The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics.Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly andquot;accused-centricandquot; nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected.Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries. Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the andquot;rarest of rareandquot; cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall hav e the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroy the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction.Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for benefit of accused group, as they are also human being.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > The Centre has filed an application in the Su...

Join the Discussion on the App

Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly "accused-centric" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected.

Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.

It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days' delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries. Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the "rarest of rare" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.

Q. All citizens shall hav e the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroy the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction.

Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?

a)
Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.
b)
Restriction is justified as it is for benefit of accused group, as they are also human being.
c)
Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.
d)
Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CLAT Practice Test- 22

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additiona...

The correct answer is Option is (C): Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.

Explanation:
The restriction on lawyers being part of death trials can be considered unreasonable for the following reasons:

- It goes against the fundamental right of freedom to practice any profession, as mentioned in the question. By banning lawyers from being part of death trials, this restriction is limiting their professional opportunities and hampering their right to practice freely.

- It may also compromise the right to a fair trial for the accused. In a legal system that upholds the principles of justice and fairness, every individual should be entitled to proper legal representation, regardless of the nature of their crime or the punishment they face.

- This restriction could lead to unequal treatment of accused individuals who have received different sentences, such as the death penalty or life imprisonment. If lawyers are allowed to represent those facing life imprisonment, it is only fair that they should also be able to represent those facing the death penalty.

Overall, the restriction on lawyers being part of death trials can be considered unreasonable, as it goes against the fundamental right to practice any profession and could potentially compromise the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Attention CLAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics. Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly ""accused-centric"" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected. Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days' delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries.Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the ""rarest of rare"" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall have the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroys the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction. Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?

View answer

The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics.Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly "accused-centric" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected.Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries. Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the "rarest of rare" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. A curative petition is lodge on a grave error of law to undo a blatant error of law or its application.

View answer

The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics.Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly "accused-centric" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected.Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries. Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the "rarest of rare" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. Instigating a person to cause death and all the results of instigation amounts to murder. A man was chasing his wife with a stick intending to hit her and threatening to kill her. She in a hurry jumped out of a window and died as a result. Can the man be held liable for the death of the woman?

View answer

It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing aseven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days' delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries. Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the ""rarest of rare"" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall have the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroys the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction. Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?

View answer

Passage - 1Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are, in the absence of specific constitutional provisions, mainly enforceable against "the State". The definition of the State in article 12 being an "inclusive" one, courts have ruled that where there is pervasive or predominant governmental control or significant involvement in its activity, such bodies, entities and organizations fall within the definition of "the State".Article 14 is one of the most important Articles of the Indian constitution and it is also regarded as part of the golden triangle of the Constitution along with Article 19 and 21 .In India, this right is very important because there has been a widespread socio-economic difference which has been in existence from a long time. People have been discriminated on the basis of their gender or the religion they follow, therefore Article 14 was included in the Constitution to remove such inequalities and bring all the people under the equal protection of the law. Another important point about this Article is that it not only imposes a duty on the State to abstain from discriminating people but it also puts a positive duty totake such action by which the inequalities can be bridged between the people. Article 19(1)(

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics.Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly "accused-centric" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected.Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries. Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the "rarest of rare" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall hav e the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroy the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction.Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for benefit of accused group, as they are also human being.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics.Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly "accused-centric" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected.Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries. Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the "rarest of rare" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall hav e the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroy the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction.Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for benefit of accused group, as they are also human being.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics.Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly "accused-centric" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected.Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries. Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the "rarest of rare" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall hav e the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroy the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction.Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for benefit of accused group, as they are also human being.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics.Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly "accused-centric" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected.Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries. Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the "rarest of rare" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall hav e the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroy the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction.Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for benefit of accused group, as they are also human being.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics.Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly "accused-centric" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected.Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries. Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the "rarest of rare" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall hav e the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroy the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction.Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for benefit of accused group, as they are also human being.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.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 The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics.Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly "accused-centric" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected.Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries. Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the "rarest of rare" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall hav e the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroy the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction.Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for benefit of accused group, as they are also human being.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics.Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly "accused-centric" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected.Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries. Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the "rarest of rare" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall hav e the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroy the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction.Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for benefit of accused group, as they are also human being.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics.Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly "accused-centric" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected.Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries. Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the "rarest of rare" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall hav e the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroy the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction.Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for benefit of accused group, as they are also human being.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics.Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly "accused-centric" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected.Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries. Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the "rarest of rare" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall hav e the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroy the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction.Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for benefit of accused group, as they are also human being.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics.Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly "accused-centric" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for mercy are rejected.Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.It is strange that the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued. And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no more than a few days delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court, or before constitutional functionaries. Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As the death penalty is limited to the "rarest of rare" cases, nothing is lost if those facing execution are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.Q. All citizens shall hav e the right of freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which destroy the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an unreasonable restriction.Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanising as it often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament in order to prevent such harassment passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision, based only on the information set out in the given passage and in this question, are the restrictions justified?a)Restriction is justified as it is in interest of public morality and decency.b)Restriction is justified as it is for benefit of accused group, as they are also human being.c)Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.d)Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got death penalty and who got live imprisonment.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam