Passage Based Questions: Legal Aptitude - 7 | Passage Based Questions for CLAT Preparation PDF Download

Directions : Read the following questions carefully and choose the right answer.
As early as the 19th century, Raja Rammohan Roy protested against the curtailing of the press and argued that a state must be responsive to individuals and make available to them the means by which they may safely communicate their views. This claim is of equal relevance today.
The commitment to civil liberty flows directly from the manner in which the state treats dissent. A state committed to the rule of law ensures that the state apparatus is not employed to curb legitimate and peaceful protest but to create spaces conductive for deliberation .Within the bounds of law, liberal democracies ensure that their citizens enjoy the right to express their views in every conceivable manner, including the right to protest and express dissent against prevailing laws.
The blanket labelling of such dissent as ‘anti-national’ or ‘anti-democratic’ strikes at the heart of our commitment to the protection of constitutional values and the promotion of a deliberative democracy. Protecting dissent is but a reminder that while democratically elected governments offer us a legitimate tool for development and social coordination, they can never claim a monopoly over the values and identities that define our plural society. The employment of state machinery to curb dissent, instils fear and creates a chilling atmosphere on free speech which violates the rule of law and detracts from the constitutional vision of a pluralist society.
The destruction of spaces for questions and dissent destroys the basis of all growth-political, economic, cultural and social. In this sense, dissent is the safety valve of democracy. The silencing of dissent and the generation of fear in the minds of people go beyond the violation of personal liberty and a commitment of constitutional values-it strikes at the heart of a dialogue-based democratic society which accords to every individual equal respect and consideration.
A commitment to pluralism requires positive action in the form of social arrangements where the goal is “to incorporate difference, coexist with it, allow it a share of social space”. There is thus a positive obligation on the state to ensure the deployment of its machinery to protect the freedom of expression within the bounds of law, and dismantle any attempt by individuals or other actors to in stil fear of chill free speech. This includes not just protecting free speech, but actively welcoming and encouraging it. The great threat to pluralism is the suppression of difference and the silencing of popular and unpopular voices offering alternate or opposing views. Suppression of intellect is the suppression of the conscience of the nation.

Directions : Read the following questions carefully and choose the right answer.
The courts sometime “ring the bell” to attract the attention of the government towards issues forgotten or overlooked. The Indian judiciary has relaxed the rigour of the “locus standi” limitations and at the same time given an expansive meaning to constitutional freedoms, which is remarkable. But these measures have had two consequences.
First, it has widened judicial reach beyond its traditional self-imposed boundaries. There have been moments of overreach which need to be recognised for the sake of judiciary’s credibility. Second, it has given rise to formation of special interest groups who frequently use the courts to push their own agenda.
Social scientist Mancur Olson has cautioned that such groups often lobby for benefits the costs of which were borne by society generally. The late Harold Laski took it for granted that “associations” exist to fulfil purposes of their members. There is nothing inherently objectionable about the formation of such groups. Using the courts to further a socio-political agenda by giving it as constitutional hue is where this system runs awry.
The contribution of public interest litigation in vindicating constitutional rights of those who have no voice, has been seminal. But it would be perilous to turn a blind eyes to the tendency of special groups to try to impose their policies and perspectives upon elected governments, by using broad constitutional principles to persuade courts to override the elected executive.