Previous Year Questions 2023: Legal Reasoning | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

Q11: Assad buys an electoral bond worth ₹1,00,000/- on November 9, 2022, and plans to give the bond to the Popular People’s Party (the ―PPP”), which he has been supporting for many years. On November 10, he must travel out of station on some urgent business, and he only hands the bond over to a representative of the PPP on November 14, 2022. The PPP’s representative deposits the bond in the Party’s account on November 16, 2022, but the bank refuses to credit the bond to the party’s account, on the grounds that it was no longer valid. Is the bank correct?
(a) No, since Assad was a long-time supporter of the PPP.
(b) Yes, since the bonds were only issued from November 9 to November 15, 2022 and were invalid after that.
(c) Yes, since the party representative had not deposited the bond with an authorised branch of the bank.
(d) No, since the bond was valid on November 16, 2022.
Ans: (d)
Sol: Assad bought the bonds on 9th November 2022 and handed the bond over to a representative of the PPP on November 14, 2022. The PPP’s representative deposits the bond in the Party’s account on November 16, 2022. In the given scenario, the bank refuses to credit the bond to the party’s account, but the bank is not correct because the electoral bonds are valid for 15 calendar days from the date of issue.

Q12: The Government announces that there would be a sale of a 24th tranche of electoral bonds on February 10, 2023, for a period of 15 days, since elections to the Legislative Assembly of some States are scheduled for that year. Since there are no elections to the Lok Sabha or the Legislative Assembly of the State in which Assad resides, he claims that the Government does not have the power to issue this 24th tranche of electoral bonds in 2023. Is he right?
(a) No, since the changes to the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 mean that electoral bonds can be issued for an additional period of 15 days in any year, regardless of whether any elections are scheduled that year.
(b) Yes, since no elections were scheduled for Assad’s state in that year.
(c) Yes, since the Government had already sold some bonds in the 23rd tranche in 2022.
(d) No, since the changes to the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 provide that electoral bonds can be issued for an additional period of 15 days in years when there is an election to the Legislative Assembly of a State.
Ans: (d)
Sol: In the given scenario, Assad is not right since the changes to the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 provide that electoral bonds can be issued for an additional period of 15 days in years when there is an election to the Legislative Assembly of a State.

Q13: On November 10, 2022, Palak purchases an electoral bond from a branch of the State Bank of India, and hands it over to a representative of the PPP. The next day, the PPP announces that it has changed its candidates for the upcoming elections in Palak’s State. Upset at this news, she tells a PPP representative that she would like her bond back. The representative tells her that the bond has already been deposited, and that the money has been credited to the party’s account. Palak claims that since the period of validity of the bonds has not expired, she has the right to get her bond back from the party. Is she right?
(a) No, since Palak cannot ask for the bond back once she has given it to a political party.
(b) No, since the party had already deposited the bond, and the money had been credited to its account.
(c) Yes, since Palak bought the bond with her own money, and has the right to ask for it back.
(d) Yes, since the PPP changed its candidates, and Palak may no longer support the party.
Ans: (b)
Sol: In the given scenario, Palak is not right since the party had already deposited the bond, and the money had been credited to its account. Once a bond has been deposited in the bank and the money has been credited to the party’s account, the purchaser of the bond cannot get back his/her bond from the party.

Q14: On November 15, 2022, the Government issues another notification, announcing that from that date onwards, only political parties that have received at least 1% of the votes polled in the last elections to the Lok Sabha, or the last elections to the Legislative Assembly of a State, would be eligible to receive and deposit electoral bonds. In the sale of the 24th tranche of electoral bonds, Palak decides to give the electoral bonds she has purchased to the newly formed More Popular People’s Party (the ―MPPP”), which is likely to win the first elections it would be contesting, in July 2023. Is the MPPP eligible to receive the electoral bonds?
(a) Yes, since it is likely to succeed in the upcoming elections.
(b) Yes, since it fulfils the criteria announced in the November 7, 2022 notification.
(c) No, since it does not fulfil the eligibility criteria announced in the November 15, 2022 notification.
(d) No, since it does not fulfil the eligibility criteria announced in the November 7, 2022 notification.
Ans: (c)
Sol: In the given scenario, the newly formed More Popular People’s Party is not eligible to receive the electoral bonds since it does not fulfill the eligibility criteria announced in the November 15, 2022, notification. According to the November 15, 2022, notification, only political parties that have received at least 1% of the votes polled in the last elections to the Lok Sabha, or the last elections to the Legislative Assembly of a State, would be eligible to receive and deposit electoral bonds.

Q15: Abraham, who lives in a different State from Assad, purchased an electoral bond in the sale of the 23rd tranche. He decides to give the electoral bond to the PPP, even though the PPP is only active in Assad’s State. When the PPP representative goes to an authorised branch of the State Bank of India to deposit the electoral bond on December 5, 2022, however, the bank refuses to credit the money to the PPP’s account. Which of the following would be the most valid reason for the bank to refuse to credit the money to the party’s account?
(a) The bond was no longer valid.
(b) Abraham could not give the bond to the PPP since the PPP was not active in his state.
(c) The PPP was not eligible to receive electoral bonds.
(d) The PPP could only deposit the bond in a bank branch located in Abraham’s state.
Ans: (a)
Sol: The most valid reason for the bank to refuse to credit the money to the party’s account is that the bond was no longer valid.

4. Twitter’s lawyer on October 27, said before the Karnataka High Court that Union government orders to block certain Twitter handles and posts must contain reasons for the same that can be communicated to users of the microblogging site. He said this applies to all blocking orders sent to social media platforms. The lawyer representing Twitter said that reasons for the blocking order must be provided to users so they can determine whether or not they want to challenge the orders.
Challenging the blocking orders, Twitter’s July 5 petition contended that several blocking orders “demonstrate excessive use of powers and are disproportionate”. Such orders can only be issued by the Union government and not the state governments, he said, which increases the danger of such abuse. Twitter also claimed that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had sent it a letter threatening consequences for failing to comply with the blocking orders, such as criminal proceedings against the company’s chief compliance officer and the stripping away of Twitter’s safe harbour immunity, otherwise available to social media platforms under Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act (the “ IT Act”). Note that the Government has the power to strip away such safe harbor immunity under the IT Act. Further, in a previous hearing, Twitter’s lawyer said that the company was asked to block entire accounts, although Section 69A of the IT Act does not permit blocking of the whole account. I t only permits the blocking of information, or a particular tweet or post. It argued that the Union government’s direction to block whole accounts will affect its business, adding that several prominent persons have their accounts on the platform.
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “ ‘Government Must Provide Reasons for Blocking User Accounts,’ Twitter Tells Karnataka HC”, The Wire]

Q16: Sunil is a high-ranking officer of the Union government. While scrolling through his timeline on a social media platform, he notices some posts by Sachin, a private businessman, which he finds objectionable. He sends an order to UnReal, the company that owns that social media platform, that the posts must be blocked, as they may bring disrepute to India. UnReal claims that Sunil has not provided a clear, detailed reason for blocking the posts, and so, the order is not valid. Is UnReal right?
(a) No, the blocking order is valid since Sunil found the posts objectionable.
(b) No, the blocking order is valid since Sunil had provided reasons for blocking the post.
(c) Yes, Sunil’s reasons are vague, and he should have provided more detail.
(d) Yes, such an order is violative of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
Ans: (b)
Sol: In the given scenario, the blocking order is valid since Sunil had provided reasons for blocking the post. As the post by Sachin is objectionable, an order sent to UnReal is valid.

Q17: Some days later, Sunil notices another post from Sachin on UnReal’s social media platform; this post contains some highly sensitive information about the country’s defence policies. He issues an order to UnReal, that the post must be blocked since it divulges the government’s confidential information. The order also says that UnReal should not let anyone know about the blocking order, or that the post was ordered to be deleted, since it relates to secret government information. UnReal claims that this order is invalid. Is UnReal right?
(a) Yes, since it did not provide any reasons that could be communicated to the users of the social media platform.
(b) No, since Sunil had provided reasons to UnReal for ordering that the post be blocked.
(c) Yes, since Sunil did not have the authority to issue blocking orders so frequently.
(d) No, since the post divulged confidential government information.
Ans: (a)
Sol: In the given scenario, UnReal is right since it did not provide any reasons that could be communicated to the users of the social media platform.

Q18: Sunil sends UnReal a third blocking order. UnReal claims that this order too was invalid. Upset with UnReal for claiming that all his blocking orders were invalid, Sunil sends them a letter in which he says, ―If you do not comply with my blocking orders, then I will be forced to initiate criminal proceedings against you and cancel your safe harbour immunity.” UnReal claims that Sunil has broken the law by making these statements in the letter. Is UnReal right?
(a) Yes, since making such threats amounts to intimidation.
(b) No, since Sunil had issued blocking orders in the past as well, and UnReal should have complied with the orders without questioning them.
(c) Yes, since Sunil did not have the power to cancel UnReal’s safe harbor immunity.
(d) No, since the IT Act does not forbid Sunil from doing so.
Ans: (d)
Sol: In the given scenario, UnReal is not right because, according to the provisions of the IT Act, Sunil can issue the orders to UnReal to block the account and initiate criminal proceedings.

Q19: Complying with a fourth blocking order that they receive from Sunil, UnReal blocks Sachin’s account, since his posts were seen as increasingly objectionable by the government. Sachin asks UnReal to share the reasons for the blocking order, which they do, yet Sachin claims the blocking order is invalid. Is he right?
(a) Yes, since Sunil was clearly targeting Sachin, and was misusing his powers to silence him.
(b) No, since UnReal had shared the reasons for the blocking order with Sachin.
(c) Yes, since Section 69A of the IT Act only permits blocking information, or a particular post, but not a whole account.
(d) No, since his posts were seen as increasingly objectionable by the government.
Ans: (c)
Sol: According to Section 69A of the IT Act, only a particular post can be blocked, but not the whole account. So, Sachin is right in claiming that the blocking order is invalid.

Q20: Sunil sends UnReal a fifth blocking order, which says that several of Sachin’s latest posts must be blocked. The blocking order sets out several reasons why the posts should be blocked, but UnReal does not find them satisfactory. Rather than take on another fight with a government official however, UnReal blocks the posts, and gives Sachin what it thinks is a better set of reasons for blocking the posts. When Sachin finds out, he claims this was wrong on UnReal’s part, and that the blocking order was inappropriate. Which of the following is most accurate in this regard?
(a) The blocking order was valid, but UnReal’s actions were inappropriate.
(b) UnReal’s actions were valid, but the blocking order was invalid.
(c) UnReal’s actions were valid, but Sachin’s actions were invalid.
(d) Sachin’s actions were valid, but the blocking order was invalid.
Ans: (a)
Sol: The blocking order issued by Sunil is valid because it sets out several reasons why the posts should be blocked, and the actions taken by UnReal are inappropriate as it does not find them satisfactory.

5. Free legal aid is the provision of free legal services in civil and criminal matters for those poor and marginalised people who cannot afford the services of a lawyer for the conduct of a case or a legal proceeding in any Court, Tribunal or Authority. These services are governed by the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (the “Act”) and provided by the National Legal Services Authority (“ NALSA”). Provision of free legal aid includes:

• Representation by an advocate in legal proceedings;
• Payment of process fees, expenses of witnesses and all other charges payable or incurred in connection with any legal proceedings in appropriate cases;
• Preparation of pleadings, memo of appeal, paper book including printing and translation of documents in legal proceedings;
• Drafting of legal documents, special leave petition etc.; and
• Supply of certified copies of judgments, orders, notes of evidence and other documents in legal proceedings.

Free legal aid also includes provision of aid and advice to the beneficiaries to access benefits under welfare statutes and schemes framed by the Central Government or the state governments and to ensure access to justice in any other manner. Free legal aid is not confined to cases before the subordinate courts. Free legal aid must be provided to the needy from the lowest court to the Supreme Court of India. According to Section 13(1) of the Act, any individual who satisfies any criteria under Section 12 is entitled to receive free legal aid, provided that NALSA is satisfied that such person has a genuine case to prosecute or defend the matter. There is hence no bar as to which kind of cases one can apply and not apply for. Section 12 of the Act includes the following:

• a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;
• a woman or a child;
• a person with a disability;
• an industrial workman; or
• a person in police custody.

[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “FAQs”, National Legal Services Authority]

Q21: Divya was arrested by the police and charged with having committed a murder. She was convicted by the trial court and appealed to the high court. She lost her appeal there and decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. By this time she has run out of money, so she approaches NALSA and asks them to help her get an advocate who can represent her before the Supreme Court. Is Divya entitled to support from NALSA?
(a) No, since she should have approached them at the beginning of the case before the trial court, and not at such a late stage.
(b) Yes, since her previous lawyers were incompetent, and that is why she lost the matter in the trial court and the high court.
(c) Yes, she is entitled to free legal aid in the Supreme Court proceedings because she is a woman.
(d) No, since she had been accused of having committed the heinous crime of murder.
Ans: (c)
Sol: According to Section 12 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, the following persons are entitled to free legal aid: a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; a woman or a child; a person with a disability; an industrial workman; or a person in police custody. Divya is entitled to free legal aid in the Supreme Court proceedings because she is a woman.

Q22: Divya is acquitted by the Supreme Court and goes back to her regular life. Some days later, she has a fight with her neighbour Riya over a petty matter and decides to file a criminal case against her. She approaches NALSA for free legal aid to prosecute the matter. She tells NALSA representative that she knows she does not have a genuine case, but just wants to harass Riya. NALSA refuses to provide Divya free legal aid because they believe she does not have a genuine case to prosecute. Can NALSA do so?
(a) Yes, since Section 13(1) of the Act provides that free legal aid can be provided if NALSA is satisfied the person has a genuine case to prosecute, and they did not believe that Divya had a genuine case to prosecute.
(b) Yes, since Divya had earlier been prosecuted for the crime of murder.
(c) Yes, since Divya had already applied for free legal aid from NALSA in the past and could not repeatedly ask NALSA for such assistance.
(d) No, since Divya is a woman, and is included within the list of people entitled to free legal aid from NALSA under Section 12 of the Act.
Ans: (a)
Sol: In the given scenario, NALSA can refuse to provide Divya free legal aid because they believe she does not have a genuine case to prosecute. According to Section 13(1) of the Act, free legal aid can be provided if NALSA is satisfied that the person has a genuine case to prosecute, and they did not believe that Divya had a genuine case to prosecute.

Q23: Incensed at Divya, Riya decides to file a civil case against Divya, claiming that Divya had violated the terms of a contract they had made some time back. Divya approaches NALSA for free legal aid to defend the matter, which NALSA agrees to provide. Since Riya is also short of funds, she too approaches NALSA for free legal aid. NALSA refuses to provide legal aid to Riya, since they are already providing Divya free legal aid in the same case. Is NALSA right in refusing free legal aid to Riya?
(a) Yes, since NALSA cannot provide free legal aid to opposing parties in the same matter.
(b) Yes, since NALSA does not provide free legal aid in civil matters.
(c) No, since Divya had filed a frivolous case against Riya in the past, and Riya was entitled to retaliate by filing another case against Divya.
(d) No, since Riya is a woman, and is entitled to free legal aid as long as NALSA is satisfied she has a genuine case.
Ans: (d)
Sol: In the given scenario, NALSA is not right in refusing free legal aid to Riya. Since Riya is a woman and is entitled to free legal aid as long as NALSA is satisfied that she has a genuine case, she is entitled to free legal aid.

Q24: Farhan is an up-and-coming artist and makes a living selling his paintings. Since he is not very well known yet, he isn’t able to sell too many paintings, and is dependent on aid from the government and well-wishers. He reads about a new Central Government scheme in the papers one day, under which artists would be provided a monthly stipend by the local government. Since he finds the language of the scheme document very complex to understand, he approaches NALSA for help in understanding the scheme and obtaining the stipend. Is he entitled to free legal aid from NALSA in this regard?
(a) No, since free legal aid does not include provision of help to understand and access benefits under government schemes.
(b) No, since he does not fit within any of the categories under Section 12 of the Act.
(c) Yes, since free legal aid includes provision of help to understand and access benefits under government schemes.
(d) Yes, since he is a struggling artist, and is dependent on aid for survival.
Ans: (b)
Sol: Farhan is not entitled to free legal aid from NALSA in this regard as he does not fit within any of the categories under Section 12 of the Act.

Q25: Vikram is a rich businessman and has a huge art collection. Farhan invites Vikram to his studio one day, hoping to convince Vikram to buy some of his paintings. Vikram doesn’t buy any of his paintings, but after he leaves, Farhan notices that one of his newest paintings is missing. He suspects that Vikram has stolen it, and complains to the police, who promptly arrest Vikram. Vikram approaches NALSA for free legal aid, so that he can obtain bail. Is Vikram entitled to free legal aid from NALSA?
(a) No, since he is a rich businessman and can hire a lawyer with his own money.
(b) Yes, since he was innocent.
(c) Yes, since he was in police custody.
(d) No, since he had stolen from a struggling artist.
Ans: (c)
Sol: According to the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, Vikram is entitled to free legal aid from NALSA as he is the person in police custody.

6. Surrogacy is defined by law as “a practice whereby one woman bears and gives birth to a child for an intending couple” and intends to hand over the child to them after the birth, as per the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (the “SRA”). The SRA restricts altruistic surrogacy to legally wedded infertile Indian couples. The couple is deemed eligible for surrogacy only if they have been married for five years. The SRA sets an age limitation for the couple. 
A husband must be between 26 and 55 years of age and a wife between 23 and 50 years. Further, Indian couples with biological or adopted children are prohibited from undertaking surrogacy, save for some exceptions such as mentally or physically challenged children, or those suffering from a life -threatening disorder or fatal illness. The SRA provides that the surrogate mother has to be a close relative of the couple (such as a sibling of one of the members of the couple), a married woman with a child of her own, aged between 25 and 35 years, who has been a surrogate only once in her life. Even within this category of people, commercial surrogacy is banned in India and that includes the “commercialisation of surrogacy services or procedures or its component services or component procedures”. The surrogate woman ca nnot be given payments, rewards, benefits or fees, “except the medical expenses and such other prescribed expenses incurred on the surrogate mother and the insurance coverage for the surrogate mother”. A legal commentator points out some criticisms of the law. “Permitting limited conditional surrogacy to married Indian couples and disqualifying other persons on basis of nationality, marital status, sexual orientation or age does not pass the test of equality,” he writes. He adds that reproductive autonomy, inclusive of the right to procreation and parenthood is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The intending parents typically sign a contract with the surrogate. The Indian Contract Act, 1972 (the “ICA”) provides that a valid contract has to be in writing, and signed in the presence of two witnesses. The ICA also provides that a contract that is prohibited by any other law will not be valid under the ICA. 
[Extracted with edits and revisions from “What laws regulate surrogacy in India”, The Indian Express]

Q26: Rani and Shiva would like to opt for surrogacy. They have been married for 6 years. Rani is aged 51 and Shiva is aged 53. Both Rani and Shiva have built successful business empires. They are now working together on a joint initiative. Due to the demanding nature of their work, they have not thought about children previously. However, they are now keen to have a child via surrogacy.
Are Rani and Shiva eligible for surrogacy under the SRA?
(a) Yes, because they have been married for more than 5 years.
(b) Yes, because they have financial capacity to bring up a child.
(c) No, because they do not fall within the legal requirements of intending parents.
(d) No, because they are not an infertile couple.
Ans: (c)
Sol: In the given scenario, Rani and Shiva are not eligible for surrogacy under the SRA because they do not fall within the legal requirements of intending parents.

Q27: Assume Rani and Shiva are eligible for surrogacy under the SRA. They approach Geeta to act as a surrogate. Geeta is Rani’s sister. She is 29 years old. She is married, has one child, and has been a surrogate twice before. Which of the following statements are false?
i. Geeta is eligible to be a surrogate because she is a close relative.
ii. Geeta is eligible to be a surrogate because she is married.
iii. Geeta has been a surrogate only twice before and is now eligible to be a surrogate for Rani.
iv. Geeta is eligible to be a surrogate because she is 29.
(a) Statement iii
(b) Statements i and iii
(c) Statements ii and iii
(d) Statements ii, iii, and iv
Ans: (a)
Sol: According to the given facts, statement iii is false. (Geeta has been a surrogate only twice before and is now eligible to be a surrogate for Rani.)

Q28: Joseph and Neena are keen to have a child via surrogacy. They have been married for 8 years, and have been unable to conceive biologically due to infertility. Joseph is 40 years old and Neena is 42 years old. They have an adopted daughter, Maya, who is 4 years old. Maya has been diagnosed with Striker’s Syndrome, which would cause slow neurological deterioration, with chances of death. Devastated, Joseph and Neena decide to opt for surrogacy, to become parents to their biological child.
Are they eligible for surrogacy?
(a) Yes, because they have no biological children.
(b) No, because they have an adopted child.
(c) Yes, because their adopted child has been diagnosed with Striker’s Syndrome.
(d) Yes, because their right to procreation and parenthood is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Ans: (c)
Sol: Both Joseph and Neena are eligible for surrogacy because, according to the provisions of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021, Indian couples with biological or adopted children are prohibited from undertaking surrogacy, save for some exceptions such as mentally or physically challenged children, or those suffering from a life-threatening disorder or fatal illness. As their adopted daughter Maya has been diagnosed with Striker’s syndrome, they are eligible for surrogacy.

Q29: Queen runs a surrogacy clinic. She employs 54 women, aged between 25 and 35 years. They are all married women with one or more children. Most of them belong to economically disadvantaged backgrounds. They choose to be surrogates because it gives them a reliable source of income. Kishore and Noor are intending parents. They have been married 5 years, are both aged 35, and do not have children. Kishore has been certified as infertile. So, they decide to approach Queen’s clinic. They sign a contract with the surrogate. The contract is in writing and is signed in the presence of two witnesses. As per the contract, Kishore and Noor are required to remunerate the surrogate with ₹2 lakh per child born as a result of surrogacy, and take care of her medical needs, including providing her with medical insurance. A healthy baby girl is born as a result of surrogacy. Kishore and Noor are overjoyed. They take care of the surrogate’s medical expenses. However, they do not pay the surrogate the ₹2 lakh. The surrogate, supported by Queen, now wants to take Kishore and Noor to court, to demand that they make the payment. Will she succeed?
(a) Yes, because Kishore and Noor are bound by the contract under the ICA.
(b) Yes, because the intending parents and the surrogate meet the eligibility requirements under the SRA.
(c) Yes, because the surrogate meets the eligibility requirements under the SRA.
(d) No, because SRA allows only altruistic surrogacy, so the contract is not valid under the ICA.
Ans: (d)
Sol: In the given scenario, the surrogate will not succeed against Kishore and Noor because SRA allows only altruistic surrogacy. According to the provisions of the Surrogacy (Regulations) Act 2021, the surrogate woman cannot be given payments, rewards, benefits, or fees, "except the medical expenses and such other prescribed expenses incurred on the surrogate mother and the insurance coverage for the surrogate mother."

Q30: Karan and Daniel are in a homosexual relationship. As per the Hindu Marriage Act, marriage is allowed only between heterosexual couples. As a result, Karan and Daniel are not married. However, they wish to have children and decide to go in for surrogacy. When they approach Queen’s clinic, they are informed that they do not meet the requirements for an intending couple under the SRA. Karan and Daniel wish to challenge the SRA for violating their constitutional right to non-discrimination. The non-discrimination clause under the Constitution of India reads: ‘No citizen shall be discriminated on the basis of sex, caste, religion, nationality, place of birth or any other ground’. Karan and Daniel argue that the SRA discriminates against them on the basis of sexual orientation, because it restricts surrogacy to heterosexual couples alone. Which of the following arguments would most strongly support their claim in court?
(a) The non-discrimination clause does not explicitly mention sexual orientation.
(b) Discrimination on the basis of sex could include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
(c) The non-discrimination clause is not restricted to explicitly mentioned grounds.
(d) Surrogacy is restricted under the SRA to married couples, and only heterosexual couples can get married.
Ans: (c)
Sol: The non-discrimination clause is not restricted to explicitly mentioned grounds. The non-discrimination clause under the Constitution of India reads: ‘No citizen shall be discriminated against on the basis of sex, caste, religion, nationality, place of birth, or any other ground’.

7. Until 2017, India did not have a codified law to order internet shut downs. A general power was vested in District Magistrates in this regard. The Magistrate could issue an order ordering a shut down if a ‘speedy remedy’ (extending to internet shut down) is desirable for ‘immediate prevention’ of an event. The Magistrate had to be satisfied that the order is ‘likely to prevent or tends to prevent obstruction, annoyance or injury to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of public tranquillity’. The Magistrate’s order cannot be for longer than two months.
In 2017, new rules to order internet shut downs were introduced taking the power away from the Magistrate. These rules — the Temporary Suspension Rules — state that internet shut downs can now only be ordered by the Home Secretary of the Union or State Governments. Only in “unavoidable circumstances” can the passing of orders be delegated to someone lower than the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India. And even in this case, the official must be authorised by the Centre or State Home Secretary. Shut downs can be ordered where ‘necessary’ or ‘unavoidable’ during a ‘public emergency’ or in the ‘interest of public safety’. Shut down orders must necessarily detail the reasons to shut down the internet. The orders must also be sent to a review committee under the state or central government within 24 hours. The committee must then review them within five working days. The rules state that apart from the Chief Secretary and Legal Secretary, the committee can comprise a secretary other than the home secretary.
In January 2020 the Supreme Court passed its judgement in the case of Anuradha Bhasin. The judgement in this case explicitly recognised two things: that the freedom to access information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India (which protects the freedom of speech and expression); and that the freedom to conduct your trade, profession or business over the internet is also a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India (which protects the freedom to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business). Every time the internet is suspended, it is quite obvious that it is a violation of these rights. These rights can only be curtailed in the interest of the ‘sovereignty and security of the state, integrity of the nation, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence’. The Supreme Court’s judgement in Anuradha Bhasin’s case had also underlined that shut down orders must clearly provide reasons for the shut down and they must be publicly available.

[Extracted with edits and revisions from “In India, are internet shut downs in accordance with law? Not always”, by Diksha Munjal, News Laundry]

Q31: In 2014, India was hit by a terrible pandemic. It was the first time the country was experiencing a pandemic. People panicked. WhatsApp and Facebook groups became common platforms for sharing information about the pandemic. Messages were forwarded from group to group. Many of these messages prescribed different remedies to prevent and cure the flu caused by the pandemic. In Merodha district, people following these remedies began to fall sick. The already overburdened public sector hospitals became even more full. The district administration requested people to stop sharing such misinformation. However, these requests were not heeded. The District Magistrate issued an indefinite order to shut down the internet to prevent the transmission of these messages. Is this order legal?
(a) Yes, because the District Magistrate has the power to issue a range of orders, which includes internet shut down orders.
(b) Yes, because the order was necessary on grounds of public health.
(c) Yes, because a speedy order was necessary to immediately prevent transmission of these messages.
(d) No, because the order was indefinite.
Ans: (d)
Sol: In the given scenario, the order issued by the District Magistrate is not legal because he issued an indefinite order to shut down the internet to prevent the transmission of these messages. The Magistrate’s order cannot be for longer than two months.

Q32: The Central government was preparing to conduct the National Medical Eligibility Test (“NMET”) on 25 October 2021. The exams were to be conducted in public schools around the country on computers provided by the government. In July 2021, there were rumours that several groups had hatched plans to share answers with the students taking the exam. A special chat application was developed. The student simply had to open the application on the browser of the computer on which they were taking the exam, allowing persons on the other end to send them the answers. The government was very concerned. If the rumours were true, the quality of doctors in training (who were selected through the NMET) would be severely affected. To prevent this public emergency, the government issued orders under the Temporary Suspension Rules to shut down internet countrywide on 25 October 2021. Many protested against this decision. They argued that the government could prevent cheating in the exams by shutting down the internet in the public schools where the exam was taking place. A nation-wide blanket shut down was not required for this purpose. Now, the issue is before the Supreme Court. What will the Court decide?
(a) The government’s order is legal under the Temporary Suspension Rules because it prevents a public emergency by preserving the quality of doctors in India.
(b) The government’s order is not legal under the Temporary Suspension Rules because the power belonged to the magistrate to issue orders under Section 144.
(c) The government’s order is not legal under the Temporary Suspension Rules because the nation-wide internet shut down order was not necessary or unavoidable.
(d) The government’s order is legal because it is the responsibility of the State to conduct exams in a fair manner.
Ans: (c)
Sol: Under given circumstances, the government’s order is not legal under the Temporary Suspension Rules because the nation-wide internet shutdown order was not necessary or unavoidable.

Q33: In the above instance, the order was passed by the Communications Minister of the Indian Central Government. The Communications Minister is below the rank of Joint Secretary. The Home Secretary was away for a conference in Geneva and thus was not present in Delhi when the decision to pass the order was made. However, the Home Secretary could be contacted by phone or email. She had, in fact, explicitly said that she should be contacted if any need arises, however minor. As she had taken measures to make herself available virtually, the Home Secretary did not authorise any other official to exercise her functions.
Against this, consider the following statements:
i. The Communications Minister had the power to pass the order under the 2017 Rules.
ii. The passing of the order by the Communications Minister was avoidable.
iii. The power to pass the order remained with the Home Secretary.
iv. The Communications Minister did not have the power to pass the order under the 2017 Rules.
Which of the following statements are false?
(a) Statement iv
(b) Statement i
(c) Statements ii and iii
(d) Statements ii and iv
Ans: (b)
Sol: Among the given statements, statement (i) is false as the Communications Minister did not have the power to pass the order under the 2017 Rules.

Q34: Assume that in the above instance, the Joint Secretary passed the order. The order stated: ‘By means of the discretion vested in me by the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules 2017, I suspend internet across all Indian States and Union Territories on October 25, 2021’. The order was passed on 15 October, 2021. The order was sent to the Central Government review committee within 8 hours of its passing. The committee reviewed and approved of the order on 22 October, 2021. Is the order legal?
(a) Yes, because it was passed under the 2017 rules.
(b) No, because the procedure under the 2017 rules was not followed.
(c) Yes, because the order was reviewed by the Central government review committee.
(d) No, because the order was passed 10 days before it was to come into effect.
Ans: (b)
Sol: In the given scenario, the order is not legal because the procedure under the 2017 rules was not followed. In 2017, new rules to order internet shutdowns were introduced, taking the power away from the Magistrate. These rules — the Temporary Suspension Rules — state that internet shutdowns can now only be ordered by the Home Secretary of the Union or State Governments. Only in “unavoidable circumstances” can the passing of orders be delegated to someone lower than the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India.

Q35: In January 2022, communal riots were rife in five states in India, between two dominant communities, X and Y. The primary mode of communication amongst the rioters was Signal which could be accessed through the internet via mobile phones and computers. The State governments of the five States received information that some members of X group were planning to set the houses of members of Y group on fire. Through broad Signal broadcasts amongst all users, the leaders of X group were instigating members of their group to participate in this exercise, threatening public order. Creating or inciting threat to public order is a criminal offence under Section 163F of the Indian Penal Code. To prevent further communication between the leaders of X group and their members, the State shut Signal down. However, communication then shifted to other platforms. Realising that targeting isolated platforms would not work, the State governments issued an order shutting down internet completely in all the states. Two groups protested against this order. First, students whose education was being conducted online due to the riots. They argued that they were prevented from accessing vital information, central to their education. Second, business owners who conducted business on the internet. The State’s order read: ‘In the five Indian States listed below, internet will be suspended for a period of two months from 10 January 2022 to 10 March 2022’. The State’s order was not displayed anywhere (in print or virtually) from January to March 2022.
Consider the following statements:
i. The students’ right under Article 19(1)(a) was violated by the State order.
ii. The business owners’ right under Article 19(1)(g) was violated by the State order.
iii. The State order validly restricted the said fundamental rights.
iv. The State’s order complied with the guidelines under Anuradha Bhasin.
How many statements are true?
(a) One statement
(b) Two statements
(c) Three statements
(d) All four statements
Ans: (c)
Sol: In January 2020, the Supreme Court passed its judgment in the case of Anuradha Bhasin. The judgment in this case explicitly recognized two things: that the freedom to access information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India (which protects the freedom of speech and expression). So, the statement (i) is incorrect. Other statements are correct.

8. Consumers are people who buy and use goods or services. Consumers have a right to file a complaint for any of the services or goods used by them under Consumer Protection Law. Under Consumer Protection Law, a ‘consumer’ means: Person buying and using goods and services: A consumer includes any person who buys goods and services, as well as anyone who uses them. For instance, a person who watches a movie after buying a movie ticket is a consumer and similarly, a person who uses a gift voucher gifted from someone else is also a consumer. Person using goods for self-employment, and not for commercial purposes: The consumer protection law does not apply to people who use goods and services for commercial purposes. 
However, there are some exceptions to this. For example, people who use goods for selfemployment are considered as consumers. For example, artists who buy art supplies for their work or beauticians who buy beauty products are consumers. Person using online facilities: A consumer also includes any person who buys or hires goods or services online. For example, if you order from an online clothes website, you are a consumer. People facing issues related to food: Consumers also include people who may be facing issues related to food items, such as adulteration, poor quality, lack of service, etc. 
For instance, issues related to food can cover problems across a wide range of products, starting from water that goes into the production of items like juices as well as the sale of animals like chicken, mutton etc. that are expressly intended for human consumption. 
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “Who is a Consumer?”, Nyaaya India]

36. Clint Leone Morricone Ltd. (“CLML”) is a factory manufacturing bicycles. For the purpose of documentation and record keeping, it purchased a laptop from Pacer. However, within a month of the purchase, the laptop crashed and there was a motherboard failure. Despite a warranty, Pacer failed to replace the motherboard.
Which of the following statements is correct?
(a) Purchase of electronic items do not fall within the purview of consumer law.
(b) CLML is a consumer since it has bought a good for a price.
(c) CLML is not a consumer since it has purchased the laptop for commercial purpose.
(d) A company is not a person and so, cannot be a consumer.
Ans: (c)
Sol: In the given scenario, CLML is not a consumer since it has purchased the laptop for a commercial purpose. So, Pacer is not at fault when it failed to replace the motherboard.

37. Sita Das has been working as a freelance journalist. She writes columns and news-reports for various newspapers and news-portals and is paid on the basis of each column and report. For the purpose of her writing work, she purchases a Pacer laptop. However, within a month of the purchase, the laptop crashed and there was a motherboard failure. Which of the following statements is correct?
(a) Since she is using the laptop for the purpose of writing paid columns and news reports, Sita Das cannot be a consumer.
(b) Purchase of goods does not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Law.
(c) Since she is using the laptop for the purpose of earning her livelihood, she will be a consumer.
(d) None of the above
Ans: (c)
Sol: Under given circumstances, as Sita Das is using the laptop for the purpose of earning her livelihood, she will be a consumer.

38. Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust runs a hospital. The hospital charges a fee from its patients. The fee is however 30% less than the commercial rates for all services and medical devices sold to patients. The hospital purchased a pacemaker from St. Rude’s — a globally reputed manufacturer of pacemakers, to be resold to and used by patients. Which of the following statements is correct?
(a) The hospital is a charitable hospital and therefore, it is a consumer with respect to the pacemakers purchased from St. Rude’s.
(b) The hospital resells the pacemakers to patients and therefore cannot be considered as a consumer with respect to the pacemakers purchased from St. Rude’s.
(c) The hospital resells the pacemakers at a discounted rate and therefore can be considered a consumer with respect to the pacemakers purchased from St. Rude’s.
(d) Sale of medical devices is not covered by Consumer Protection Law.
Ans: (b)
Sol: As the hospital resells the pacemakers to patients and therefore cannot be considered a consumer with respect to the pacemakers purchased from St. Rude’s.

39. Fitzit is an online platform that provides physiotherapy and other ancillary medical services. Amit Ghosh booked a physiotherapist on Fitzit for three months by paying an amount of ' 25,000. Fitzit guaranteed the availability of qualified physiotherapists for the duration. However, Fitzit failed to provide a qualified physiotherapist and the persons who were sent for the first two visits had no training or certification in the field. Amit Ghosh seeks to proceed against Fitzit under Consumer Protection Law. Which of the following statements can be correctly inferred?
(a) Since online services are not covered by Consumer Protection Law, Amit Ghosh cannot be considered a consumer.
(b) Since services are not covered by Consumer Protection Law, Amit Ghosh cannot be considered a consumer.
(c) Since online services are covered by Consumer Protection Law, Amit Ghosh shall be considered a consumer.
(d) Since medical services are not covered by Consumer Protection Law, Amit Ghosh cannot be considered a consumer.
Ans: (c)
Sol: In the present scenario, as online services are covered by Consumer Protection Law, Amit Ghosh shall be considered a consumer.

40. Jitesh Shah purchased from BreatheEasy, a company selling respiratory devices, a nebuliser device for his son, Jignesh Shah, for use for clearing his nasal passages. The nebulizer was however defective and led to severe respiratory distress for Jignesh. Jignesh is considering filing a complaint against BreatheEasy under the Consumer Protection Law. Which of the following statements can be correctly inferred?
(a) Since Jignesh Shah did not purchase the device from BreatheEasy, he cannot be considered a consumer with respect to BreathEasy.
(b) Since Jignesh Shah is a user of the device, he can be considered a consumer.
(c) Sale of medical devices are not covered by Consumer Protection Law.
(d) None of the above
Ans: (b)
Sol: As Jignesh Shah is a user of the device, he can be considered a consumer. He will be successful in his claim against BreatheEasy under the provisions of the consumer protection law.