Principle: Penal laws provide that whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man or woman, shall be punished for rape. Factual Situation: A Police Officer found a man engaged in carnal intercourse with an animal. The Police Officer arrested the man and produced him before the Court.

Court will punish the police officer.

Court will not punish the police officer.

Court will not punish the man for rape.

Court will punish the man for rape.

Passage: India’s Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (‘Bill’) starts encouragingly, seeking to protect “the privacy of individuals relating to their personal data”. But by the end, it is clear it is not designed to deliver on the promise. For, even as it rightly requires handlers of data to abide by globally-accepted rules — about getting an individual’s consent first — it disappointingly gives wide powers to the Government to dilute any of these provisions for its agencies. Recently, messaging platform WhatsApp said that some Indian journalists and rights activists were among those spied on using technology made by an Israeli company, which by its own admission only works for government agencies across the world. Importantly, one of the first to raise a red flag about the Bill’s problematic clauses was Justice B.N. Srikrishna, whose committee’s report forms the basis of the Bill. He has used words such as “Orwellian” and “Big Brother” in reaction to the removal of safeguards against actions of Government agencies. In its report last July, the committee noted that the dangers to privacy originate from state and non-state actors. It, therefore, called for exemptions to be “watertight”, “narrow”, and available for use in “limited circumstances”. It had also recommended that the Government bring in a law for the oversight of intelligence-gathering activities, the means by which non-consensual processing of data takes place. A related concern about the Bill is regarding the constitution of the Data Protection Authority of India (‘DPA’), which is to monitor and enforce the provisions of the Act. It will be headed by a chairperson and have not more than six whole-time members, all of whom are to be selected by a panel filled with Government nominees. This completely disregards the fact that Government agencies are also regulated under the Bill; they are major collectors and processors of data themselves. The sweeping powers the Bill gives to the Government render meaningless the gains from the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case, which culminated in the recognition that privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty, and therefore a basic right. That idea of privacy is certainly not reflected in the Bill in its current form. Q. Which of the following views can be correctly attributed to the author of the above passage?

The idea of privacy is not relevant to the Bill.

The idea of privacy can be overridden by Government agencies since their role is to protect citizens.

The idea of privacy as a basic right is not adequately addressed in the Bill in its current form.

Since the Bill gives sweeping powers to the Government, it is meaningless to reflect the idea of privacy in the Bill.

Passage: India’s Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (‘Bill’) starts encouragingly, seeking to protect “the privacy of individuals relating to their personal data”. But by the end, it is clear it is not designed to deliver on the promise. For, even as it rightly requires handlers of data to abide by globally-accepted rules — about getting an individual’s consent first — it disappointingly gives wide powers to the Government to dilute any of these provisions for its agencies. Recently, messaging platform WhatsApp said that some Indian journalists and rights activists were among those spied on using technology made by an Israeli company, which by its own admission only works for government agencies across the world. Importantly, one of the first to raise a red flag about the Bill’s problematic clauses was Justice B.N. Srikrishna, whose committee’s report forms the basis of the Bill. He has used words such as “Orwellian” and “Big Brother” in reaction to the removal of safeguards against actions of Government agencies. In its report last July, the committee noted that the dangers to privacy originate from state and non-state actors. It, therefore, called for exemptions to be “watertight”, “narrow”, and available for use in “limited circumstances”. It had also recommended that the Government bring in a law for the oversight of intelligence-gathering activities, the means by which non-consensual processing of data takes place. A related concern about the Bill is regarding the constitution of the Data Protection Authority of India (‘DPA’), which is to monitor and enforce the provisions of the Act. It will be headed by a chairperson and have not more than six whole-time members, all of whom are to be selected by a panel filled with Government nominees. This completely disregards the fact that Government agencies are also regulated under the Bill; they are major collectors and processors of data themselves. The sweeping powers the Bill gives to the Government render meaningless the gains from the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case, which culminated in the recognition that privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty, and therefore a basic right. That idea of privacy is certainly not reflected in the Bill in its current form. Q. According to the passage, the committee headed by Justice B. N. Srikrishna called for:

Limiting the grounds on which Government agencies may be allowed to act in a manner that endangers the right to privacy of individuals.

The right to privacy to be exempted from the ambit of the Bill.

The right to privacy to be endangered by state and non-state actors.

Watertight protection to Government agencies that process data of individuals.

In pari delicto means:

Where the petitioner is at fault

Where both parties to a dispute are equally at fault

Principle: Where one of the parties to a contract was in a position to dominate the decision of the other party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party who was in a position to dominate the decision of the other party. Factual Situation: A doctor asked his patient to make a payment of rupees Ten Lakh for treatment of his fever. The patient paid an amount of rupees Five Lakh and promised to pay the remaining amount after the treatment. After treatment, the patient recovered from fever. The doctor demanded the remaining amount from the patient. The patient refused to pay.

The contract is not enforceable without the consent of the patient.

The contract is enforceable against the doctor.

The contract is not enforceable as doctor was in dominating position.

The contract is enforceable against the patient by the doctor.

Passage: Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies. Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point. Q. Based on the author’s arguments in the passage above, which of the following would be most correct:

The state should not control prices of medicines, since this would hamper the development of international pharmaceutical companies.

The state should control the prices of medicines, since it would also be manufacturing the drugs itself.

The state should not control the prices of medicines, since the market would determine the best price for such drugs.

The state should control the prices of medicines, since citizens are likely to fall ill more often.

Passage: Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies. Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point. Q. An essential medicine, ‘Formula A’, is used to treat cancer, and there is only one company engaged in its manufacture. If this is true, then, based on the author’s reasoning in the passage above:

The state should not control the price of Formula A, since it should allow the market to function.

The state should control the price of Formula A, since there is no competition in the marketplace, and it cannot function to control the price of the medicine.

The state should ban the sales of Formula A, and ask patients to consider using some other medicine that is made by more than one manufacturer.

The state should take up the manufacture of Formula A itself.

Passage: Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies. Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point. Q. The state removes all price restrictions on an essential medicine. Pharmaceutical companies start selling that medicine at a price nearly 5 times its earlier price. In such a situation, based on the author’s reasoning above:

The state should not control the price of the medicine, since competition in the market would eventually lead to an appropriate price being set.

The state should not control the price of the medicine, since the price increase is directly attributable to an increase in the price of the ingredients used in the medicine.

The state should not control the price of the medicine, but it should supply the ingredients for the medicine at lower prices.

The state should control the price of the medicine, since people may not be able to afford it anymore.

Passage: Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies. Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point. Q. The state places a very low price for the sale of an essential medicine, which is lower than the price of the imported ingredients used to make that medicine. What, according to the author, would be the effect of setting such a low price?

The low price would result in people thinking the medicine is not good, and they would not use it.

Companies supplying the ingredients for the medicine would lower the prices of their products.

People would buy more health insurance policies, so that they do not have to pay for essential medicines.

The low price would restrict the availability of the medicine in the market, since pharmaceutical companies may not want to manufacture or import the medicine and sell it at that price.

Passage: Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies. Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point. Q. The pharmaceutical industry has been asking the government to raise the prices of certain drugs for a long time, but has not received a response. Why, according to the author, could this be?

The government is indecisive about raising prices for the fear of being accused of favouring private companies.

Private companies only value profit, and do not pay attention to the quality of medicines they manufacture.

The government has limited resources, and may not have been able to study the details of the pharmaceutical industry’s demands.

Since deciding the prices of medicines is not the government’s job, it would wish to avoid doing so

Principle: Acceptance of proposal must be the exact mirror image of the proposal. Facts: ‘A’ made a proposal to ‘B’ to sell a chair for Rs. 500. ‘B’ is desirous of buying the said chair for Rs. 400.

B has accepted the proposal of A.

B has not accepted the proposal of A.

It is not clear if B has accepted the proposal of A.

It is not clear whether A made a proposal to B.

Passage: The President’s notification of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 2019 of August 5 amends Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and scraps its 65-year-old predecessor, The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of May 14, 1954. By junking the 1954 Order, the notification takes away the special rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of Kashmir. It has effectively allowed the entire provisions of the Constitution, with all its amendments, exceptions and modifications, to apply to the area of Jammu and Kashmir. This is evident from the text of the August 5, 2019 notification. For one, the 2019 notification “supersedes” the 1954 Order. And two, it declares that “all the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. It is important to note that Article 370(1)(c) explicitly mentions that Article 1 of the Indian Constitution applies to Kashmir through Article 370. Article 1 lists the states of the Union. This means that it is Article 370 that binds the state of J&K to the Indian Union. Removing Article 370, which can be done by a Presidential Order, would render the state independent of India, unless new overriding laws are made. The August 5 notification has been issued under Article 370 of the Constitution. In short, the government has employed Article 370, which had once protected the 1954 Order giving special rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to scrap the sexagenarian Order. So far, the Parliament had only residuary powers of legislation in J&K. This included enacted of laws to prevent terror and secessionist activities, for taxation on foreign and inland travel and on communication. Now, the Centre has proposed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill of 2019, which says the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir would be administered/governed like the Union Territory of Puducherry. The tabling of the proposed Reorganization Bill is also proof that the long reign of the 1954 Order has ended. The 1954 Order had introduced a proviso to Article 3, namely that “no Bill providing for increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of that State shall be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that State". That power of the State Legislature to give prior consent does not exist anymore. This has provided a free hand to the Centre to table the Re-organization Bill. The 1954 Order had also brought into existence Article 35A. This Article gave the State Legislature of Jammu and Kashmir exclusive power to define classes of persons who are/shall be permanent residents of the State; to confer permanent residents special rights and privileges and impose restrictions upon other persons from outside the State; make laws and conditions for State government employment, acquisition of immovable property, settlement rights, scholarships and other forms of aid from the State government. With the removal of the 1954 Order, the power of the State Legislature ceases to exist and Parliamentary laws, including that of reservation, would apply to Jammu and Kashmir as it does in other parts of the country. The government called this the end of “positive discrimination” and the closing of the “chasm” between residents of J&K and citizens of other parts of the country. The removal of the 1954 Order further also negates a clause which was added to Article 352. The Order had mandated that no proclamation of Emergency on grounds “only of internal disturbance or imminent danger shall have effect” in the State unless with the concurrence of the State government. The second part of the August 5, 2019 notification deals with the addition of a new clause to Article 367 which amends the proviso to clause (3) of 370. Article 367 deals with the applicability of the General Clauses Act 1897 to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,. The August 5 notification amends the expression “Constituent Assembly”, contained in the proviso to clause (3) of Article 370, to mean “Legislative Assembly”. Clause (3) of Article 370 gives the President power to end the special rights and privileges of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the 1954 Order. However, the clause carries a rider. That is, the President would have to first get the consent of the Constituent Assembly of J&K before issuing such a notification. This rider or check on the President’s power was intended to give the people of the State a say in their own future. Now, the Constituent Assembly has ceased to exist since 1956, when it was dissolved. The Assembly, at the time of its dissolution, had said nothing about the abrogation of Article 370. Consequently, Article 370, though it resides among the ‘temporary provisions’ of the Constitution, is deemed have become a permanent feature of the Constitution. The August 5 notification has tided over this obstacle of a non-existent ‘Constituent Assembly’ by amending the expression in the proviso to ‘Legislative Assembly’. Ideally, any such amendment to the name of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ would require the assent of the Constituent Assembly itself. Besides, an amendment in Article 370 should have undergone the constitutional amendment procedure envisaged under Article 368 of the Constitution. But the government can, on the other hand, argue that the amendment made in its August 5 notification only applies to Jammu and Kashmir and not the entire Dominion of India, and so, does not require a constitutional amendment. This point of contention may reach the Supreme Court, where several petitions on the constitutionality of Article 35A, and in consequence Article 370, are pending for adjudication. Q. The legislative assembly of Jammu and Kashmir passes a law against the 100th Amendment Act of Parliament of India passed in 2015 in its session held on 20-1-20. The Speaker of the House attends the session and calls it path-breaking in the ethos of federal democracy where the legislative Assembly can pass a law showing true spirit of dissent against the Union.

Democracy in itself entails the true spirit of dissent and thereby the law shall hold.

The Legislative Assembly could pass a law because the law was passed in 2015 and then the state was covered under Article 370.

The Legislative Assembly could not pass the law but a resolution showing its democratic dissent.

The Legislative Assembly cannot pass the law.

Passage: The President’s notification of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 2019 of August 5 amends Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and scraps its 65-year-old predecessor, The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of May 14, 1954. By junking the 1954 Order, the notification takes away the special rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of Kashmir. It has effectively allowed the entire provisions of the Constitution, with all its amendments, exceptions and modifications, to apply to the area of Jammu and Kashmir. This is evident from the text of the August 5, 2019 notification. For one, the 2019 notification “supersedes” the 1954 Order. And two, it declares that “all the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. It is important to note that Article 370(1)(c) explicitly mentions that Article 1 of the Indian Constitution applies to Kashmir through Article 370. Article 1 lists the states of the Union. This means that it is Article 370 that binds the state of J&K to the Indian Union. Removing Article 370, which can be done by a Presidential Order, would render the state independent of India, unless new overriding laws are made. The August 5 notification has been issued under Article 370 of the Constitution. In short, the government has employed Article 370, which had once protected the 1954 Order giving special rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to scrap the sexagenarian Order. So far, the Parliament had only residuary powers of legislation in J&K. This included enacted of laws to prevent terror and secessionist activities, for taxation on foreign and inland travel and on communication. Now, the Centre has proposed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill of 2019, which says the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir would be administered/governed like the Union Territory of Puducherry. The tabling of the proposed Reorganization Bill is also proof that the long reign of the 1954 Order has ended. The 1954 Order had introduced a proviso to Article 3, namely that “no Bill providing for increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of that State shall be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that State". That power of the State Legislature to give prior consent does not exist anymore. This has provided a free hand to the Centre to table the Re-organization Bill. The 1954 Order had also brought into existence Article 35A. This Article gave the State Legislature of Jammu and Kashmir exclusive power to define classes of persons who are/shall be permanent residents of the State; to confer permanent residents special rights and privileges and impose restrictions upon other persons from outside the State; make laws and conditions for State government employment, acquisition of immovable property, settlement rights, scholarships and other forms of aid from the State government. With the removal of the 1954 Order, the power of the State Legislature ceases to exist and Parliamentary laws, including that of reservation, would apply to Jammu and Kashmir as it does in other parts of the country. The government called this the end of “positive discrimination” and the closing of the “chasm” between residents of J&K and citizens of other parts of the country. The removal of the 1954 Order further also negates a clause which was added to Article 352. The Order had mandated that no proclamation of Emergency on grounds “only of internal disturbance or imminent danger shall have effect” in the State unless with the concurrence of the State government. The second part of the August 5, 2019 notification deals with the addition of a new clause to Article 367 which amends the proviso to clause (3) of 370. Article 367 deals with the applicability of the General Clauses Act 1897 to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,. The August 5 notification amends the expression “Constituent Assembly”, contained in the proviso to clause (3) of Article 370, to mean “Legislative Assembly”. Clause (3) of Article 370 gives the President power to end the special rights and privileges of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the 1954 Order. However, the clause carries a rider. That is, the President would have to first get the consent of the Constituent Assembly of J&K before issuing such a notification. This rider or check on the President’s power was intended to give the people of the State a say in their own future. Now, the Constituent Assembly has ceased to exist since 1956, when it was dissolved. The Assembly, at the time of its dissolution, had said nothing about the abrogation of Article 370. Consequently, Article 370, though it resides among the ‘temporary provisions’ of the Constitution, is deemed have become a permanent feature of the Constitution. The August 5 notification has tided over this obstacle of a non-existent ‘Constituent Assembly’ by amending the expression in the proviso to ‘Legislative Assembly’. Ideally, any such amendment to the name of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ would require the assent of the Constituent Assembly itself. Besides, an amendment in Article 370 should have undergone the constitutional amendment procedure envisaged under Article 368 of the Constitution. But the government can, on the other hand, argue that the amendment made in its August 5 notification only applies to Jammu and Kashmir and not the entire Dominion of India, and so, does not require a constitutional amendment. This point of contention may reach the Supreme Court, where several petitions on the constitutionality of Article 35A, and in consequence Article 370, are pending for adjudication. Q. Ram Singh is a permanent resident of J and K and is notified under the Scheduled Caste category. He applies for the job of DSP Police whose recruitment exam was undertaken in February 2019 and interviews are to be conducted in the month of December 2019. Ram Singh was not selected eventually as the government did not provide him reservation benefits. Decide.

Ram Singh is to be selected as the laws of G.O.I will apply in December 2019.

Ram Singh is not to be selected under the laws of J and K.

Ram Singh is to be selected because Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution have been applied on the state.

Ram Singh will not be selected because the government of J and K does not recognize the concept of reservation S.

Passage: The President’s notification of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 2019 of August 5 amends Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and scraps its 65-year-old predecessor, The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of May 14, 1954. By junking the 1954 Order, the notification takes away the special rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of Kashmir. It has effectively allowed the entire provisions of the Constitution, with all its amendments, exceptions and modifications, to apply to the area of Jammu and Kashmir. This is evident from the text of the August 5, 2019 notification. For one, the 2019 notification “supersedes” the 1954 Order. And two, it declares that “all the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. It is important to note that Article 370(1)(c) explicitly mentions that Article 1 of the Indian Constitution applies to Kashmir through Article 370. Article 1 lists the states of the Union. This means that it is Article 370 that binds the state of J&K to the Indian Union. Removing Article 370, which can be done by a Presidential Order, would render the state independent of India, unless new overriding laws are made. The August 5 notification has been issued under Article 370 of the Constitution. In short, the government has employed Article 370, which had once protected the 1954 Order giving special rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to scrap the sexagenarian Order. So far, the Parliament had only residuary powers of legislation in J&K. This included enacted of laws to prevent terror and secessionist activities, for taxation on foreign and inland travel and on communication. Now, the Centre has proposed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill of 2019, which says the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir would be administered/governed like the Union Territory of Puducherry. The tabling of the proposed Reorganization Bill is also proof that the long reign of the 1954 Order has ended. The 1954 Order had introduced a proviso to Article 3, namely that “no Bill providing for increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of that State shall be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that State". That power of the State Legislature to give prior consent does not exist anymore. This has provided a free hand to the Centre to table the Re-organization Bill. The 1954 Order had also brought into existence Article 35A. This Article gave the State Legislature of Jammu and Kashmir exclusive power to define classes of persons who are/shall be permanent residents of the State; to confer permanent residents special rights and privileges and impose restrictions upon other persons from outside the State; make laws and conditions for State government employment, acquisition of immovable property, settlement rights, scholarships and other forms of aid from the State government. With the removal of the 1954 Order, the power of the State Legislature ceases to exist and Parliamentary laws, including that of reservation, would apply to Jammu and Kashmir as it does in other parts of the country. The government called this the end of “positive discrimination” and the closing of the “chasm” between residents of J&K and citizens of other parts of the country. The removal of the 1954 Order further also negates a clause which was added to Article 352. The Order had mandated that no proclamation of Emergency on grounds “only of internal disturbance or imminent danger shall have effect” in the State unless with the concurrence of the State government. The second part of the August 5, 2019 notification deals with the addition of a new clause to Article 367 which amends the proviso to clause (3) of 370. Article 367 deals with the applicability of the General Clauses Act 1897 to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,. The August 5 notification amends the expression “Constituent Assembly”, contained in the proviso to clause (3) of Article 370, to mean “Legislative Assembly”. Clause (3) of Article 370 gives the President power to end the special rights and privileges of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the 1954 Order. However, the clause carries a rider. That is, the President would have to first get the consent of the Constituent Assembly of J&K before issuing such a notification. This rider or check on the President’s power was intended to give the people of the State a say in their own future. Now, the Constituent Assembly has ceased to exist since 1956, when it was dissolved. The Assembly, at the time of its dissolution, had said nothing about the abrogation of Article 370. Consequently, Article 370, though it resides among the ‘temporary provisions’ of the Constitution, is deemed have become a permanent feature of the Constitution. The August 5 notification has tided over this obstacle of a non-existent ‘Constituent Assembly’ by amending the expression in the proviso to ‘Legislative Assembly’. Ideally, any such amendment to the name of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ would require the assent of the Constituent Assembly itself. Besides, an amendment in Article 370 should have undergone the constitutional amendment procedure envisaged under Article 368 of the Constitution. But the government can, on the other hand, argue that the amendment made in its August 5 notification only applies to Jammu and Kashmir and not the entire Dominion of India, and so, does not require a constitutional amendment. This point of contention may reach the Supreme Court, where several petitions on the constitutionality of Article 35A, and in consequence Article 370, are pending for adjudication. Q. The President issued an order well under his powers and under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. If instead of the promugulation of the order, the Parliament would have removed Article 370 from the Indian Constitution, what would have been the consequence?

The law would be declared unconstitutional.

The Law will fail the test in the court of Law.

The Law will result in independence of J&k.

The Law will further solidify the Presidential order of 1954.

Any person may use reasonable force in order to protect his property or person. However, the force employed must be proportionate to the apprehended danger. Facts: Krishna was walking on a lonely road. Maniyan came with a knife and said to Krishna, "Your life or your purse". Krishna pulled out his revolver. On seeing it, Maniyan ran. Krishna shot Maniyan in his legs. Decide:

Krishna will not be punished, as there was danger to his property.

Krishna will not be punished, as the force he used was proportionate to the apprehended injury.

Krishna will be punished, as the force employed was disproportionate to the apprehended injury.

As Maniyan ran to escape there was no longer a threat to Krishna's property. So Krishna will be punished.

A contract requires a proposal and an acceptance of the proposal. It is necessary to make a binding contract, not only that the proposal be accepted, but also that the acceptance is notified to the proposer. Factual Situation: Diu offered to purchase a home owned by Pawan for 20,00,000. He wrote to Pawan's agent asking whether his offer was accepted. He also added that he was ready to accept any higher price if found reasonable. The agent of pawan Shyam sunder replied, 'would not accept less than 30,00,000'. Diu accepted this and brought a suit in a local court for specific performance. Issue: Is Pawan liable for specific performance? Decision:

Pawan is liable for the specific performance of the contract entered into Diu and Pawan.

The Supreme Court held that evidence can be recorded by video-conferencing in the case

State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai

Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab

Bachan Singh v. the State of Punjab

Supreme Court held that Preamble as a basic feature of Constitution cannot be amended in the case of

Golaknath v. the State of Punjab

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Kesavananda Bharati v. the State of Kerala

'When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or, any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise, is called a consideration for the promise'. Factual Situation: A doctor gave up his lucrative practice in the city and served as manager of an ashram at the Ashram’s request in lieu of which the manager of the ashram subsequently promised a monthly remuneration. Issue: What is the nature of contract? Decision:

There was a valid contract as there is a good consideration.

Such vague promises do not result into contract.

Contract is voidable at the option of land owner.

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Facts: A, a child born on January 01, 2005 killed another child B on December 30, 2011.

A has committed the offence as it is heinous crime.

Killing of one child by another child is not an offence.

A has not committed the offence for on the date of killing of B, A was a minor.

What is the meaning of the Legal Maxim/ Legal Word/Legal Term “In paricausa possessor potiorhaberidebet.”?

In an equal cause, the possessor has the advantage.

In an equal cause, the possessor does not have an advantage.

In parity issues, debit parties are at a loss.

In parity issues possessor is the one who has the benefit of contracts.

Legal Mock Test - 14 Free MCQ Practice Test with Solutions

EduRev

All Courses

Open App

Important Questions for Legal Mock Test - 14

Find all the important questions for Legal Mock Test - 14 at EduRev.Get fully prepared for Legal Mock Test - 14 with EduRev's comprehensive question bank and test resources. Our platform offers a diverse range of question papers covering various topics within the Legal Mock Test - 14 syllabus. Whether you need to review specific subjects or assess your overall readiness, EduRev has you covered. The questions are designed to challenge you and help you gain confidence in tackling the actual exam. Maximize your chances of success by utilizing EduRev's extensive collection of Legal Mock Test - 14 resources.

Legal Mock Test - 14 MCQs with Answers

Prepare for the Legal Mock Test - 14 within the CLAT exam with comprehensive MCQs and answers at EduRev. Our platform offers a wide range of practice papers, question papers, and mock tests to familiarize you with the exam pattern and syllabus. Access the best books, study materials, and notes curated by toppers to enhance your preparation. Stay updated with the exam date and receive expert preparation tips and paper analysis. Visit EduRev's official website today and access a wealth of videos and coaching resources to excel in your exam.

Online Tests for Legal Mock Test - 14

Practice with a wide array of question papers that follow the exam pattern and syllabus. Our platform offers a user-friendly interface, allowing you to track your progress and identify areas for improvement. Access detailed solutions and explanations for each test to enhance your understanding of concepts. With EduRev's Online Tests, you can build confidence, boost your performance, and ace Legal Mock Test - 14 with ease. Join thousands of successful students who have benefited from our trusted online resources.

Education Revolution