Article 13 listing restrictions to the freedom of speech and expression. These restrictions finally became Article 19(2). The exceptions under the same clause fell under four broad categories: 'libel, slander, defamation', 'contempt of court', 'offends against decency or morality' and 'undermines the security of or tends to overthrow the state'. The term 'public order' was added later by an amendment which is now known as the First Amendment. Jawaharlal Nehru was a staunch supporter of the First Amendment.The proposed restrictions were resisted on the ground that these sought to rein in free speech and are not seen in the American Constitution, which had tremendously inspired members of the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar sought to douse the fire of concern by declaring, It is wrong to say that fundamental rights in America are absolute. The difference between the position under the American Constitution and the Draft Constitution is one of form and not of substance. That the fundamental rights in America are not absolute rights is beyond dispute. In support of every exception to the fundamental rights set out in the Draft Constitution, one can refer to at least one judgment of the United States Supreme Court.Q. After reading the passage, two students discussed it; Rajesh pointed out that Sections 153C and 505A of the IPC need to be imposed on those who deliver hate speech, and Rohit pointed out that it cannot be done in the present scenario. Who has the correct observation?a)Rajesh is partially correct because Section 153C can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.b)Rajesh is correct because both Sections 153C and 505A can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.c)Rohit is correct because Section 153C and 505A cannot be imposed on those who deliver hate speech in the current scenario.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Hate speech as defined by the 267th report of the Law Commission of India is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and the like. To effectively curb hate speech, the Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to examine the issue. The 267th report of the Law Commission was of the clear opinion that new provisions in the IPC such as Section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatred) and Section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) were needed to address the issue.As the Constituent Assembly deliberated on Article 13 of the Draft Constitution, which would later become Article 19 in the enacted Constitution, intense apprehensions were expressed on the proposed proviso to Article 13 listing restrictions to the freedom of speech and expression. These restrictions finally became Article 19(2). The exceptions under the same clause fell under four broad categories: 'libel, slander, defamation', 'contempt of court', 'offends against decency or morality' and 'undermines the security of or tends to overthrow the state'. The term 'public order' was added later by an amendment which is now known as the First Amendment. Jawaharlal Nehru was a staunch supporter of the First Amendment.The proposed restrictions were resisted on the ground that these sought to rein in free speech and are not seen in the American Constitution, which had tremendously inspired members of the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar sought to douse the fire of concern by declaring, It is wrong to say that fundamental rights in America are absolute. The difference between the position under the American Constitution and the Draft Constitution is one of form and not of substance. That the fundamental rights in America are not absolute rights is beyond dispute. In support of every exception to the fundamental rights set out in the Draft Constitution, one can refer to at least one judgment of the United States Supreme Court.Q. After reading the passage, two students discussed it; Rajesh pointed out that Sections 153C and 505A of the IPC need to be imposed on those who deliver hate speech, and Rohit pointed out that it cannot be done in the present scenario. Who has the correct observation?a)Rajesh is partially correct because Section 153C can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.b)Rajesh is correct because both Sections 153C and 505A can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.c)Rohit is correct because Section 153C and 505A cannot be imposed on those who deliver hate speech in the current scenario.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Hate speech as defined by the 267th report of the Law Commission of India is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and the like. To effectively curb hate speech, the Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to examine the issue. The 267th report of the Law Commission was of the clear opinion that new provisions in the IPC such as Section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatred) and Section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) were needed to address the issue.As the Constituent Assembly deliberated on Article 13 of the Draft Constitution, which would later become Article 19 in the enacted Constitution, intense apprehensions were expressed on the proposed proviso to Article 13 listing restrictions to the freedom of speech and expression. These restrictions finally became Article 19(2). The exceptions under the same clause fell under four broad categories: 'libel, slander, defamation', 'contempt of court', 'offends against decency or morality' and 'undermines the security of or tends to overthrow the state'. The term 'public order' was added later by an amendment which is now known as the First Amendment. Jawaharlal Nehru was a staunch supporter of the First Amendment.The proposed restrictions were resisted on the ground that these sought to rein in free speech and are not seen in the American Constitution, which had tremendously inspired members of the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar sought to douse the fire of concern by declaring, It is wrong to say that fundamental rights in America are absolute. The difference between the position under the American Constitution and the Draft Constitution is one of form and not of substance. That the fundamental rights in America are not absolute rights is beyond dispute. In support of every exception to the fundamental rights set out in the Draft Constitution, one can refer to at least one judgment of the United States Supreme Court.Q. After reading the passage, two students discussed it; Rajesh pointed out that Sections 153C and 505A of the IPC need to be imposed on those who deliver hate speech, and Rohit pointed out that it cannot be done in the present scenario. Who has the correct observation?a)Rajesh is partially correct because Section 153C can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.b)Rajesh is correct because both Sections 153C and 505A can be imposed on those who deliver hate speech.c)Rohit is correct because Section 153C and 505A cannot be imposed on those who deliver hate speech in the current scenario.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.