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. During a religious procession, a group of individuals from a particular community vandalizes a temple, causing significant damage to its structure. The police initiate suo motu action against these individuals under Section 295 of the IPC. The individuals argue that their actions were justified because the temple was constructed on land belonging to their community and was wrongfully acquired by the temples trustees. Which of the following statements is accurate?a)Individual cannot be held liable under Section 295 since his intent was not to insult any religious community or hurt their sentiments.b)Individual can only be held liable under Section 295 if it can be conclusively proven that he had a specific intention to insult or damage the mosque.c)Individual cannot be held accountable under Section 295 if his actions were driven by protest against the mosques construction.d)Individual can be held accountable under Section 295 if the prosecution can establish that he had the knowledge or the likelihood to insult religious sentiments by destroying the mosque.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. During a religious procession, a group of individuals from a particular community vandalizes a temple, causing significant damage to its structure. The police initiate suo motu action against these individuals under Section 295 of the IPC. The individuals argue that their actions were justified because the temple was constructed on land belonging to their community and was wrongfully acquired by the temples trustees. Which of the following statements is accurate?a)Individual cannot be held liable under Section 295 since his intent was not to insult any religious community or hurt their sentiments.b)Individual can only be held liable under Section 295 if it can be conclusively proven that he had a specific intention to insult or damage the mosque.c)Individual cannot be held accountable under Section 295 if his actions were driven by protest against the mosques construction.d)Individual can be held accountable under Section 295 if the prosecution can establish that he had the knowledge or the likelihood to insult religious sentiments by destroying the mosque.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. During a religious procession, a group of individuals from a particular community vandalizes a temple, causing significant damage to its structure. The police initiate suo motu action against these individuals under Section 295 of the IPC. The individuals argue that their actions were justified because the temple was constructed on land belonging to their community and was wrongfully acquired by the temples trustees. Which of the following statements is accurate?a)Individual cannot be held liable under Section 295 since his intent was not to insult any religious community or hurt their sentiments.b)Individual can only be held liable under Section 295 if it can be conclusively proven that he had a specific intention to insult or damage the mosque.c)Individual cannot be held accountable under Section 295 if his actions were driven by protest against the mosques construction.d)Individual can be held accountable under Section 295 if the prosecution can establish that he had the knowledge or the likelihood to insult religious sentiments by destroying the mosque.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. During a religious procession, a group of individuals from a particular community vandalizes a temple, causing significant damage to its structure. The police initiate suo motu action against these individuals under Section 295 of the IPC. The individuals argue that their actions were justified because the temple was constructed on land belonging to their community and was wrongfully acquired by the temples trustees. Which of the following statements is accurate?a)Individual cannot be held liable under Section 295 since his intent was not to insult any religious community or hurt their sentiments.b)Individual can only be held liable under Section 295 if it can be conclusively proven that he had a specific intention to insult or damage the mosque.c)Individual cannot be held accountable under Section 295 if his actions were driven by protest against the mosques construction.d)Individual can be held accountable under Section 295 if the prosecution can establish that he had the knowledge or the likelihood to insult religious sentiments by destroying the mosque.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of 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. During a religious procession, a group of individuals from a particular community vandalizes a temple, causing significant damage to its structure. The police initiate suo motu action against these individuals under Section 295 of the IPC. The individuals argue that their actions were justified because the temple was constructed on land belonging to their community and was wrongfully acquired by the temples trustees. Which of the following statements is accurate?a)Individual cannot be held liable under Section 295 since his intent was not to insult any religious community or hurt their sentiments.b)Individual can only be held liable under Section 295 if it can be conclusively proven that he had a specific intention to insult or damage the mosque.c)Individual cannot be held accountable under Section 295 if his actions were driven by protest against the mosques construction.d)Individual can be held accountable under Section 295 if the prosecution can establish that he had the knowledge or the likelihood to insult religious sentiments by destroying the mosque.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. During a religious procession, a group of individuals from a particular community vandalizes a temple, causing significant damage to its structure. The police initiate suo motu action against these individuals under Section 295 of the IPC. The individuals argue that their actions were justified because the temple was constructed on land belonging to their community and was wrongfully acquired by the temples trustees. Which of the following statements is accurate?a)Individual cannot be held liable under Section 295 since his intent was not to insult any religious community or hurt their sentiments.b)Individual can only be held liable under Section 295 if it can be conclusively proven that he had a specific intention to insult or damage the mosque.c)Individual cannot be held accountable under Section 295 if his actions were driven by protest against the mosques construction.d)Individual can be held accountable under Section 295 if the prosecution can establish that he had the knowledge or the likelihood to insult religious sentiments by destroying the mosque.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. During a religious procession, a group of individuals from a particular community vandalizes a temple, causing significant damage to its structure. The police initiate suo motu action against these individuals under Section 295 of the IPC. The individuals argue that their actions were justified because the temple was constructed on land belonging to their community and was wrongfully acquired by the temples trustees. Which of the following statements is accurate?a)Individual cannot be held liable under Section 295 since his intent was not to insult any religious community or hurt their sentiments.b)Individual can only be held liable under Section 295 if it can be conclusively proven that he had a specific intention to insult or damage the mosque.c)Individual cannot be held accountable under Section 295 if his actions were driven by protest against the mosques construction.d)Individual can be held accountable under Section 295 if the prosecution can establish that he had the knowledge or the likelihood to insult religious sentiments by destroying the mosque.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. During a religious procession, a group of individuals from a particular community vandalizes a temple, causing significant damage to its structure. The police initiate suo motu action against these individuals under Section 295 of the IPC. The individuals argue that their actions were justified because the temple was constructed on land belonging to their community and was wrongfully acquired by the temples trustees. Which of the following statements is accurate?a)Individual cannot be held liable under Section 295 since his intent was not to insult any religious community or hurt their sentiments.b)Individual can only be held liable under Section 295 if it can be conclusively proven that he had a specific intention to insult or damage the mosque.c)Individual cannot be held accountable under Section 295 if his actions were driven by protest against the mosques construction.d)Individual can be held accountable under Section 295 if the prosecution can establish that he had the knowledge or the likelihood to insult religious sentiments by destroying the mosque.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. During a religious procession, a group of individuals from a particular community vandalizes a temple, causing significant damage to its structure. The police initiate suo motu action against these individuals under Section 295 of the IPC. The individuals argue that their actions were justified because the temple was constructed on land belonging to their community and was wrongfully acquired by the temples trustees. Which of the following statements is accurate?a)Individual cannot be held liable under Section 295 since his intent was not to insult any religious community or hurt their sentiments.b)Individual can only be held liable under Section 295 if it can be conclusively proven that he had a specific intention to insult or damage the mosque.c)Individual cannot be held accountable under Section 295 if his actions were driven by protest against the mosques construction.d)Individual can be held accountable under Section 295 if the prosecution can establish that he had the knowledge or the likelihood to insult religious sentiments by destroying the mosque.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.