Question Description
Directions: Questions 17- 20 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1 – An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.Principle 2- 'State‘ includes the Government of India, the Parliament, the state governments and legislatures, and all local and other authorities under the control of the government of India.Principle 3 – The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.Principle 4 – No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.Principle 5 – Any law or action of the State that contravenes fundamental rights will be void to the extent of that contravention.Facts – Nirmala and Sitara are both civil servants who have served in different capacities for about twelve years now. Despite several transfers and changes in designation, they have continued to remain friends. One day, they both attend a stirring talk by a Dalit rights activist, and are so influenced by this talk, that they want to contribute to the Dalit movement in their capacity as civil servants. They decide to apply for managerial posts at the Department for Minority Affairs. Nirmala‘s application for the post was rejected on the grounds that she was Brahmin herself, and not eligible to manage the affairs of SCs and STs. Sitara‘s application for the post was rejected due to past animosity with Mr. Kapur, head of the Minority Affairs Department. Mr. Kapur, in a scathing email, informed her that she would not be considered for any post that required his approval. Nirmala and Sitara are both enraged by these rejections, and allege that their fundamental rights have been violated.Question: Suppose that the Government passes a law that mandates that only persons belonging to the SC/ ST communities can head those departments, would this law be valid?a)No, this law would not be valid. It is overly restrictive.b)Yes, this law would be valid. It merely lays down a requirement of eligibility.c)No, this law would not be valid, as it discriminates on the basis of caste.d)Can‘t say.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 Directions: Questions 17- 20 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1 – An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.Principle 2- 'State‘ includes the Government of India, the Parliament, the state governments and legislatures, and all local and other authorities under the control of the government of India.Principle 3 – The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.Principle 4 – No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.Principle 5 – Any law or action of the State that contravenes fundamental rights will be void to the extent of that contravention.Facts – Nirmala and Sitara are both civil servants who have served in different capacities for about twelve years now. Despite several transfers and changes in designation, they have continued to remain friends. One day, they both attend a stirring talk by a Dalit rights activist, and are so influenced by this talk, that they want to contribute to the Dalit movement in their capacity as civil servants. They decide to apply for managerial posts at the Department for Minority Affairs. Nirmala‘s application for the post was rejected on the grounds that she was Brahmin herself, and not eligible to manage the affairs of SCs and STs. Sitara‘s application for the post was rejected due to past animosity with Mr. Kapur, head of the Minority Affairs Department. Mr. Kapur, in a scathing email, informed her that she would not be considered for any post that required his approval. Nirmala and Sitara are both enraged by these rejections, and allege that their fundamental rights have been violated.Question: Suppose that the Government passes a law that mandates that only persons belonging to the SC/ ST communities can head those departments, would this law be valid?a)No, this law would not be valid. It is overly restrictive.b)Yes, this law would be valid. It merely lays down a requirement of eligibility.c)No, this law would not be valid, as it discriminates on the basis of caste.d)Can‘t say.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 Directions: Questions 17- 20 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1 – An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.Principle 2- 'State‘ includes the Government of India, the Parliament, the state governments and legislatures, and all local and other authorities under the control of the government of India.Principle 3 – The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.Principle 4 – No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.Principle 5 – Any law or action of the State that contravenes fundamental rights will be void to the extent of that contravention.Facts – Nirmala and Sitara are both civil servants who have served in different capacities for about twelve years now. Despite several transfers and changes in designation, they have continued to remain friends. One day, they both attend a stirring talk by a Dalit rights activist, and are so influenced by this talk, that they want to contribute to the Dalit movement in their capacity as civil servants. They decide to apply for managerial posts at the Department for Minority Affairs. Nirmala‘s application for the post was rejected on the grounds that she was Brahmin herself, and not eligible to manage the affairs of SCs and STs. Sitara‘s application for the post was rejected due to past animosity with Mr. Kapur, head of the Minority Affairs Department. Mr. Kapur, in a scathing email, informed her that she would not be considered for any post that required his approval. Nirmala and Sitara are both enraged by these rejections, and allege that their fundamental rights have been violated.Question: Suppose that the Government passes a law that mandates that only persons belonging to the SC/ ST communities can head those departments, would this law be valid?a)No, this law would not be valid. It is overly restrictive.b)Yes, this law would be valid. It merely lays down a requirement of eligibility.c)No, this law would not be valid, as it discriminates on the basis of caste.d)Can‘t say.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Questions 17- 20 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1 – An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.Principle 2- 'State‘ includes the Government of India, the Parliament, the state governments and legislatures, and all local and other authorities under the control of the government of India.Principle 3 – The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.Principle 4 – No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.Principle 5 – Any law or action of the State that contravenes fundamental rights will be void to the extent of that contravention.Facts – Nirmala and Sitara are both civil servants who have served in different capacities for about twelve years now. Despite several transfers and changes in designation, they have continued to remain friends. One day, they both attend a stirring talk by a Dalit rights activist, and are so influenced by this talk, that they want to contribute to the Dalit movement in their capacity as civil servants. They decide to apply for managerial posts at the Department for Minority Affairs. Nirmala‘s application for the post was rejected on the grounds that she was Brahmin herself, and not eligible to manage the affairs of SCs and STs. Sitara‘s application for the post was rejected due to past animosity with Mr. Kapur, head of the Minority Affairs Department. Mr. Kapur, in a scathing email, informed her that she would not be considered for any post that required his approval. Nirmala and Sitara are both enraged by these rejections, and allege that their fundamental rights have been violated.Question: Suppose that the Government passes a law that mandates that only persons belonging to the SC/ ST communities can head those departments, would this law be valid?a)No, this law would not be valid. It is overly restrictive.b)Yes, this law would be valid. It merely lays down a requirement of eligibility.c)No, this law would not be valid, as it discriminates on the basis of caste.d)Can‘t say.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 Directions: Questions 17- 20 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1 – An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.Principle 2- 'State‘ includes the Government of India, the Parliament, the state governments and legislatures, and all local and other authorities under the control of the government of India.Principle 3 – The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.Principle 4 – No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.Principle 5 – Any law or action of the State that contravenes fundamental rights will be void to the extent of that contravention.Facts – Nirmala and Sitara are both civil servants who have served in different capacities for about twelve years now. Despite several transfers and changes in designation, they have continued to remain friends. One day, they both attend a stirring talk by a Dalit rights activist, and are so influenced by this talk, that they want to contribute to the Dalit movement in their capacity as civil servants. They decide to apply for managerial posts at the Department for Minority Affairs. Nirmala‘s application for the post was rejected on the grounds that she was Brahmin herself, and not eligible to manage the affairs of SCs and STs. Sitara‘s application for the post was rejected due to past animosity with Mr. Kapur, head of the Minority Affairs Department. Mr. Kapur, in a scathing email, informed her that she would not be considered for any post that required his approval. Nirmala and Sitara are both enraged by these rejections, and allege that their fundamental rights have been violated.Question: Suppose that the Government passes a law that mandates that only persons belonging to the SC/ ST communities can head those departments, would this law be valid?a)No, this law would not be valid. It is overly restrictive.b)Yes, this law would be valid. It merely lays down a requirement of eligibility.c)No, this law would not be valid, as it discriminates on the basis of caste.d)Can‘t say.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Questions 17- 20 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1 – An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.Principle 2- 'State‘ includes the Government of India, the Parliament, the state governments and legislatures, and all local and other authorities under the control of the government of India.Principle 3 – The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.Principle 4 – No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.Principle 5 – Any law or action of the State that contravenes fundamental rights will be void to the extent of that contravention.Facts – Nirmala and Sitara are both civil servants who have served in different capacities for about twelve years now. Despite several transfers and changes in designation, they have continued to remain friends. One day, they both attend a stirring talk by a Dalit rights activist, and are so influenced by this talk, that they want to contribute to the Dalit movement in their capacity as civil servants. They decide to apply for managerial posts at the Department for Minority Affairs. Nirmala‘s application for the post was rejected on the grounds that she was Brahmin herself, and not eligible to manage the affairs of SCs and STs. Sitara‘s application for the post was rejected due to past animosity with Mr. Kapur, head of the Minority Affairs Department. Mr. Kapur, in a scathing email, informed her that she would not be considered for any post that required his approval. Nirmala and Sitara are both enraged by these rejections, and allege that their fundamental rights have been violated.Question: Suppose that the Government passes a law that mandates that only persons belonging to the SC/ ST communities can head those departments, would this law be valid?a)No, this law would not be valid. It is overly restrictive.b)Yes, this law would be valid. It merely lays down a requirement of eligibility.c)No, this law would not be valid, as it discriminates on the basis of caste.d)Can‘t say.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Questions 17- 20 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1 – An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.Principle 2- 'State‘ includes the Government of India, the Parliament, the state governments and legislatures, and all local and other authorities under the control of the government of India.Principle 3 – The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.Principle 4 – No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.Principle 5 – Any law or action of the State that contravenes fundamental rights will be void to the extent of that contravention.Facts – Nirmala and Sitara are both civil servants who have served in different capacities for about twelve years now. Despite several transfers and changes in designation, they have continued to remain friends. One day, they both attend a stirring talk by a Dalit rights activist, and are so influenced by this talk, that they want to contribute to the Dalit movement in their capacity as civil servants. They decide to apply for managerial posts at the Department for Minority Affairs. Nirmala‘s application for the post was rejected on the grounds that she was Brahmin herself, and not eligible to manage the affairs of SCs and STs. Sitara‘s application for the post was rejected due to past animosity with Mr. Kapur, head of the Minority Affairs Department. Mr. Kapur, in a scathing email, informed her that she would not be considered for any post that required his approval. Nirmala and Sitara are both enraged by these rejections, and allege that their fundamental rights have been violated.Question: Suppose that the Government passes a law that mandates that only persons belonging to the SC/ ST communities can head those departments, would this law be valid?a)No, this law would not be valid. It is overly restrictive.b)Yes, this law would be valid. It merely lays down a requirement of eligibility.c)No, this law would not be valid, as it discriminates on the basis of caste.d)Can‘t say.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Questions 17- 20 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1 – An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.Principle 2- 'State‘ includes the Government of India, the Parliament, the state governments and legislatures, and all local and other authorities under the control of the government of India.Principle 3 – The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.Principle 4 – No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.Principle 5 – Any law or action of the State that contravenes fundamental rights will be void to the extent of that contravention.Facts – Nirmala and Sitara are both civil servants who have served in different capacities for about twelve years now. Despite several transfers and changes in designation, they have continued to remain friends. One day, they both attend a stirring talk by a Dalit rights activist, and are so influenced by this talk, that they want to contribute to the Dalit movement in their capacity as civil servants. They decide to apply for managerial posts at the Department for Minority Affairs. Nirmala‘s application for the post was rejected on the grounds that she was Brahmin herself, and not eligible to manage the affairs of SCs and STs. Sitara‘s application for the post was rejected due to past animosity with Mr. Kapur, head of the Minority Affairs Department. Mr. Kapur, in a scathing email, informed her that she would not be considered for any post that required his approval. Nirmala and Sitara are both enraged by these rejections, and allege that their fundamental rights have been violated.Question: Suppose that the Government passes a law that mandates that only persons belonging to the SC/ ST communities can head those departments, would this law be valid?a)No, this law would not be valid. It is overly restrictive.b)Yes, this law would be valid. It merely lays down a requirement of eligibility.c)No, this law would not be valid, as it discriminates on the basis of caste.d)Can‘t say.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Questions 17- 20 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1 – An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.Principle 2- 'State‘ includes the Government of India, the Parliament, the state governments and legislatures, and all local and other authorities under the control of the government of India.Principle 3 – The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.Principle 4 – No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.Principle 5 – Any law or action of the State that contravenes fundamental rights will be void to the extent of that contravention.Facts – Nirmala and Sitara are both civil servants who have served in different capacities for about twelve years now. Despite several transfers and changes in designation, they have continued to remain friends. One day, they both attend a stirring talk by a Dalit rights activist, and are so influenced by this talk, that they want to contribute to the Dalit movement in their capacity as civil servants. They decide to apply for managerial posts at the Department for Minority Affairs. Nirmala‘s application for the post was rejected on the grounds that she was Brahmin herself, and not eligible to manage the affairs of SCs and STs. Sitara‘s application for the post was rejected due to past animosity with Mr. Kapur, head of the Minority Affairs Department. Mr. Kapur, in a scathing email, informed her that she would not be considered for any post that required his approval. Nirmala and Sitara are both enraged by these rejections, and allege that their fundamental rights have been violated.Question: Suppose that the Government passes a law that mandates that only persons belonging to the SC/ ST communities can head those departments, would this law be valid?a)No, this law would not be valid. It is overly restrictive.b)Yes, this law would be valid. It merely lays down a requirement of eligibility.c)No, this law would not be valid, as it discriminates on the basis of caste.d)Can‘t say.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.