Test: Legal Reasoning - 5 - CLAT MCQ

Paragraph: False imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification or consent. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. Even if a lecturer locks his class in the lecture room after the usual timefor dismissal has arrived, that is false imprisonment; so, too, if a person be restrained from leaving his own house or any part of it, or be forcibly detained in the public streets. Furthermore, as laid down in the case of Meering v Graham White Aviation, any act which fulfills the conditions of a false imprisonment, would still be held to constitute that offence, even if the person who was being falsely imprisoned had no knowledge about the same.
Under English Law, however, the police have been empowered to arrest and detain a person under principles of prompt investigation, for such purposes as gaining evidence or taking statements, under the conditions set out in Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, Code G. In the United Kingdom, a case was brought to the High Court concerning the alleged unlawful detention of hundreds of members of the public during the May Day riots of 2001 in London, England. The police, using the tactic of "kettling", held a large crowd in Oxford Circus for several hours without allowing anyone to leave. Lois Austin, a peaceful protester who had not broken the law, and Geoffrey Saxby, an innocent passer-by who was not even involved in the demonstration, claimed that they were falsely imprisoned by the London Metropolitan Police and that their detention was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. 
The pair lost their court action in 2005, when the High Court ruled that the police had not acted unlawfully. An appeal against the ruling also failed in 2007. A ruling by the House of Lords declared that even in the case of an absolute right, the High Court was entitled to take the "purpose" of the deprivation of liberty into account before deciding if human rights law applied at all.

Q. Assume that the following are all valid principles of law. Which one of the following would be the strongest argument against the reasoning provided by the High Court in the appeal in 2007?

Paragraph: False imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification or consent. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. Even if a lecturer locks his class in the lecture room after the usual timefor dismissal has arrived, that is false imprisonment; so, too, if a person be restrained from leaving his own house or any part of it, or be forcibly detained in the public streets. Furthermore, as laid down in the case of Meering v Graham White Aviation, any act which fulfills the conditions of a false imprisonment, would still be held to constitute that offence, even if the person who was being falsely imprisoned had no knowledge about the same.
Under English Law, however, the police have been empowered to arrest and detain a person under principles of prompt investigation, for such purposes as gaining evidence or taking statements, under the conditions set out in Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, Code G. In the United Kingdom, a case was brought to the High Court concerning the alleged unlawful detention of hundreds of members of the public during the May Day riots of 2001 in London, England. The police, using the tactic of "kettling", held a large crowd in Oxford Circus for several hours without allowing anyone to leave. Lois Austin, a peaceful protester who had not broken the law, and Geoffrey Saxby, an innocent passer-by who was not even involved in the demonstration, claimed that they were falsely imprisoned by the London Metropolitan Police and that their detention was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. 
The pair lost their court action in 2005, when the High Court ruled that the police had not acted unlawfully. An appeal against the ruling also failed in 2007. A ruling by the House of Lords declared that even in the case of an absolute right, the High Court was entitled to take the "purpose" of the deprivation of liberty into account before deciding if human rights law applied at all.

Q. Assume that another case was filed against the wrongful confinement by the police on May Dayriots. The contention raised by the lawyer arguing for the police was that an action taken by onduty policemen cannot amount to false imprisonment. On the basis of this passage, decide:

Paragraph: Delivering the second Atal Bihari Vajpayee memorial lecture on Monday, former President Pranab Mukherjee stressed upon the need to increase the number of LokSabha seats to 1,000 through delimitation. Advocating the need to increase number of seats, Mukherjee said that last enhancement of seats in the lower house of Parliament took place in 1977 when the population of the country was 55-crore. Along with Lok Sabha, former President said, the number of seats in Rajya Sabha should be increased. Giving impetus to the need of increasing seats, he added, “In 1977, population was 55 crore or 550 million whereas today it stands at 1.3 billion. There has been an embargo on increasing the seats in Parliament and in state assemblies till 2026. Even by 2011 census of population, the number of voters has increased per Lok Sabha constituency.” “If British can have 650 parliamentarians, Canada can have 443 and US 535 why can't we have 1000?”,Pranab Mukherjee added. “Convert central Hall into Lok Sabha and Lower House premises can be turned into Rajya Sabha. And also have an adequate number of women representatives. We have the highest percentage of 14.6 per cent of the total house strength elected since 1952”, news agency ANI quotes the former President as saying.

Q. Which of the following statements does not concur with the view of the speaker in the above passage?

Paragraph: The term “defamation” is an all-encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation, also called defamation of character. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called “libel‟. If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is “slander‟. Defamation is considered to be a civil wrong or a tort. A person that has suffered a defamatory statement may sue the person that made the statement under defamation law, which would be called a defamation case. The strength of the case will also depend on the measures taken by the defendant to verify the facts .However, once the statements are proved to be true, there is no ground to make a defamation case.
One day, Aditya Kaithwas, a middle-aged government servant, left home after dinner for a drive to escape the oppressive summer heat. On his way back to his home around 9:30 p.m., some people suddenly stepped out on the path of his jeep. Although he applied the brakes of his jeep, he was unable to avoid them, and his jeep knocked down three of them. A police constable, Shrey, on the scene reported that Aditya’s breath smelled of alcohol. Aditya was accordingly charged under the Indian Penal Code for rash and negligent driving. It was also covered by a local news channel and the same news with the headline “Drunk man runs his vehicle over three while singing lewd songs”.
During the trial, the neighbourhood watchman, Lakshya, testified that Aditya was driving at an ordinary speed and exercising adequate care. Furthermore, the medical evidence confirmed that even though Aditya had smelled of alcohol, his pupils reacted to light, his speech was coherent, he was well behaved, and he could walk in a straight line. The police doctor testified that Aditya had not been acting under the influence of alcohol. Aditya attributed the smell of alcohol to “Peete jaao‟, a health tonic with 17% alcohol content. The court set him free. He, later on, sued Shrey, Yasir, the editor of the newspaper, as well as Abhyast, the head of the news Channel, for the tort of defamation and demanded a compensation of 15,00,000 from them.

Q. Which of the following, if true, would strengthen his case against any of them?

Paragraph: The term “defamation” is an all-encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation, also called defamation of character. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called “libel‟. If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is “slander‟. Defamation is considered to be a civil wrong or a tort. A person that has suffered a defamatory statement may sue the person that made the statement under defamation law, which would be called a defamation case. The strength of the case will also depend on the measures taken by the defendant to verify the facts .However, once the statements are proved to be true, there is no ground to make a defamation case.
One day, Aditya Kaithwas, a middle-aged government servant, left home after dinner for a drive to escape the oppressive summer heat. On his way back to his home around 9:30 p.m., some people suddenly stepped out on the path of his jeep. Although he applied the brakes of his jeep, he was unable to avoid them, and his jeep knocked down three of them. A police constable, Shrey, on the scene reported that Aditya’s breath smelled of alcohol. Aditya was accordingly charged under the Indian Penal Code for rash and negligent driving. It was also covered by a local news channel and the same news with the headline “Drunk man runs his vehicle over three while singing lewd songs”.
During the trial, the neighbourhood watchman, Lakshya, testified that Aditya was driving at an ordinary speed and exercising adequate care. Furthermore, the medical evidence confirmed that even though Aditya had smelled of alcohol, his pupils reacted to light, his speech was coherent, he was well behaved, and he could walk in a straight line. The police doctor testified that Aditya had not been acting under the influence of alcohol. Aditya attributed the smell of alcohol to “Peete jaao‟, a health tonic with 17% alcohol content. The court set him free. He, later on, sued Shrey, Yasir, the editor of the newspaper, as well as Abhyast, the head of the news Channel, for the tort of defamation and demanded a compensation of 15,00,000 from them.

Q. How likely is it that Aditya‟s case against Shrey would be turned down by the court?

Paragraph: The term “defamation” is an all-encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation, also called defamation of character. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called “libel‟. If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is “slander‟. Defamation is considered to be a civil wrong or a tort. A person that has suffered a defamatory statement may sue the person that made the statement under defamation law, which would be called a defamation case. The strength of the case will also depend on the measures taken by the defendant to verify the facts .However, once the statements are proved to be true, there is no ground to make a defamation case.
One day, Aditya Kaithwas, a middle-aged government servant, left home after dinner for a drive to escape the oppressive summer heat. On his way back to his home around 9:30 p.m., some people suddenly stepped out on the path of his jeep. Although he applied the brakes of his jeep, he was unable to avoid them, and his jeep knocked down three of them. A police constable, Shrey, on the scene reported that Aditya’s breath smelled of alcohol. Aditya was accordingly charged under the Indian Penal Code for rash and negligent driving. It was also covered by a local news channel and the same news with the headline “Drunk man runs his vehicle over three while singing lewd songs”.
During the trial, the neighbourhood watchman, Lakshya, testified that Aditya was driving at an ordinary speed and exercising adequate care. Furthermore, the medical evidence confirmed that even though Aditya had smelled of alcohol, his pupils reacted to light, his speech was coherent, he was well behaved, and he could walk in a straight line. The police doctor testified that Aditya had not been acting under the influence of alcohol. Aditya attributed the smell of alcohol to “Peete jaao‟, a health tonic with 17% alcohol content. The court set him free. He, later on, sued Shrey, Yasir, the editor of the newspaper, as well as Abhyast, the head of the news Channel, for the tort of defamation and demanded a compensation of 15,00,000 from them.

Q. Assume that the court holds Aditya liable for rash and negligent driving. Aditya has to complete a jail sentence of six months and after coming out of the jail, he sues the judge who had delivered the judgement. Is he justified in doing so?

Paragraph: The term “defamation” is an all-encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation, also called defamation of character. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called “libel‟. If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is “slander‟. Defamation is considered to be a civil wrong or a tort. A person that has suffered a defamatory statement may sue the person that made the statement under defamation law, which would be called a defamation case. The strength of the case will also depend on the measures taken by the defendant to verify the facts .However, once the statements are proved to be true, there is no ground to make a defamation case.
One day, Aditya Kaithwas, a middle-aged government servant, left home after dinner for a drive to escape the oppressive summer heat. On his way back to his home around 9:30 p.m., some people suddenly stepped out on the path of his jeep. Although he applied the brakes of his jeep, he was unable to avoid them, and his jeep knocked down three of them. A police constable, Shrey, on the scene reported that Aditya’s breath smelled of alcohol. Aditya was accordingly charged under the Indian Penal Code for rash and negligent driving. It was also covered by a local news channel and the same news with the headline “Drunk man runs his vehicle over three while singing lewd songs”.
During the trial, the neighbourhood watchman, Lakshya, testified that Aditya was driving at an ordinary speed and exercising adequate care. Furthermore, the medical evidence confirmed that even though Aditya had smelled of alcohol, his pupils reacted to light, his speech was coherent, he was well behaved, and he could walk in a straight line. The police doctor testified that Aditya had not been acting under the influence of alcohol. Aditya attributed the smell of alcohol to “Peete jaao‟, a health tonic with 17% alcohol content. The court set him free. He, later on, sued Shrey, Yasir, the editor of the newspaper, as well as Abhyast, the head of the news Channel, for the tort of defamation and demanded a compensation of 15,00,000 from them.

Q. During the hearing of the case, it was discovered that the newspaper had not only printed the article with a very catchy and false headline, but had also made a lot of changes to the original facts of the case, in order to make the article more appealing and interesting to the reader. On being confronted, the newspaper cited Article 19 of the Constitution which provided that “the newspapers are free to circulate and publish whatever they believed to be true.” On this basis, decide:

Paragraph: The term “defamation” is an all-encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation, also called defamation of character. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called “libel‟. If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is “slander‟. Defamation is considered to be a civil wrong or a tort. A person that has suffered a defamatory statement may sue the person that made the statement under defamation law, which would be called a defamation case. The strength of the case will also depend on the measures taken by the defendant to verify the facts .However, once the statements are proved to be true, there is no ground to make a defamation case.
One day, Aditya Kaithwas, a middle-aged government servant, left home after dinner for a drive to escape the oppressive summer heat. On his way back to his home around 9:30 p.m., some people suddenly stepped out on the path of his jeep. Although he applied the brakes of his jeep, he was unable to avoid them, and his jeep knocked down three of them. A police constable, Shrey, on the scene reported that Aditya’s breath smelled of alcohol. Aditya was accordingly charged under the Indian Penal Code for rash and negligent driving. It was also covered by a local news channel and the same news with the headline “Drunk man runs his vehicle over three while singing lewd songs”.
During the trial, the neighbourhood watchman, Lakshya, testified that Aditya was driving at an ordinary speed and exercising adequate care. Furthermore, the medical evidence confirmed that even though Aditya had smelled of alcohol, his pupils reacted to light, his speech was coherent, he was well behaved, and he could walk in a straight line. The police doctor testified that Aditya had not been acting under the influence of alcohol. Aditya attributed the smell of alcohol to “Peete jaao‟, a health tonic with 17% alcohol content. The court set him free. He, later on, sued Shrey, Yasir, the editor of the newspaper, as well as Abhyast, the head of the news Channel, for the tort of defamation and demanded a compensation of 15,00,000 from them.

Q. Two months later, while going through his favourite social media platform “Finstagram”, he came across a post with his picture and the caption, “Local nibba tries to imitate Salman Khan and drives his vehicle over three people while being drunk.” He noticed that a lot of his friends and relatives had also seen that post and he started getting a lot of texts and calls, cursing him for what he did. He sued Amar, who had posted that picture for defamation. Decide on the basis of the passage:

Paragraph: A news piece resurfaced recently about how the Delhi High Court had granted a divorce to a man who said he was subjected to repeated verbal cruelty by his wife. She allegedly taunted him about his weight and his inability to maintain conjugal relations. Of course there must have been more than frivolous abuses that led to the breakdown of this marriage but the fact that the Court had taken a strong view of their bitter exchanges, which the wife had quite reasonably contended were vague and non-specific, suggests a departure from the sympathy with which courts view a woman’s situation in such cases. “When two parties are in a marital relationship neither is expected to maintain a logbook and note therein each and every instance of a matrimonial offence committed by the other,” the judge had concluded, before sanctioning the divorce.
This judge appears to have a very idealistic idea of the kinds of conversations couples have but in a long relationship, often, it is precisely a mental logbook documenting old grievances and laments that come up during a fight. Laws are framed for the greater good and Indian legislation is generous to women stuck in abusive marriages, at least on paper. The perils of living in a (slightly more) gender-equal world is that occasionally, the ball will roll to the other side. In another divorce case, a Delhi court asked a woman to look for a job saying since she was so qualified she should not be burdening her estranged husband. The woman had argued that she had married young and never held a job, or travelled alone. The judge had acerbically replied that if she could come to court to fight litigation alone, she could very well go looking for a job alone. If the message from these cases is that we’re all expected to look after ourselves and the historic security system that marriage offered can no longer be taken for granted, it is worth looking at how horribly risky a marriage is for women, to begin with.
In the first case, it seems the wife was supposed to make peace with being stuck forever in a loveless marriage with an unattractive man who was fine with the status quo and wilfully indifferent to her unhappiness. Her asking for compensation for her opportunity cost (where she could have been if she hadn’t married him) backfired. In the second case, the aftermath of a divorce is far more terrifying. The judgment failed to take into account the vagaries inbuilt in Indian marriages and the unspoken pressures that women in every economic strata have to cope with. Perhaps this qualified woman didn’t work because her in-laws didn’t approve or she was raised to believe her career shouldn’t undermine her husband’s. As for her being urged to seek employment post the separation, there is the very practical reality that despite whatever degrees you hold, if you’ve been out of the workplace for years, it’s very difficult to explain a long gap in a resume.

Q. Which of the following views can be attributed to the author of the above passage?

Paragraph: Fears are being expressed that India’s implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), first in the state of Assam and subsequently in the whole country could rock the boat. While there is no doubt that the implementation of NRC is a complicated issue, but if properly implemented it would make the India-Bangladesh relationship more sustainable.
Even as the bilateral relations are on a strong footing, an oft-expressed fear is that the upsurge in relationship is regime-specific. While there is bipartisan support on the Indian side to maintain friendly relationship with Bangladesh, the same cannot be said about the Bangladeshi side where the political opposition at the first opportunity is likely to take steps that could derail the relationship. The opposition in Bangladesh has tried its best to convince its interlocutors in India that their attitude has changed. However, it remains to be seen whether it is so.
Generally, it has been pointed out that the Teesta water dispute is the only remaining dispute between India and Bangladesh and its solution would make the bilateral relationship smooth. What is conveniently forgotten is the long-standing issue of illegal migration from Bangladesh. A report of the Group of Ministers on National Security, submitted in 2001, estimated that post-1971 approximately 12 million Bangladeshis have illegally migrated into various states of northeast India.1 However, this number is expected to be much larger if one includes illegal Bangladeshi population residing in other parts of India. Moreover, the Bangladeshis have been illegally coming to India even after 2001.”

Q. Which of the following views can be attributed to the author of the above passage?

Paragraph: A group of 15 foreign envoys based in New Delhi, including the US ambassador to India, began a two-day visit to Jammu and Kashmir on Thursday. This represents only the second high-profile foreign delegation to visit the region since the revocation of Article 370 last August. The Centre’s aim in inviting them is to let them judge for themselves its claim of normalcy having been restored.
The last visit by a foreign delegation, of members of European Parliament back in October, did not work out well, and this is a chance for New Delhi to make amends. But then, Kashmir has been wracked by terrorism for so long that what constitutes “normalcy" there is hard to assess. Perhaps a comparison with the state of affairs before the region’s autonomy was withdrawn would help. Information is scarce, but we do know that much of the Valley is under what one would call a “cyber curfew", with internet services having been cut off since August. Also, the state’s top leaders remain in detention. While allowing diplomats in is clearly a positive sign, it would aid India’s cause to let Kashmiris get back online. The world is waiting to hear from them on social media.

Q. In which of the following judgements has the SC stated that freedom of Speech and Expression, Trade and Commerce through the medium of Internet are constitutionally protected?

Paragraph: A group of 15 foreign envoys based in New Delhi, including the US ambassador to India, began a two-day visit to Jammu and Kashmir on Thursday. This represents only the second high-profile foreign delegation to visit the region since the revocation of Article 370 last August. The Centre’s aim in inviting them is to let them judge for themselves its claim of normalcy having been restored.
The last visit by a foreign delegation, of members of European Parliament back in October, did not work out well, and this is a chance for New Delhi to make amends. But then, Kashmir has been wracked by terrorism for so long that what constitutes “normalcy" there is hard to assess. Perhaps a comparison with the state of affairs before the region’s autonomy was withdrawn would help. Information is scarce, but we do know that much of the Valley is under what one would call a “cyber curfew", with internet services having been cut off since August. Also, the state’s top leaders remain in detention. While allowing diplomats in is clearly a positive sign, it would aid India’s cause to let Kashmiris get back online. The world is waiting to hear from them on social media.

Q. The bench delivering the aforementioned judgment consisted of the following Justice J. Ramana, Subash Reddy and X.and another judge X is

Paragraph: From the beginning, Aadhaar brought up question of privacy. These fall into two categories.
One is intentional: The Aadhaar Act was supposed to only allow authentication of a person, meaning a verification query would only tell an agency whether the person is who she says she is. Instead, the Act allows agencies to draw other demographic information, which has naturally led to concerns about profiling and surveillance, especially now that the government has made it mandatory to link Aadhaar to everything from bank accounts to phone numbers to PAN cards. This means private companies are also using Aadhaar to deliver their services, but in the process collecting information on people and monetising that data. The second is incidental: The design of the Aadhaar system meant that, though it claimed to be secure, it was leaking data all along. In 2017, the government admitted in Parliament that as many as 210 official websites were found displaying Aadhaar numbers along with demographic data. A Tribune investigation earlier this year found that one could buy access to the entire database for just Rs 500, and print out anyone’s Aadhaar card for Rs 300 more. This information has in the past been used for financial fraud. In response, Aadhaar’s overseeing body, the Unique Identification Authority of India, filed a case against the journalist. And over the last year it has attempted to roll out new features that it claims will improve security, even though it has insisted all along that its data is already secure.

Q. Based on the above passage can we conclude that Aadhar violates the privacy of an individual?

Paragraph: From the beginning, Aadhaar brought up question of privacy. These fall into two categories.
One is intentional: The Aadhaar Act was supposed to only allow authentication of a person, meaning a verification query would only tell an agency whether the person is who she says she is. Instead, the Act allows agencies to draw other demographic information, which has naturally led to concerns about profiling and surveillance, especially now that the government has made it mandatory to link Aadhaar to everything from bank accounts to phone numbers to PAN cards. This means private companies are also using Aadhaar to deliver their services, but in the process collecting information on people and monetising that data. The second is incidental: The design of the Aadhaar system meant that, though it claimed to be secure, it was leaking data all along. In 2017, the government admitted in Parliament that as many as 210 official websites were found displaying Aadhaar numbers along with demographic data. A Tribune investigation earlier this year found that one could buy access to the entire database for just Rs 500, and print out anyone’s Aadhaar card for Rs 300 more. This information has in the past been used for financial fraud. In response, Aadhaar’s overseeing body, the Unique Identification Authority of India, filed a case against the journalist. And over the last year it has attempted to roll out new features that it claims will improve security, even though it has insisted all along that its data is already secure.

Q. Which of the following views can be correctly inferred from the above passage?

Paragraph: The NDA government’s Swachh Survekshan, the ranking system for clean cities, was rolled out four years ago as the answer to a problem that municipal law failed to solve. Sanitation and public health are responsibilities of State governments, and it is no secret that they have spectacularly failed at managing growing volumes of municipal and hazardous waste. The problem has only been compounded by the absence of plans that take a holistic view of housing, sanitation, water supply, waste management and transport. Ahead of the launch of Swachh Survekshan 2020, the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs is once again trying to stir up competition among cities, by pre-ranking them for their performance during 2019 and assigning points to be added this year. As an idea, unleashing the competitive spirit among States may seem appealing, but in reality, the problems confronting urban India require large-scale infrastructure creation, full adherence to legal requirements on waste management, and transparent technical audits. Many cities remain clueless on handling their waste, one shocking example being the rising mountain of garbage at the Ghazipur landfill in Delhi. Ironically, Bhopal, which figures among the top five cleanest cities under the just-released list, continues to live with the effects of the gas disaster of 1984.
Looking ahead to the next edition of the Survekshan, the Urban Affairs Ministry has identified ambitious targets: “100% processing and safe disposal of waste, complete faecal sludge and septage management, and wastewater treatment and reuse.” These are major tasks.
The emphasis worldwide is on creating a circular economy centred at the principle of material recovery from all kinds of waste, reuse, recycling and reduced pressure on natural resources.

Q. Based on the views expressed in the passage, which of the following is true?

Paragraph: The NDA government’s Swachh Survekshan, the ranking system for clean cities, was rolled out four years ago as the answer to a problem that municipal law failed to solve. Sanitation and public health are responsibilities of State governments, and it is no secret that they have spectacularly failed at managing growing volumes of municipal and hazardous waste. The problem has only been compounded by the absence of plans that take a holistic view of housing, sanitation, water supply, waste management and transport. Ahead of the launch of Swachh Survekshan 2020, the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs is once again trying to stir up competition among cities, by pre-ranking them for their performance during 2019 and assigning points to be added this year. As an idea, unleashing the competitive spirit among States may seem appealing, but in reality, the problems confronting urban India require large-scale infrastructure creation, full adherence to legal requirements on waste management, and transparent technical audits. Many cities remain clueless on handling their waste, one shocking example being the rising mountain of garbage at the Ghazipur landfill in Delhi. Ironically, Bhopal, which figures among the top five cleanest cities under the just-released list, continues to live with the effects of the gas disaster of 1984.
Looking ahead to the next edition of the Survekshan, the Urban Affairs Ministry has identified ambitious targets: “100% processing and safe disposal of waste, complete faecal sludge and septage management, and wastewater treatment and reuse.” These are major tasks.
The emphasis worldwide is on creating a circular economy centred at the principle of material recovery from all kinds of waste, reuse, recycling and reduced pressure on natural resources.

Q. Why, according to the author, have the state governments ‘spectacularly failed’ at promoting sanitation?

Paragraph: The NDA government’s Swachh Survekshan, the ranking system for clean cities, was rolled out four years ago as the answer to a problem that municipal law failed to solve. Sanitation and public health are responsibilities of State governments, and it is no secret that they have spectacularly failed at managing growing volumes of municipal and hazardous waste. The problem has only been compounded by the absence of plans that take a holistic view of housing, sanitation, water supply, waste management and transport. Ahead of the launch of Swachh Survekshan 2020, the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs is once again trying to stir up competition among cities, by pre-ranking them for their performance during 2019 and assigning points to be added this year. As an idea, unleashing the competitive spirit among States may seem appealing, but in reality, the problems confronting urban India require large-scale infrastructure creation, full adherence to legal requirements on waste management, and transparent technical audits. Many cities remain clueless on handling their waste, one shocking example being the rising mountain of garbage at the Ghazipur landfill in Delhi. Ironically, Bhopal, which figures among the top five cleanest cities under the just-released list, continues to live with the effects of the gas disaster of 1984.
Looking ahead to the next edition of the Survekshan, the Urban Affairs Ministry has identified ambitious targets: “100% processing and safe disposal of waste, complete faecal sludge and septage management, and wastewater treatment and reuse.” These are major tasks.
The emphasis worldwide is on creating a circular economy centred at the principle of material recovery from all kinds of waste, reuse, recycling and reduced pressure on natural resources.

Q. What will make Swachh Survekshan a success?

Paragraph: Notable for the reason that it is the rare tort where intention is of relevance; the tort of malicious prosecution takes place where a person motivated by malice or ill feeling brings about a false and  frivolous case against another person in order to harass him by making him go through the rigours of litigation and court prosecution. There are certain ingredients of malicious prosecutionwhichare  essential if a suit is to be maintained and for it to ultimately succeed. Malice and an intention to frame the person is essential. It could be any ill-feeling, vengeance, jealousy or intention to cause hardship or defamation, but the element ofintention is a must or even the intention of framing someone else to save oneself is enough intention.
Where there is a genuine mistake, it will not be case of a malicious prosecution. In the case of Wyatt v White, the defendant discovered certain bags with the mark as his own and filed a charge of theft against the plaintiff in whose possession the bags were found. The plaintiff genuinely had a similar mark. The charge did not sustain, but the plaintiff sued the defendant for malicious prosecution. The court said itwas genuine mistake and as such the defendant was not motivated by malice, hence the suit did not succeed. However, a mere police complaint or institution of a case is not sufficient. It is important that the court process and prosecution must begin. In Ray v Bairagya, a criminal complaint was filed but was dismissed at inception. Since no proceeding had begun, the court did not recognise it to be a case of malicious prosecution.

Q. Sanjay had hired Suneel for working in his law firm. All was well for the first eight months. After that, Suneel started being irregular to work. On being confronted by Sanjay, Suneel flipped and started  shouting at Sanjay. Later on, he quit the job and was sued by Sanjay for the breach of the contract of employment. Suneel, in turn, while the proceeding in the earlier suit were ongoing, filed a case of malicious prosecution against Sanjay. Decide:

Paragraph: Notable for the reason that it is the rare tort where intention is of relevance; the tort of malicious prosecution takes place where a person motivated by malice or ill feeling brings about a false and  frivolous case against another person in order to harass him by making him go through the rigours of litigation and court prosecution. There are certain ingredients of malicious prosecutionwhichare  essential if a suit is to be maintained and for it to ultimately succeed. Malice and an intention to frame the person is essential. It could be any ill-feeling, vengeance, jealousy or intention to cause hardship or defamation, but the element ofintention is a must or even the intention of framing someone else to save oneself is enough intention.
Where there is a genuine mistake, it will not be case of a malicious prosecution. In the case of Wyatt v White, the defendant discovered certain bags with the mark as his own and filed a charge of theft against the plaintiff in whose possession the bags were found. The plaintiff genuinely had a similar mark. The charge did not sustain, but the plaintiff sued the defendant for malicious prosecution. The court said itwas genuine mistake and as such the defendant was not motivated by malice, hence the suit did not succeed. However, a mere police complaint or institution of a case is not sufficient. It is important that the court process and prosecution must begin. In Ray v Bairagya, a criminal complaint was filed but was dismissed at inception. Since no proceeding had begun, the court did not recognise it to be a case of malicious prosecution.

Q. Which of the following are not in consistency with the passage?

Paragraph: Notable for the reason that it is the rare tort where intention is of relevance; the tort of malicious prosecution takes place where a person motivated by malice or ill feeling brings about a false and  frivolous case against another person in order to harass him by making him go through the rigours of litigation and court prosecution. There are certain ingredients of malicious prosecutionwhichare  essential if a suit is to be maintained and for it to ultimately succeed. Malice and an intention to frame the person is essential. It could be any ill-feeling, vengeance, jealousy or intention to cause hardship or defamation, but the element ofintention is a must or even the intention of framing someone else to save oneself is enough intention.
Where there is a genuine mistake, it will not be case of a malicious prosecution. In the case of Wyatt v White, the defendant discovered certain bags with the mark as his own and filed a charge of theft against the plaintiff in whose possession the bags were found. The plaintiff genuinely had a similar mark. The charge did not sustain, but the plaintiff sued the defendant for malicious prosecution. The court said itwas genuine mistake and as such the defendant was not motivated by malice, hence the suit did not succeed. However, a mere police complaint or institution of a case is not sufficient. It is important that the court process and prosecution must begin. In Ray v Bairagya, a criminal complaint was filed but was dismissed at inception. Since no proceeding had begun, the court did not recognise it to be a case of malicious prosecution.

Q. Which fact, if true, would have led the judges to decide the case of Wyatt v White differently?

Paragraph: Notable for the reason that it is the rare tort where intention is of relevance; the tort of malicious prosecution takes place where a person motivated by malice or ill feeling brings about a false and  frivolous case against another person in order to harass him by making him go through the rigours of litigation and court prosecution. There are certain ingredients of malicious prosecutionwhichare  essential if a suit is to be maintained and for it to ultimately succeed. Malice and an intention to frame the person is essential. It could be any ill-feeling, vengeance, jealousy or intention to cause hardship or defamation, but the element ofintention is a must or even the intention of framing someone else to save oneself is enough intention.
Where there is a genuine mistake, it will not be case of a malicious prosecution. In the case of Wyatt v White, the defendant discovered certain bags with the mark as his own and filed a charge of theft against the plaintiff in whose possession the bags were found. The plaintiff genuinely had a similar mark. The charge did not sustain, but the plaintiff sued the defendant for malicious prosecution. The court said itwas genuine mistake and as such the defendant was not motivated by malice, hence the suit did not succeed. However, a mere police complaint or institution of a case is not sufficient. It is important that the court process and prosecution must begin. In Ray v Bairagya, a criminal complaint was filed but was dismissed at inception. Since no proceeding had begun, the court did not recognise it to be a case of malicious prosecution.

Q. Usher was sentenced to a jail term of 5 years in a case of treason. A year later, a report by the CBI cleared him of all charges and he was let out of the jail. That report also mentioned the fact that the judge had overlooked the report by mistake and had sentenced Usher to jail due to his negligence. Usher now files a case of malicious prosecution against the judge. Decide: 

Paragraph: Notable for the reason that it is the rare tort where intention is of relevance; the tort of malicious prosecution takes place where a person motivated by malice or ill feeling brings about a false and  frivolous case against another person in order to harass him by making him go through the rigours of litigation and court prosecution. There are certain ingredients of malicious prosecutionwhichare  essential if a suit is to be maintained and for it to ultimately succeed. Malice and an intention to frame the person is essential. It could be any ill-feeling, vengeance, jealousy or intention to cause hardship or defamation, but the element ofintention is a must or even the intention of framing someone else to save oneself is enough intention.
Where there is a genuine mistake, it will not be case of a malicious prosecution. In the case of Wyatt v White, the defendant discovered certain bags with the mark as his own and filed a charge of theft against the plaintiff in whose possession the bags were found. The plaintiff genuinely had a similar mark. The charge did not sustain, but the plaintiff sued the defendant for malicious prosecution. The court said itwas genuine mistake and as such the defendant was not motivated by malice, hence the suit did not succeed. However, a mere police complaint or institution of a case is not sufficient. It is important that the court process and prosecution must begin. In Ray v Bairagya, a criminal complaint was filed but was dismissed at inception. Since no proceeding had begun, the court did not recognise it to be a case of malicious prosecution.

Q. Sanjeev and Rajeev were neighbours. They used to have a lot of arguments and wanted to harm eachother at the first opportunity that they got. One day, Sanjeev overheard Rajeev talking to his wife about how he would soon be stealing Sanjeev‟s car. Later that night, Sanjeev‟s car was stolen. Sanjeev immediately rushed to the police station and filed a complaint accusing Rajeev of having stolen the car. In a couple of hours, it was found out that Sanjeev‟s son had taken the car without informing him about the same. The police rejected Sanjeev‟s complaint. However, Rajeev wants to file a complaint of malicious prosecution against Sanjeev. Decide:

Principle: Damages are the money recompense, as far as money can do, for the violation of a right.
Facts: A, an Indian citizen, having a right to vote, was not allowed to cast his vote on the polling booth, by the returning officer. Name of A was mentioned in the voter’s list. A has also reported at the polling booth in time. However, the candidate in whose favour A would have cast his vote won the election. A filed a suit claiming damages.

Principle: No law can be applied retrospectively unless it is for the benefit of the public, and doesn't adversely affect anyone.
Facts: A law is passed in Andhra Pradesh that seeks to prosecute men who drink in public places and create nuisance. Since some policemen had seen Bewda, a local drunkard creating a scene only the day before the law came into effect. Can Bewda be prosecuted under the new law?

Paragraph: ​The Article 25 states that every, individual is equally entitled to freedom of conscience. and has  the right -to profess, practice and propagate religion of one, choice Practicing religion or the  act of propagating it should not however, affect the "public order, morality and health and in explaining the ambit of Article 25, the Supreme Court held that Clause 1 of the provision "does not grant the right to convert another person to one's own religion but to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets." The Court stated that "Article 25(1)guarantees 'freedom of conscience' to every citizen," and "if a person purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion, as distinguished from his effort to transmit or spread the tenants of his religion, that would impinge on" such aguarantee.
The Supreme Court failed to discuss the definitions of inducement and allurement, which was the primary bone of contention. It also did not revert to the legislative history of Article 25. The term propagate was included in the Constitution as a compromise to assure Christians that it would include freedom to convert. Moreover, if one takes the reductionist understanding of propagation, the inclusion of such a term in the Indian Constitution would be rendered meaningless. The reductionist understanding of propagation being that though one may transmit or spread the tenets of his religion, resultant conversion (if it occurs) of another person to his religion cannot be constitutionally protected. The mere right to propagate for the enlightelllllent of others would already be covered under the right to free speech and expression under Article 19{l)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
Thus, we submit that the right to convert was actnally included in Article 25, and, as such, the decision of the Supreme Court not only was erroneous but also led to instability in society, as Indian Christians feel they have been cheated in this matter. The assurances given to them in the Constituent Assembly on the inclusion of the word propagate have not been fulfilled, and the government has done nothing to remedy the situation arising out of the highly restrictive interpretation of the tenn propagation by the Supreme Court.

Q. Buntia is a country in south Asia, Attapism and Vattapism are two major religions of Buntia with 45% and 32% followers respectively. The followers of Vattapism always try to expand their religion, by allowing voluntary conversion of people of different religion to their religion. The conversion also involved a mandatory ceremony named "Vattapi-grahan". However, it has recently been found that in order to propagate their religion, followers of Vattapism have increased organisation of some Yajnas (a sacred fire) which has been increasing air pollution, affecting public health Decide in light of bare wordings of Article 25:

Paragraph: ​The Article 25 states that every, individual is equally entitled to freedom of conscience. and has  the right -to profess, practice and propagate religion of one, choice Practicing religion or the  act of propagating it should not however, affect the "public order, morality and health and in explaining the ambit of Article 25, the Supreme Court held that Clause 1 of the provision "does not grant the right to convert another person to one's own religion but to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets." The Court stated that "Article 25(1)guarantees 'freedom of conscience' to every citizen," and "if a person purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion, as distinguished from his effort to transmit or spread the tenants of his religion, that would impinge on" such aguarantee.
The Supreme Court failed to discuss the definitions of inducement and allurement, which was the primary bone of contention. It also did not revert to the legislative history of Article 25. The term propagate was included in the Constitution as a compromise to assure Christians that it would include freedom to convert. Moreover, if one takes the reductionist understanding of propagation, the inclusion of such a term in the Indian Constitution would be rendered meaningless. The reductionist understanding of propagation being that though one may transmit or spread the tenets of his religion, resultant conversion (if it occurs) of another person to his religion cannot be constitutionally protected. The mere right to propagate for the enlightelllllent of others would already be covered under the right to free speech and expression under Article 19{l)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
Thus, we submit that the right to convert was actnally included in Article 25, and, as such, the decision of the Supreme Court not only was erroneous but also led to instability in society, as Indian Christians feel they have been cheated in this matter. The assurances given to them in the Constituent Assembly on the inclusion of the word propagate have not been fulfilled, and the government has done nothing to remedy the situation arising out of the highly restrictive interpretation of the tenn propagation by the Supreme Court.

Q. A group of the followers of Attapism has moved to the Supreme Court questioning the conversion done in Vattapism. Decide in light of the judicial decisions.

Paragraph: ​The Article 25 states that every, individual is equally entitled to freedom of conscience. and has  the right -to profess, practice and propagate religion of one, choice Practicing religion or the  act of propagating it should not however, affect the "public order, morality and health and in explaining the ambit of Article 25, the Supreme Court held that Clause 1 of the provision "does not grant the right to convert another person to one's own religion but to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets." The Court stated that "Article 25(1)guarantees 'freedom of conscience' to every citizen," and "if a person purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion, as distinguished from his effort to transmit or spread the tenants of his religion, that would impinge on" such aguarantee.
The Supreme Court failed to discuss the definitions of inducement and allurement, which was the primary bone of contention. It also did not revert to the legislative history of Article 25. The term propagate was included in the Constitution as a compromise to assure Christians that it would include freedom to convert. Moreover, if one takes the reductionist understanding of propagation, the inclusion of such a term in the Indian Constitution would be rendered meaningless. The reductionist understanding of propagation being that though one may transmit or spread the tenets of his religion, resultant conversion (if it occurs) of another person to his religion cannot be constitutionally protected. The mere right to propagate for the enlightelllllent of others would already be covered under the right to free speech and expression under Article 19{l)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
Thus, we submit that the right to convert was actnally included in Article 25, and, as such, the decision of the Supreme Court not only was erroneous but also led to instability in society, as Indian Christians feel they have been cheated in this matter. The assurances given to them in the Constituent Assembly on the inclusion of the word propagate have not been fulfilled, and the government has done nothing to remedy the situation arising out of the highly restrictive interpretation of the tenn propagation by the Supreme Court.

Q. Gaitonde was an ardent follower of Brahmism. He attended some of the events of Vattapism and decided to convert into Vattapism. He started practicing Vattapism on his own and left Brahmism completely. Decide.