Legal Mock Test - 15 - CLAT MCQ

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. The author is concerned about the constitution of the DPA under the Bill because:

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. The Bill is amended, and the Government’s powers to provide exemptions for its agencies are removed. In such a situation, according to the author: 

Principle: A person commits cheating, when he fraudulently induces another person to deliver the latter's property to him.
Facts: A falsely represented to B, a shop owner that he was an officer from the Sales Tax Department. In the course of going through the vouchers, A expressed his interest to buy, a costly television on installment basis. B readily agreed hoping that he would get a favourable assessment from A regarding his tax liability. A paid the first installment and took the T.V. and disappeared. The police somehow managed to arrest him and sought to prosecute 'A' for cheating. Decide. (NLSIU-2014)

Principle: A minor is liable for torts committed by him.
Explanation: A minor is not liable for the torts committed by him when there is significant mental element to the tort such as defamation etc
Fact: Tony, a minor, hires a horse from Mr. A for the purpose of riding who expressly mentions that it is not for ‘jumping’. Tony tries to get the horse over a high fence and horse is killed in the process. Mr. A sues Tony.

Indian Parliament is based on the principle of

Which Parliamentary Committee in Indian system of democracy is chaired by a member of Opposition Party?

The Constitution names our country as:

Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking is said to commit theft".
Fact: Kumud went into a jewellery shop with a view to finding a match for her bangle. She selected the bangle which matches with the bangle which she was wearing; and when she saw the price tag, she gave it up. But meanwhile, she inadvertently took the valuable bangle of the shop and left her less valuable bangle in the casket of the valuable bangle. Nobody in the shop noticed it and she discovered it only after reaching home. (NLSIU 2016) State whether Kumud can be prosecuted for theft?

Principle (i): Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a person’s enjoyment of land.
Principle (ii): Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.
Principle (iii): Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties.
Facts: Zafar runs a scrap metal business. His business generates a great amount of metal waste. Dumping it is a really big problem. He sometimes takes an easy way out and dumps it in some nearby place where he thinks nobody will notice. This however backfires sometimes. For example the one time he tried dumping it on the road adjacent to his business, he ended up blocking it partly thereby causing difficulty to people who used that road.

Q. Only if one person was using the road, then will it be public or private nuisance?

When the master is held liable for the wrongful act of his servant, the liability is called

The law relating to prisoners of war has been codified by

Passage: The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI. 
Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.

Q. What is the name of the judge whose name has been replaced with ‘[1]’ in the passage above?

Passage: The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI. 
Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.

Q. The name given to benches of the Supreme Court of India that have at least five judges, who sit “for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of [the] Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article 143” has been replaced with ‘[2]’ in the passage above. What is ‘[2]’?

Passage: The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI. 
Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.

Q. What is the name of the RTI activist whose applications to the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India, eventually led to the case discussed in the passage above, and who is one of the main parties in the case? 

Passage: The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI. 
Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.

Q. Who is the RTI activist and peasant leader who was arrested on December 10, 2019 from Jorhat, Assam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the backdrop of large-scale protests against the amendment of the Citizenship Act? 

Passage: The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI. 
Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.

Q. Which amongst the following was the first Indian state to enact a law on the right to information? 

Principle: Damage without violation of any legal right does not give rise to a tort.
Facts: Punkita, who owned a mill, had been using water from a rain-fed stream for her mill, for the past 20 years. One fine day, Utkarsh, her neighbour, sunk a well on his land and pumped large quantities of water, thus depriving Punkita of the quantity of water she used to draw. This caused heavy losses to Punkita. Decide.

Principle: Whoever delivers to any other person as genuine any counterfeit currency which he knows to be counterfeit currency which he did not know to be counterfeit at the time when he received it is guilty of an offence.
Facts: Mr. Ramachandran is a cashier in a School. One evening his wife returned home from market. While she was counting the remaining money, Mr. Ramachandran noticed counterfeit currency note of Rs. 100. His wife told him that it was given to her by way of change when she gave a Rs. 500 note in the grocery shop by the person at the cash counter. Mr. Ramachandran goes to the same shop with a view to get rid of the counterfeit note. He buys a shaving cream worth Rs. 32.50 and gives the counterfeit note at the cash counter. The cashier inspects the note and realizes that it is counterfeit. He calls the police. 

When a person is prosecuted for committing a criminal offence, the burden of proof is on

Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.
Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same. 
Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him. 
Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.
Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.
Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.
Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act. 

Facts – Ojaswi is an old woman who lives alone in the outskirts of the city. Every month, she has to deposit a sum of Rs. 2000 in the nearby branch of the State Bank of Shamirpet. Pranesh, her neighbour, works as a teller at that branch and offers to deposit the money for her. Trustingly, Ojaswi hands him the money at the end of the month and asks him to deposit it in her bank account. Pranesh never gave her a receipt stating that the amount had been deposited, but made false entries in her passbook nonetheless. Six months later, it is brought to her notice that Pranesh has been misappropriating all the money. She wishes to sue the State Bank of Shamirpet and claim damages for her loss. Would the Bank be liable?

Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.
Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same. 
Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him. 
Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.
Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.
Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.
Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act. 

Facts – The South Western Railway Board appointed porters to assist passengers in boarding the right trains, as the crowds were large and the railway schedules were packed during the holiday season. Manu, a vagabond traveler had got into the right train bound for Kochi. However, the porter erroneously thought that he had boarded the wrong train and pulled him out and ensured that he takes another train leaving around the same time, which stopped at Kochi, but was actually bound for Kanyakumari. When the tickets were being checked, Manu was caught and fined for ticketless travelling, as the ticket he possessed was for a different train. Manu seeks to claim damages from the South Western Railway Board. Would they be held liable for the porter’s act? 

Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.
Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same. 
Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him. 
Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.
Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.
Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.
Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act. 

Facts – Seashell Petroleum Co. has a large number of drivers employed under the Company, who drive petrol tankers and fill up petrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks in various cities. Reuben was one such driver employed by Seashell. One day, while filling up a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lights a match, lights his cigarette, and throws the glowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in the petrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage is caused to life and property. Who should be held liable for this loss? 

Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.
Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same. 
Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him. 
Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.
Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.
Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.
Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act. 

Facts – Fast Carz is a company that provides cars for rented use in the city of New Heights. A University in the city was organising a Literary Festival, and had to pick up and drop off eminent guests from the airport, and had hired a car from Zoom Carz for a period of two days. The Company had put up two notices on each of its cars. One of them read that no unauthorized person was allowed to take a lift in the car. The other read that the driver had been told expressly, not to give lifts to unauthorized people. He was only authorized to pick up and drop off persons as instructed by the University. On his way to the airport to pick up Amit Nayar, a famous author, the driver sees a friend on the sidewalk and decides to give him a lift. While driving on the highway to the airport, the driver caused an accident due to rash and negligent driving, and the friend sustained a head injury and was paralysed for life. Who is to be held liable? 

Principle: A person is entitled to exercise self defence by using reasonable force against the source of threat.
Fact: Shaw and his family lived in a large mansion in the countryside. One night, a group of robbers broke open the door of the mansion, and there was a scuffle between the occupants of the house and the robbers. Shaw took his pistol out, loaded it, and fired a shot at one of the intruders. The shot missed the target, but the robbers started retreating and ran away. By this time, several neighbours had gathered outside the gates. Shaw came out of the house in a fit of anger, and shot at the fleeing robbers, who had mingled into the crowd of neighbours by that time. The shot hit Mr. Beagle, and injured him seriously. 

Principle: Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said to wrongfully restrain that person.
Explanation: Wrongful restraint means keeping the man out of the place where he wishes to be or has a right to be in.
Facts: Nilav was completely against the practice of untouchability and abhorred anyone who practiced it. He gathered a few of these so called ‘lower castes’ and asked them to stand in front of the vicinity temple. Nilav wanted to prevent the temple priest from performing a religious yatra, from fear of being “polluted”. Can Nilav be held liable for trying to wrongfully restrain the pundit? 

Principle: Whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to any assembly, lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment upto one year.
Facts: A temple was being used by a particular sect of Hindus. While that sect of Hindus was performing puja, Rudresh, a Hindu from another sect entered the temple and started performing his puja and paying obeisance to the Lord. This miffed the other sect of Hindus who used the temple. They prosecuted him for voluntarily disturbing a lawful religious assembly. Decide.

Principle: No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, whether it is wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing that intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will.
Facts: Kamath consumed an entire bottle of brandy than his usual drink of vodka. On the way back to his hostel, he tried to strangle his friend. Would Kamath be held liable?