CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Direction: Read the following passage careful...
Start Learning for Free
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:
In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday extended the application of its October 2022 order (which directed the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action against hate speech cases) to all States and Union Territories. So now, all States/UTs are enjoined to take suo motu action to register FIR against hate speeches, without waiting for any formal complaint. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court. Indian Penal Code contains various sections which are applicable to hate speech. These Sections criminalizes hate speech and prescribes punishment for such an offence. Section 153A of the IPC, which criminalizes the promotion of enmity between groups of people on grounds such as religion and race, place of birth, residence language, etc. and acts that are prejudicial to maintaining harmony prescribing the punishment in such cases which may be imprisonment up to five years and fine. The intention has been a crucial and important factor in this offence. Mens Rea has got to be proved for proving the commission of the offence. Truth can be taken as a defence in this offence but it may not serve as an absolute defence under Section 153A. Truth connected to history to some extent can be considered as a defence but it is no defence such historical truth has a tendency to incorporate ill-will and hatred amongst various groups, organizations and communities. Section 153B of the IPC, which criminalizes imputations and assertions by speech directed towards certain members of a group which arises by virtue of them being a member of such a community prejudicial to national integration holding them liable for such speech. Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which criminalizes the destruction of places of worship or sacred objects. In this section, the intention or knowledge of likelihood to insult is an important factor that must be done along with the destruction or injury to the place of worship or sacred object.
Q. In a scenario involving Rakesh, a member of a political party, who delivered a speech at a public gathering containing imputations and assertions about a specific community that could potentially generate prejudice and hostility towards that community, an FIR was filed against Rakesh under Section 153B of the IPC. However, Rakesh's speech did not specifically target any individual within the community; rather, it pertained to the community as a whole. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the legal situation?
- a)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech did not mention any individual within the community.
- b)Rakesh can use the defense of truth to avoid conviction under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was based on factual information.
- c)Rakesh can be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was aimed at a group of people who belong to a particular community and is detrimental to national integration.
- d)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC as there is no evidence of his intent to promote enmity and hostility towards the community.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questio...
According to the passage, Section 153B of the IPC criminalizes imputations and assertions made through speech that are directed towards certain members of a group due to their membership in a particular community, and these assertions are prejudicial to national integration. The speech doesn't have to target a specific individual but can be directed at a group of people belonging to a specific community. While truth may be a defense in some cases, it might not provide absolute protection under Section 153B. Moreover, the intention to foster prejudice and hostility towards a community is a crucial element in this offense, and mens rea (guilty mind) needs to be proven for the offense to be established.
Hence, the correct answer is C.
Free Test
FREE
| Start Free Test |
Community Answer
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questio...
Legal Context of Section 153B
Section 153B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses speech that can potentially incite prejudice against a community, thereby threatening national integration. It criminalizes statements that make imputations about a group based on their community affiliation.
Key Points Regarding Rakesh's Situation
- Nature of Speech:
Rakesh's speech included assertions about a specific community but did not single out individuals. However, it was directed at the community as a whole.
- Broad Implications:
The law does not require that individuals be specifically targeted. The essence of the offense lies in whether the speech has the potential to foster animosity or prejudice against the community.
- Intent and National Integration:
The focus is on the effect of the speech on communal harmony. Since Rakesh's speech was detrimental to national integration, it falls within the ambit of Section 153B.
Conclusion
Given these points, the correct answer is option 'C': Rakesh can be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was aimed at a group of people belonging to a particular community and is detrimental to national integration. The law emphasizes the potential harm caused by such speech regardless of whether it targets individuals or the community collectively. Thus, the absence of specific individuals in his speech does not protect him from prosecution under this section.
Section 153B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses speech that can potentially incite prejudice against a community, thereby threatening national integration. It criminalizes statements that make imputations about a group based on their community affiliation.
Key Points Regarding Rakesh's Situation
- Nature of Speech:
Rakesh's speech included assertions about a specific community but did not single out individuals. However, it was directed at the community as a whole.
- Broad Implications:
The law does not require that individuals be specifically targeted. The essence of the offense lies in whether the speech has the potential to foster animosity or prejudice against the community.
- Intent and National Integration:
The focus is on the effect of the speech on communal harmony. Since Rakesh's speech was detrimental to national integration, it falls within the ambit of Section 153B.
Conclusion
Given these points, the correct answer is option 'C': Rakesh can be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was aimed at a group of people belonging to a particular community and is detrimental to national integration. The law emphasizes the potential harm caused by such speech regardless of whether it targets individuals or the community collectively. Thus, the absence of specific individuals in his speech does not protect him from prosecution under this section.
|
Explore Courses for CLAT exam
|
|
Top Courses for CLATView all
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday extended the application of its October 2022 order (which directed the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action against hate speech cases) to all States and Union Territories. So now, all States/UTs are enjoined to take suo motu action to register FIR against hate speeches, without waiting for any formal complaint. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court. Indian Penal Code contains various sections which are applicable to hate speech. These Sections criminalizes hate speech and prescribes punishment for such an offence. Section 153A of the IPC, which criminalizes the promotion of enmity between groups of people on grounds such as religion and race, place of birth, residence language, etc. and acts that are prejudicial to maintaining harmony prescribing the punishment in such cases which may be imprisonment up to five years and fine. The intention has been a crucial and important factor in this offence. Mens Rea has got to be proved for proving the commission of the offence. Truth can be taken as a defence in this offence but it may not serve as an absolute defence under Section 153A. Truth connected to history to some extent can be considered as a defence but it is no defence such historical truth has a tendency to incorporate ill-will and hatred amongst various groups, organizations and communities. Section 153B of the IPC, which criminalizes imputations and assertions by speech directed towards certain members of a group which arises by virtue of them being a member of such a community prejudicial to national integration holding them liable for such speech. Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which criminalizes the destruction of places of worship or sacred objects. In this section, the intention or knowledge of likelihood to insult is an important factor that must be done along with the destruction or injury to the place of worship or sacred object.Q. In a scenario involving Rakesh, a member of a political party, who delivered a speech at a public gathering containing imputations and assertions about a specific community that could potentially generate prejudice and hostility towards that community, an FIR was filed against Rakesh under Section 153B of the IPC. However, Rakeshs speech did not specifically target any individual within the community; rather, it pertained to the community as a whole. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the legal situation?a)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech did not mention any individual within the community.b)Rakesh can use the defense of truth to avoid conviction under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was based on factual information.c)Rakesh can be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was aimed at a group of people who belong to a particular community and is detrimental to national integration.d)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC as there is no evidence of his intent to promote enmity and hostility towards the community.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday extended the application of its October 2022 order (which directed the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action against hate speech cases) to all States and Union Territories. So now, all States/UTs are enjoined to take suo motu action to register FIR against hate speeches, without waiting for any formal complaint. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court. Indian Penal Code contains various sections which are applicable to hate speech. These Sections criminalizes hate speech and prescribes punishment for such an offence. Section 153A of the IPC, which criminalizes the promotion of enmity between groups of people on grounds such as religion and race, place of birth, residence language, etc. and acts that are prejudicial to maintaining harmony prescribing the punishment in such cases which may be imprisonment up to five years and fine. The intention has been a crucial and important factor in this offence. Mens Rea has got to be proved for proving the commission of the offence. Truth can be taken as a defence in this offence but it may not serve as an absolute defence under Section 153A. Truth connected to history to some extent can be considered as a defence but it is no defence such historical truth has a tendency to incorporate ill-will and hatred amongst various groups, organizations and communities. Section 153B of the IPC, which criminalizes imputations and assertions by speech directed towards certain members of a group which arises by virtue of them being a member of such a community prejudicial to national integration holding them liable for such speech. Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which criminalizes the destruction of places of worship or sacred objects. In this section, the intention or knowledge of likelihood to insult is an important factor that must be done along with the destruction or injury to the place of worship or sacred object.Q. In a scenario involving Rakesh, a member of a political party, who delivered a speech at a public gathering containing imputations and assertions about a specific community that could potentially generate prejudice and hostility towards that community, an FIR was filed against Rakesh under Section 153B of the IPC. However, Rakeshs speech did not specifically target any individual within the community; rather, it pertained to the community as a whole. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the legal situation?a)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech did not mention any individual within the community.b)Rakesh can use the defense of truth to avoid conviction under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was based on factual information.c)Rakesh can be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was aimed at a group of people who belong to a particular community and is detrimental to national integration.d)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC as there is no evidence of his intent to promote enmity and hostility towards the community.Correct 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 Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday extended the application of its October 2022 order (which directed the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action against hate speech cases) to all States and Union Territories. So now, all States/UTs are enjoined to take suo motu action to register FIR against hate speeches, without waiting for any formal complaint. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court. Indian Penal Code contains various sections which are applicable to hate speech. These Sections criminalizes hate speech and prescribes punishment for such an offence. Section 153A of the IPC, which criminalizes the promotion of enmity between groups of people on grounds such as religion and race, place of birth, residence language, etc. and acts that are prejudicial to maintaining harmony prescribing the punishment in such cases which may be imprisonment up to five years and fine. The intention has been a crucial and important factor in this offence. Mens Rea has got to be proved for proving the commission of the offence. Truth can be taken as a defence in this offence but it may not serve as an absolute defence under Section 153A. Truth connected to history to some extent can be considered as a defence but it is no defence such historical truth has a tendency to incorporate ill-will and hatred amongst various groups, organizations and communities. Section 153B of the IPC, which criminalizes imputations and assertions by speech directed towards certain members of a group which arises by virtue of them being a member of such a community prejudicial to national integration holding them liable for such speech. Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which criminalizes the destruction of places of worship or sacred objects. In this section, the intention or knowledge of likelihood to insult is an important factor that must be done along with the destruction or injury to the place of worship or sacred object.Q. In a scenario involving Rakesh, a member of a political party, who delivered a speech at a public gathering containing imputations and assertions about a specific community that could potentially generate prejudice and hostility towards that community, an FIR was filed against Rakesh under Section 153B of the IPC. However, Rakeshs speech did not specifically target any individual within the community; rather, it pertained to the community as a whole. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the legal situation?a)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech did not mention any individual within the community.b)Rakesh can use the defense of truth to avoid conviction under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was based on factual information.c)Rakesh can be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was aimed at a group of people who belong to a particular community and is detrimental to national integration.d)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC as there is no evidence of his intent to promote enmity and hostility towards the community.Correct 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 Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday extended the application of its October 2022 order (which directed the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action against hate speech cases) to all States and Union Territories. So now, all States/UTs are enjoined to take suo motu action to register FIR against hate speeches, without waiting for any formal complaint. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court. Indian Penal Code contains various sections which are applicable to hate speech. These Sections criminalizes hate speech and prescribes punishment for such an offence. Section 153A of the IPC, which criminalizes the promotion of enmity between groups of people on grounds such as religion and race, place of birth, residence language, etc. and acts that are prejudicial to maintaining harmony prescribing the punishment in such cases which may be imprisonment up to five years and fine. The intention has been a crucial and important factor in this offence. Mens Rea has got to be proved for proving the commission of the offence. Truth can be taken as a defence in this offence but it may not serve as an absolute defence under Section 153A. Truth connected to history to some extent can be considered as a defence but it is no defence such historical truth has a tendency to incorporate ill-will and hatred amongst various groups, organizations and communities. Section 153B of the IPC, which criminalizes imputations and assertions by speech directed towards certain members of a group which arises by virtue of them being a member of such a community prejudicial to national integration holding them liable for such speech. Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which criminalizes the destruction of places of worship or sacred objects. In this section, the intention or knowledge of likelihood to insult is an important factor that must be done along with the destruction or injury to the place of worship or sacred object.Q. In a scenario involving Rakesh, a member of a political party, who delivered a speech at a public gathering containing imputations and assertions about a specific community that could potentially generate prejudice and hostility towards that community, an FIR was filed against Rakesh under Section 153B of the IPC. However, Rakeshs speech did not specifically target any individual within the community; rather, it pertained to the community as a whole. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the legal situation?a)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech did not mention any individual within the community.b)Rakesh can use the defense of truth to avoid conviction under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was based on factual information.c)Rakesh can be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was aimed at a group of people who belong to a particular community and is detrimental to national integration.d)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC as there is no evidence of his intent to promote enmity and hostility towards the community.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday extended the application of its October 2022 order (which directed the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action against hate speech cases) to all States and Union Territories. So now, all States/UTs are enjoined to take suo motu action to register FIR against hate speeches, without waiting for any formal complaint. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court. Indian Penal Code contains various sections which are applicable to hate speech. These Sections criminalizes hate speech and prescribes punishment for such an offence. Section 153A of the IPC, which criminalizes the promotion of enmity between groups of people on grounds such as religion and race, place of birth, residence language, etc. and acts that are prejudicial to maintaining harmony prescribing the punishment in such cases which may be imprisonment up to five years and fine. The intention has been a crucial and important factor in this offence. Mens Rea has got to be proved for proving the commission of the offence. Truth can be taken as a defence in this offence but it may not serve as an absolute defence under Section 153A. Truth connected to history to some extent can be considered as a defence but it is no defence such historical truth has a tendency to incorporate ill-will and hatred amongst various groups, organizations and communities. Section 153B of the IPC, which criminalizes imputations and assertions by speech directed towards certain members of a group which arises by virtue of them being a member of such a community prejudicial to national integration holding them liable for such speech. Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which criminalizes the destruction of places of worship or sacred objects. In this section, the intention or knowledge of likelihood to insult is an important factor that must be done along with the destruction or injury to the place of worship or sacred object.Q. In a scenario involving Rakesh, a member of a political party, who delivered a speech at a public gathering containing imputations and assertions about a specific community that could potentially generate prejudice and hostility towards that community, an FIR was filed against Rakesh under Section 153B of the IPC. However, Rakeshs speech did not specifically target any individual within the community; rather, it pertained to the community as a whole. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the legal situation?a)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech did not mention any individual within the community.b)Rakesh can use the defense of truth to avoid conviction under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was based on factual information.c)Rakesh can be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was aimed at a group of people who belong to a particular community and is detrimental to national integration.d)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC as there is no evidence of his intent to promote enmity and hostility towards the community.Correct 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 Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday extended the application of its October 2022 order (which directed the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action against hate speech cases) to all States and Union Territories. So now, all States/UTs are enjoined to take suo motu action to register FIR against hate speeches, without waiting for any formal complaint. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court. Indian Penal Code contains various sections which are applicable to hate speech. These Sections criminalizes hate speech and prescribes punishment for such an offence. Section 153A of the IPC, which criminalizes the promotion of enmity between groups of people on grounds such as religion and race, place of birth, residence language, etc. and acts that are prejudicial to maintaining harmony prescribing the punishment in such cases which may be imprisonment up to five years and fine. The intention has been a crucial and important factor in this offence. Mens Rea has got to be proved for proving the commission of the offence. Truth can be taken as a defence in this offence but it may not serve as an absolute defence under Section 153A. Truth connected to history to some extent can be considered as a defence but it is no defence such historical truth has a tendency to incorporate ill-will and hatred amongst various groups, organizations and communities. Section 153B of the IPC, which criminalizes imputations and assertions by speech directed towards certain members of a group which arises by virtue of them being a member of such a community prejudicial to national integration holding them liable for such speech. Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which criminalizes the destruction of places of worship or sacred objects. In this section, the intention or knowledge of likelihood to insult is an important factor that must be done along with the destruction or injury to the place of worship or sacred object.Q. In a scenario involving Rakesh, a member of a political party, who delivered a speech at a public gathering containing imputations and assertions about a specific community that could potentially generate prejudice and hostility towards that community, an FIR was filed against Rakesh under Section 153B of the IPC. However, Rakeshs speech did not specifically target any individual within the community; rather, it pertained to the community as a whole. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the legal situation?a)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech did not mention any individual within the community.b)Rakesh can use the defense of truth to avoid conviction under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was based on factual information.c)Rakesh can be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was aimed at a group of people who belong to a particular community and is detrimental to national integration.d)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC as there is no evidence of his intent to promote enmity and hostility towards the community.Correct 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 Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday extended the application of its October 2022 order (which directed the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action against hate speech cases) to all States and Union Territories. So now, all States/UTs are enjoined to take suo motu action to register FIR against hate speeches, without waiting for any formal complaint. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court. Indian Penal Code contains various sections which are applicable to hate speech. These Sections criminalizes hate speech and prescribes punishment for such an offence. Section 153A of the IPC, which criminalizes the promotion of enmity between groups of people on grounds such as religion and race, place of birth, residence language, etc. and acts that are prejudicial to maintaining harmony prescribing the punishment in such cases which may be imprisonment up to five years and fine. The intention has been a crucial and important factor in this offence. Mens Rea has got to be proved for proving the commission of the offence. Truth can be taken as a defence in this offence but it may not serve as an absolute defence under Section 153A. Truth connected to history to some extent can be considered as a defence but it is no defence such historical truth has a tendency to incorporate ill-will and hatred amongst various groups, organizations and communities. Section 153B of the IPC, which criminalizes imputations and assertions by speech directed towards certain members of a group which arises by virtue of them being a member of such a community prejudicial to national integration holding them liable for such speech. Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which criminalizes the destruction of places of worship or sacred objects. In this section, the intention or knowledge of likelihood to insult is an important factor that must be done along with the destruction or injury to the place of worship or sacred object.Q. In a scenario involving Rakesh, a member of a political party, who delivered a speech at a public gathering containing imputations and assertions about a specific community that could potentially generate prejudice and hostility towards that community, an FIR was filed against Rakesh under Section 153B of the IPC. However, Rakeshs speech did not specifically target any individual within the community; rather, it pertained to the community as a whole. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the legal situation?a)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech did not mention any individual within the community.b)Rakesh can use the defense of truth to avoid conviction under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was based on factual information.c)Rakesh can be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was aimed at a group of people who belong to a particular community and is detrimental to national integration.d)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC as there is no evidence of his intent to promote enmity and hostility towards the community.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday extended the application of its October 2022 order (which directed the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action against hate speech cases) to all States and Union Territories. So now, all States/UTs are enjoined to take suo motu action to register FIR against hate speeches, without waiting for any formal complaint. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court. Indian Penal Code contains various sections which are applicable to hate speech. These Sections criminalizes hate speech and prescribes punishment for such an offence. Section 153A of the IPC, which criminalizes the promotion of enmity between groups of people on grounds such as religion and race, place of birth, residence language, etc. and acts that are prejudicial to maintaining harmony prescribing the punishment in such cases which may be imprisonment up to five years and fine. The intention has been a crucial and important factor in this offence. Mens Rea has got to be proved for proving the commission of the offence. Truth can be taken as a defence in this offence but it may not serve as an absolute defence under Section 153A. Truth connected to history to some extent can be considered as a defence but it is no defence such historical truth has a tendency to incorporate ill-will and hatred amongst various groups, organizations and communities. Section 153B of the IPC, which criminalizes imputations and assertions by speech directed towards certain members of a group which arises by virtue of them being a member of such a community prejudicial to national integration holding them liable for such speech. Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which criminalizes the destruction of places of worship or sacred objects. In this section, the intention or knowledge of likelihood to insult is an important factor that must be done along with the destruction or injury to the place of worship or sacred object.Q. In a scenario involving Rakesh, a member of a political party, who delivered a speech at a public gathering containing imputations and assertions about a specific community that could potentially generate prejudice and hostility towards that community, an FIR was filed against Rakesh under Section 153B of the IPC. However, Rakeshs speech did not specifically target any individual within the community; rather, it pertained to the community as a whole. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the legal situation?a)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech did not mention any individual within the community.b)Rakesh can use the defense of truth to avoid conviction under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was based on factual information.c)Rakesh can be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was aimed at a group of people who belong to a particular community and is detrimental to national integration.d)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC as there is no evidence of his intent to promote enmity and hostility towards the community.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday extended the application of its October 2022 order (which directed the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action against hate speech cases) to all States and Union Territories. So now, all States/UTs are enjoined to take suo motu action to register FIR against hate speeches, without waiting for any formal complaint. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court. Indian Penal Code contains various sections which are applicable to hate speech. These Sections criminalizes hate speech and prescribes punishment for such an offence. Section 153A of the IPC, which criminalizes the promotion of enmity between groups of people on grounds such as religion and race, place of birth, residence language, etc. and acts that are prejudicial to maintaining harmony prescribing the punishment in such cases which may be imprisonment up to five years and fine. The intention has been a crucial and important factor in this offence. Mens Rea has got to be proved for proving the commission of the offence. Truth can be taken as a defence in this offence but it may not serve as an absolute defence under Section 153A. Truth connected to history to some extent can be considered as a defence but it is no defence such historical truth has a tendency to incorporate ill-will and hatred amongst various groups, organizations and communities. Section 153B of the IPC, which criminalizes imputations and assertions by speech directed towards certain members of a group which arises by virtue of them being a member of such a community prejudicial to national integration holding them liable for such speech. Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which criminalizes the destruction of places of worship or sacred objects. In this section, the intention or knowledge of likelihood to insult is an important factor that must be done along with the destruction or injury to the place of worship or sacred object.Q. In a scenario involving Rakesh, a member of a political party, who delivered a speech at a public gathering containing imputations and assertions about a specific community that could potentially generate prejudice and hostility towards that community, an FIR was filed against Rakesh under Section 153B of the IPC. However, Rakeshs speech did not specifically target any individual within the community; rather, it pertained to the community as a whole. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the legal situation?a)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech did not mention any individual within the community.b)Rakesh can use the defense of truth to avoid conviction under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was based on factual information.c)Rakesh can be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was aimed at a group of people who belong to a particular community and is detrimental to national integration.d)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC as there is no evidence of his intent to promote enmity and hostility towards the community.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday extended the application of its October 2022 order (which directed the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action against hate speech cases) to all States and Union Territories. So now, all States/UTs are enjoined to take suo motu action to register FIR against hate speeches, without waiting for any formal complaint. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court. Indian Penal Code contains various sections which are applicable to hate speech. These Sections criminalizes hate speech and prescribes punishment for such an offence. Section 153A of the IPC, which criminalizes the promotion of enmity between groups of people on grounds such as religion and race, place of birth, residence language, etc. and acts that are prejudicial to maintaining harmony prescribing the punishment in such cases which may be imprisonment up to five years and fine. The intention has been a crucial and important factor in this offence. Mens Rea has got to be proved for proving the commission of the offence. Truth can be taken as a defence in this offence but it may not serve as an absolute defence under Section 153A. Truth connected to history to some extent can be considered as a defence but it is no defence such historical truth has a tendency to incorporate ill-will and hatred amongst various groups, organizations and communities. Section 153B of the IPC, which criminalizes imputations and assertions by speech directed towards certain members of a group which arises by virtue of them being a member of such a community prejudicial to national integration holding them liable for such speech. Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which criminalizes the destruction of places of worship or sacred objects. In this section, the intention or knowledge of likelihood to insult is an important factor that must be done along with the destruction or injury to the place of worship or sacred object.Q. In a scenario involving Rakesh, a member of a political party, who delivered a speech at a public gathering containing imputations and assertions about a specific community that could potentially generate prejudice and hostility towards that community, an FIR was filed against Rakesh under Section 153B of the IPC. However, Rakeshs speech did not specifically target any individual within the community; rather, it pertained to the community as a whole. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the legal situation?a)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech did not mention any individual within the community.b)Rakesh can use the defense of truth to avoid conviction under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was based on factual information.c)Rakesh can be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was aimed at a group of people who belong to a particular community and is detrimental to national integration.d)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC as there is no evidence of his intent to promote enmity and hostility towards the community.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday extended the application of its October 2022 order (which directed the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action against hate speech cases) to all States and Union Territories. So now, all States/UTs are enjoined to take suo motu action to register FIR against hate speeches, without waiting for any formal complaint. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court. Indian Penal Code contains various sections which are applicable to hate speech. These Sections criminalizes hate speech and prescribes punishment for such an offence. Section 153A of the IPC, which criminalizes the promotion of enmity between groups of people on grounds such as religion and race, place of birth, residence language, etc. and acts that are prejudicial to maintaining harmony prescribing the punishment in such cases which may be imprisonment up to five years and fine. The intention has been a crucial and important factor in this offence. Mens Rea has got to be proved for proving the commission of the offence. Truth can be taken as a defence in this offence but it may not serve as an absolute defence under Section 153A. Truth connected to history to some extent can be considered as a defence but it is no defence such historical truth has a tendency to incorporate ill-will and hatred amongst various groups, organizations and communities. Section 153B of the IPC, which criminalizes imputations and assertions by speech directed towards certain members of a group which arises by virtue of them being a member of such a community prejudicial to national integration holding them liable for such speech. Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which criminalizes the destruction of places of worship or sacred objects. In this section, the intention or knowledge of likelihood to insult is an important factor that must be done along with the destruction or injury to the place of worship or sacred object.Q. In a scenario involving Rakesh, a member of a political party, who delivered a speech at a public gathering containing imputations and assertions about a specific community that could potentially generate prejudice and hostility towards that community, an FIR was filed against Rakesh under Section 153B of the IPC. However, Rakeshs speech did not specifically target any individual within the community; rather, it pertained to the community as a whole. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the legal situation?a)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech did not mention any individual within the community.b)Rakesh can use the defense of truth to avoid conviction under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was based on factual information.c)Rakesh can be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was aimed at a group of people who belong to a particular community and is detrimental to national integration.d)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC as there is no evidence of his intent to promote enmity and hostility towards the community.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday extended the application of its October 2022 order (which directed the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action against hate speech cases) to all States and Union Territories. So now, all States/UTs are enjoined to take suo motu action to register FIR against hate speeches, without waiting for any formal complaint. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court. Indian Penal Code contains various sections which are applicable to hate speech. These Sections criminalizes hate speech and prescribes punishment for such an offence. Section 153A of the IPC, which criminalizes the promotion of enmity between groups of people on grounds such as religion and race, place of birth, residence language, etc. and acts that are prejudicial to maintaining harmony prescribing the punishment in such cases which may be imprisonment up to five years and fine. The intention has been a crucial and important factor in this offence. Mens Rea has got to be proved for proving the commission of the offence. Truth can be taken as a defence in this offence but it may not serve as an absolute defence under Section 153A. Truth connected to history to some extent can be considered as a defence but it is no defence such historical truth has a tendency to incorporate ill-will and hatred amongst various groups, organizations and communities. Section 153B of the IPC, which criminalizes imputations and assertions by speech directed towards certain members of a group which arises by virtue of them being a member of such a community prejudicial to national integration holding them liable for such speech. Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which criminalizes the destruction of places of worship or sacred objects. In this section, the intention or knowledge of likelihood to insult is an important factor that must be done along with the destruction or injury to the place of worship or sacred object.Q. In a scenario involving Rakesh, a member of a political party, who delivered a speech at a public gathering containing imputations and assertions about a specific community that could potentially generate prejudice and hostility towards that community, an FIR was filed against Rakesh under Section 153B of the IPC. However, Rakeshs speech did not specifically target any individual within the community; rather, it pertained to the community as a whole. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the legal situation?a)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech did not mention any individual within the community.b)Rakesh can use the defense of truth to avoid conviction under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was based on factual information.c)Rakesh can be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was aimed at a group of people who belong to a particular community and is detrimental to national integration.d)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC as there is no evidence of his intent to promote enmity and hostility towards the community.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an
ample number of questions to practice Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday extended the application of its October 2022 order (which directed the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action against hate speech cases) to all States and Union Territories. So now, all States/UTs are enjoined to take suo motu action to register FIR against hate speeches, without waiting for any formal complaint. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court. Indian Penal Code contains various sections which are applicable to hate speech. These Sections criminalizes hate speech and prescribes punishment for such an offence. Section 153A of the IPC, which criminalizes the promotion of enmity between groups of people on grounds such as religion and race, place of birth, residence language, etc. and acts that are prejudicial to maintaining harmony prescribing the punishment in such cases which may be imprisonment up to five years and fine. The intention has been a crucial and important factor in this offence. Mens Rea has got to be proved for proving the commission of the offence. Truth can be taken as a defence in this offence but it may not serve as an absolute defence under Section 153A. Truth connected to history to some extent can be considered as a defence but it is no defence such historical truth has a tendency to incorporate ill-will and hatred amongst various groups, organizations and communities. Section 153B of the IPC, which criminalizes imputations and assertions by speech directed towards certain members of a group which arises by virtue of them being a member of such a community prejudicial to national integration holding them liable for such speech. Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which criminalizes the destruction of places of worship or sacred objects. In this section, the intention or knowledge of likelihood to insult is an important factor that must be done along with the destruction or injury to the place of worship or sacred object.Q. In a scenario involving Rakesh, a member of a political party, who delivered a speech at a public gathering containing imputations and assertions about a specific community that could potentially generate prejudice and hostility towards that community, an FIR was filed against Rakesh under Section 153B of the IPC. However, Rakeshs speech did not specifically target any individual within the community; rather, it pertained to the community as a whole. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the legal situation?a)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech did not mention any individual within the community.b)Rakesh can use the defense of truth to avoid conviction under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was based on factual information.c)Rakesh can be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC because his speech was aimed at a group of people who belong to a particular community and is detrimental to national integration.d)Rakesh cannot be convicted under Section 153B of the IPC as there is no evidence of his intent to promote enmity and hostility towards the community.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
|
|
Explore Courses for CLAT exam
|
|
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
|
© 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