Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court said that access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution and asked the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review within a week all orders imposing curbs in the Union Territory. Here is a look at what does Article 19 inscribed in the Constitution of India say:(1) All citizens shall have the right: (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.The clause (2) states that "Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."Ever since the abrogation of Article 370 in J&K on August 5, 2019, internet services have been suspended in the state leading to severe disruption of day-to-day activities. The Supreme Court in its verdict observed that freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court added that it can only be restricted under the reasons given in the sub-clause (2) of Article 19. "Freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the constitution and can be restricted only under the reasons given in Article 19(2) of the Constitution," the SC said in its judgement while reviewing petitions challenging restrictions in J&K."Mere apprehension (of the government) that something might happen cannot be a justification for throttling speech and communication links. There has to be cogent evidence to back such exercise of power," senior advocate Kapil Sibal told SC.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Access to Internet is a fundamental right, rules Supreme Court, news by The Hindu, January 10, 2020]Q.A member of the Christian community who objected to singing the national anthem was expelled from the theater. He was outrageously nasty to those in the hall during the anthem performance and then to the theater staff afterward. Does the mans fundamental right to be in the hall have been violated by his expulsion? Decide.a)The individual broke his fundamental responsibility by refusing to perform the national anthem, hence the expulsion does not violate his fundamental right.b)Since the mans behavior interfered with the theater authorities ability to execute their jobs, the ejection did not violate his fundamental right.c)Since he is not required to sing the national anthem as part of his right to express, the mans expulsion from the room did, in fact, violate his fundamental right.d)1 and 2 bothCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court said that access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution and asked the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review within a week all orders imposing curbs in the Union Territory. Here is a look at what does Article 19 inscribed in the Constitution of India say:(1) All citizens shall have the right: (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.The clause (2) states that "Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."Ever since the abrogation of Article 370 in J&K on August 5, 2019, internet services have been suspended in the state leading to severe disruption of day-to-day activities. The Supreme Court in its verdict observed that freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court added that it can only be restricted under the reasons given in the sub-clause (2) of Article 19. "Freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the constitution and can be restricted only under the reasons given in Article 19(2) of the Constitution," the SC said in its judgement while reviewing petitions challenging restrictions in J&K."Mere apprehension (of the government) that something might happen cannot be a justification for throttling speech and communication links. There has to be cogent evidence to back such exercise of power," senior advocate Kapil Sibal told SC.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Access to Internet is a fundamental right, rules Supreme Court, news by The Hindu, January 10, 2020]Q.A member of the Christian community who objected to singing the national anthem was expelled from the theater. He was outrageously nasty to those in the hall during the anthem performance and then to the theater staff afterward. Does the mans fundamental right to be in the hall have been violated by his expulsion? Decide.a)The individual broke his fundamental responsibility by refusing to perform the national anthem, hence the expulsion does not violate his fundamental right.b)Since the mans behavior interfered with the theater authorities ability to execute their jobs, the ejection did not violate his fundamental right.c)Since he is not required to sing the national anthem as part of his right to express, the mans expulsion from the room did, in fact, violate his fundamental right.d)1 and 2 bothCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court said that access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution and asked the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review within a week all orders imposing curbs in the Union Territory. Here is a look at what does Article 19 inscribed in the Constitution of India say:(1) All citizens shall have the right: (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.The clause (2) states that "Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."Ever since the abrogation of Article 370 in J&K on August 5, 2019, internet services have been suspended in the state leading to severe disruption of day-to-day activities. The Supreme Court in its verdict observed that freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court added that it can only be restricted under the reasons given in the sub-clause (2) of Article 19. "Freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the constitution and can be restricted only under the reasons given in Article 19(2) of the Constitution," the SC said in its judgement while reviewing petitions challenging restrictions in J&K."Mere apprehension (of the government) that something might happen cannot be a justification for throttling speech and communication links. There has to be cogent evidence to back such exercise of power," senior advocate Kapil Sibal told SC.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Access to Internet is a fundamental right, rules Supreme Court, news by The Hindu, January 10, 2020]Q.A member of the Christian community who objected to singing the national anthem was expelled from the theater. He was outrageously nasty to those in the hall during the anthem performance and then to the theater staff afterward. Does the mans fundamental right to be in the hall have been violated by his expulsion? Decide.a)The individual broke his fundamental responsibility by refusing to perform the national anthem, hence the expulsion does not violate his fundamental right.b)Since the mans behavior interfered with the theater authorities ability to execute their jobs, the ejection did not violate his fundamental right.c)Since he is not required to sing the national anthem as part of his right to express, the mans expulsion from the room did, in fact, violate his fundamental right.d)1 and 2 bothCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court said that access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution and asked the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review within a week all orders imposing curbs in the Union Territory. Here is a look at what does Article 19 inscribed in the Constitution of India say:(1) All citizens shall have the right: (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.The clause (2) states that "Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."Ever since the abrogation of Article 370 in J&K on August 5, 2019, internet services have been suspended in the state leading to severe disruption of day-to-day activities. The Supreme Court in its verdict observed that freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court added that it can only be restricted under the reasons given in the sub-clause (2) of Article 19. "Freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the constitution and can be restricted only under the reasons given in Article 19(2) of the Constitution," the SC said in its judgement while reviewing petitions challenging restrictions in J&K."Mere apprehension (of the government) that something might happen cannot be a justification for throttling speech and communication links. There has to be cogent evidence to back such exercise of power," senior advocate Kapil Sibal told SC.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Access to Internet is a fundamental right, rules Supreme Court, news by The Hindu, January 10, 2020]Q.A member of the Christian community who objected to singing the national anthem was expelled from the theater. He was outrageously nasty to those in the hall during the anthem performance and then to the theater staff afterward. Does the mans fundamental right to be in the hall have been violated by his expulsion? Decide.a)The individual broke his fundamental responsibility by refusing to perform the national anthem, hence the expulsion does not violate his fundamental right.b)Since the mans behavior interfered with the theater authorities ability to execute their jobs, the ejection did not violate his fundamental right.c)Since he is not required to sing the national anthem as part of his right to express, the mans expulsion from the room did, in fact, violate his fundamental right.d)1 and 2 bothCorrect 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.The Supreme Court said that access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution and asked the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review within a week all orders imposing curbs in the Union Territory. Here is a look at what does Article 19 inscribed in the Constitution of India say:(1) All citizens shall have the right: (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.The clause (2) states that "Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."Ever since the abrogation of Article 370 in J&K on August 5, 2019, internet services have been suspended in the state leading to severe disruption of day-to-day activities. The Supreme Court in its verdict observed that freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court added that it can only be restricted under the reasons given in the sub-clause (2) of Article 19. "Freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the constitution and can be restricted only under the reasons given in Article 19(2) of the Constitution," the SC said in its judgement while reviewing petitions challenging restrictions in J&K."Mere apprehension (of the government) that something might happen cannot be a justification for throttling speech and communication links. There has to be cogent evidence to back such exercise of power," senior advocate Kapil Sibal told SC.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Access to Internet is a fundamental right, rules Supreme Court, news by The Hindu, January 10, 2020]Q.A member of the Christian community who objected to singing the national anthem was expelled from the theater. He was outrageously nasty to those in the hall during the anthem performance and then to the theater staff afterward. Does the mans fundamental right to be in the hall have been violated by his expulsion? Decide.a)The individual broke his fundamental responsibility by refusing to perform the national anthem, hence the expulsion does not violate his fundamental right.b)Since the mans behavior interfered with the theater authorities ability to execute their jobs, the ejection did not violate his fundamental right.c)Since he is not required to sing the national anthem as part of his right to express, the mans expulsion from the room did, in fact, violate his fundamental right.d)1 and 2 bothCorrect 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.The Supreme Court said that access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution and asked the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review within a week all orders imposing curbs in the Union Territory. Here is a look at what does Article 19 inscribed in the Constitution of India say:(1) All citizens shall have the right: (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.The clause (2) states that "Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."Ever since the abrogation of Article 370 in J&K on August 5, 2019, internet services have been suspended in the state leading to severe disruption of day-to-day activities. The Supreme Court in its verdict observed that freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court added that it can only be restricted under the reasons given in the sub-clause (2) of Article 19. "Freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the constitution and can be restricted only under the reasons given in Article 19(2) of the Constitution," the SC said in its judgement while reviewing petitions challenging restrictions in J&K."Mere apprehension (of the government) that something might happen cannot be a justification for throttling speech and communication links. There has to be cogent evidence to back such exercise of power," senior advocate Kapil Sibal told SC.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Access to Internet is a fundamental right, rules Supreme Court, news by The Hindu, January 10, 2020]Q.A member of the Christian community who objected to singing the national anthem was expelled from the theater. He was outrageously nasty to those in the hall during the anthem performance and then to the theater staff afterward. Does the mans fundamental right to be in the hall have been violated by his expulsion? Decide.a)The individual broke his fundamental responsibility by refusing to perform the national anthem, hence the expulsion does not violate his fundamental right.b)Since the mans behavior interfered with the theater authorities ability to execute their jobs, the ejection did not violate his fundamental right.c)Since he is not required to sing the national anthem as part of his right to express, the mans expulsion from the room did, in fact, violate his fundamental right.d)1 and 2 bothCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court said that access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution and asked the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review within a week all orders imposing curbs in the Union Territory. Here is a look at what does Article 19 inscribed in the Constitution of India say:(1) All citizens shall have the right: (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.The clause (2) states that "Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."Ever since the abrogation of Article 370 in J&K on August 5, 2019, internet services have been suspended in the state leading to severe disruption of day-to-day activities. The Supreme Court in its verdict observed that freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court added that it can only be restricted under the reasons given in the sub-clause (2) of Article 19. "Freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the constitution and can be restricted only under the reasons given in Article 19(2) of the Constitution," the SC said in its judgement while reviewing petitions challenging restrictions in J&K."Mere apprehension (of the government) that something might happen cannot be a justification for throttling speech and communication links. There has to be cogent evidence to back such exercise of power," senior advocate Kapil Sibal told SC.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Access to Internet is a fundamental right, rules Supreme Court, news by The Hindu, January 10, 2020]Q.A member of the Christian community who objected to singing the national anthem was expelled from the theater. He was outrageously nasty to those in the hall during the anthem performance and then to the theater staff afterward. Does the mans fundamental right to be in the hall have been violated by his expulsion? Decide.a)The individual broke his fundamental responsibility by refusing to perform the national anthem, hence the expulsion does not violate his fundamental right.b)Since the mans behavior interfered with the theater authorities ability to execute their jobs, the ejection did not violate his fundamental right.c)Since he is not required to sing the national anthem as part of his right to express, the mans expulsion from the room did, in fact, violate his fundamental right.d)1 and 2 bothCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court said that access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution and asked the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review within a week all orders imposing curbs in the Union Territory. Here is a look at what does Article 19 inscribed in the Constitution of India say:(1) All citizens shall have the right: (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.The clause (2) states that "Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."Ever since the abrogation of Article 370 in J&K on August 5, 2019, internet services have been suspended in the state leading to severe disruption of day-to-day activities. The Supreme Court in its verdict observed that freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court added that it can only be restricted under the reasons given in the sub-clause (2) of Article 19. "Freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the constitution and can be restricted only under the reasons given in Article 19(2) of the Constitution," the SC said in its judgement while reviewing petitions challenging restrictions in J&K."Mere apprehension (of the government) that something might happen cannot be a justification for throttling speech and communication links. There has to be cogent evidence to back such exercise of power," senior advocate Kapil Sibal told SC.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Access to Internet is a fundamental right, rules Supreme Court, news by The Hindu, January 10, 2020]Q.A member of the Christian community who objected to singing the national anthem was expelled from the theater. He was outrageously nasty to those in the hall during the anthem performance and then to the theater staff afterward. Does the mans fundamental right to be in the hall have been violated by his expulsion? Decide.a)The individual broke his fundamental responsibility by refusing to perform the national anthem, hence the expulsion does not violate his fundamental right.b)Since the mans behavior interfered with the theater authorities ability to execute their jobs, the ejection did not violate his fundamental right.c)Since he is not required to sing the national anthem as part of his right to express, the mans expulsion from the room did, in fact, violate his fundamental right.d)1 and 2 bothCorrect 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.The Supreme Court said that access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution and asked the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review within a week all orders imposing curbs in the Union Territory. Here is a look at what does Article 19 inscribed in the Constitution of India say:(1) All citizens shall have the right: (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.The clause (2) states that "Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."Ever since the abrogation of Article 370 in J&K on August 5, 2019, internet services have been suspended in the state leading to severe disruption of day-to-day activities. The Supreme Court in its verdict observed that freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court added that it can only be restricted under the reasons given in the sub-clause (2) of Article 19. "Freedom of expression and carrying on trade through the internet is protected under Article 19(1) of the constitution and can be restricted only under the reasons given in Article 19(2) of the Constitution," the SC said in its judgement while reviewing petitions challenging restrictions in J&K."Mere apprehension (of the government) that something might happen cannot be a justification for throttling speech and communication links. There has to be cogent evidence to back such exercise of power," senior advocate Kapil Sibal told SC.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Access to Internet is a fundamental right, rules Supreme Court, news by The Hindu, January 10, 2020]Q.A member of the Christian community who objected to singing the national anthem was expelled from the theater. He was outrageously nasty to those in the hall during the anthem performance and then to the theater staff afterward. Does the mans fundamental right to be in the hall have been violated by his expulsion? Decide.a)The individual broke his fundamental responsibility by refusing to perform the national anthem, hence the expulsion does not violate his fundamental right.b)Since the mans behavior interfered with the theater authorities ability to execute their jobs, the ejection did not violate his fundamental right.c)Since he is not required to sing the national anthem as part of his right to express, the mans expulsion from the room did, in fact, violate his fundamental right.d)1 and 2 bothCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.