Weekly Legal Reasoning Revision Quiz || Law Entrance Exams || 26.09.2021 for CLAT UG Exams

Question 1

Who has recently been appointed as the acting Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) ?

Question 2

In a significant judgment, which High Court has recently held that Family Courts cannot turn away parties seeking divorce under their customary laws ?

Question 3

The Supreme Court has recently held that State's regulation of profiteering by education institutions cannot be held to be violating the managements' fundamental right to trade and profession under ________________.

Question 4

In a first for an Indian jurist, who has recently been conferred with the prestigious Arline Pacht Global Vision Award for 2021 by the International Association of Women Judges (IAWJ) ?

Question 5

Which High Court has recently held that simply because a Police Officer is in uniform when he is assaulted, the offence of Assaulting Public Servant will not attract ?

Question 6

PRINCIPLE: The State shall not differentiate on the basis of place of birth alone.

FACT: The State of Winterland makes a law called the ‘Winterland Domicile Reservation in Colleges Act, 2015’. Under this act, 8% of the seats in Colleges in Winterland subject to meeting all other criteria and qualification standards is reserved for persons having a domicile in Winterland. Tony, a student belonging to an adjacent state misses out a seat in the college by a small margin, which he would have got had this law not been introduced. He challenged the law as being unconstitutional. Decide whether:

Question 7

PRINCIPLE: The State will not differentiate on the basis of sex alone (Article 14). Nothing shall prevent to make special provisions for women and children (Article 15).

FACT: The State of Forks makes a law that provides for assistance of Rs. 30,000 towards the marriage of girl child in poor households, provided that the girl child has reached the age of majority. Ram and Shyam have 3 daughters and 3 sons respectively. Whereas, Ram is able to derive benefit from this law towards the marriage of his daughters, Shyam is compelled to shell out money from his savings. Shyam challenges the law on account of being in contravention to Article 14 as it discriminates on basis of sex alone. Decide whether:

Question 8

PRINCIPLE: Reasonable restrictions may be placed upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression in relation to contempt of court.

FACT: A leader of the second majority national party in the course of public address exhorting the people to follow the ideas of his party was extremely critical of the judicial decisions regarding the right to property. On one occasion, the leader stated: The government is nothing but the executive council of the capitalist class of the country. The judiciary is handmaid of the government. The judges exercise the concentrated government power to further the interest of capitalists. He was arrested and charged for contempt of court. Any act which undermines the prestige and dignity of the court and thereby impedes its effective functioning amounts to contempt of court. Decide whether there is contempt of course in this case.

Question 9

PRINCIPLE: The Union of India has the power to legislate on areas such as wireless, broadcasting and other such form of communication. The State has the power to make legislation on Public Health and Sanitation.

FACT: Robby loves hip hop music and swears by the International Rock star Steve. In order to make his zest and fealty to Steve known, he buys hi-intensity amplifiers and fixes them on his balcony to play blaring music for an hour a day. Slowly his cult grows in multitudes and lot of people including John and Tony join the club. The CM of the state, Ms. Kate takes great objection the same believing that such loud music is immensely damaging to the ear drums and therefore makes a law prohibiting use of any musical equipment in a manner which affects public health. Robby challenges the Act saying that sound amplifiers is a broadcasting device and the Union can akone make a law like this. Decide:

Question 10

PRINCIPLE 1: Article 19(1) (a) says that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.

PRINCIPLE 2: Article 19(2) states that (2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

FACT: Z Indian Citizen is a sympathizer of the Tibetan cause, and strongly protests what in his opinion is the worsening Human Rights abuse by the Chinese Government. In the past three years India and China have significantly improved their relationship and to improve this relationship Mr. X, the Chinese ambassador is supposed to visit New Delhi. Z has participated in human rights protection protests in the past which were never stopped. On the eve of Mr. X’s visit, Z and his friends reach New Delhi airport in order to voice his protests. The police prevent Z and his friends from protesting during Mr. X’s visit Z approaches the court for violation of human rights. Decide whether:

Question 11

Direction: Each set of questions in this section is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the preceding passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purposes of this Section. Please answer each question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the corresponding passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the questions.

Passage

There is a popular myth, often fostered by the police itself, that the force requires ‘orders’ from their superiors, i.e. the political executive, in order to ‘act’. In reality, under the law, the police have adequate powers and they do not need any orders from anybody, provided they are ‘aware’ of their powers and have the will to act. A second myth relates to the use of lethal force. The popular notion is that the police need special orders to open fire. Once again, it is not so.

An unlawful assembly (popularly known as a mob or a riotous mob) has been defined in the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) in Section 141 as “An assembly of five or more persons, where the common object of the persons composing that assembly is committing violence or where such assembly of five or more persons is likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace”.

How exactly the legal power of the police to use force, vested in Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”), is to be used was prescribed in the case of Karam Singh v. Hardayal Singh And Ors. It was held that before any force can be used, three prerequisites are to be satisfied. Firstly, there should be an unlawful assembly. Secondly, such assembly is ordered to be dispersed, and thirdly, in spite of such orders to disperse, the assembly should have refused to disperse. Thus, the police can never have any excuse for not acting or waiting for orders from their superiors or the political executive.

It is a popular misconception that the police need an order from a magistrate in order to act. Section 129 of the CrPC speaks of ‘Any executive magistrate or officer in charge of a police station or, in the absence of such officer in charge, any police officer, not below the rank of a sub-inspector’. This means that any one of them can order the use of force to disperse an unlawful assembly. One often finds police officers taking a plea that while they wanted to use force, the executive magistrate did not issue orders even though the law does not say that only an executive magistrate can issue such an order. If there is an executive magistrate around, it is generally considered good practice to obtain her or his orders, but it is not stated anywhere that it is mandatory.

Inspector Ishmeet is in charge of a team of five constables of the police entrusted with capturing the notorious gangster Varun Mouli, who has been on the run from the police for some time. He receives information that Mouli is hiding in a remote suburb of Mumbai, and decides to take the local train to reach Mouli as soon as possible. The Inspector and his team reach Dadar station to catch the train, but when they reach there, the platform is extremely crowded, and they are not able to get through to the train. Inspector Ishmeet shouts loudly at the people on the platform, telling them to get out of the way, but nobody listens to him, as it is rush hour, and the people were keen to get to their workplace. Inspector Ishmeet opened fire to disperse the crowd. When he is pulled up the authorities for doing so, he pleads that he was merely exercising his powers under S. 129 of the CrPC. Is his argument valid? (An inspector ranks above a sub-inspector of police; a constable ranks below a sub-inspector of police.)

Question 12

Direction: Each set of questions in this section is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the preceding passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purposes of this Section. Please answer each question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the corresponding passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the questions.

Passage

There is a popular myth, often fostered by the police itself, that the force requires ‘orders’ from their superiors, i.e. the political executive, in order to ‘act’. In reality, under the law, the police have adequate powers and they do not need any orders from anybody, provided they are ‘aware’ of their powers and have the will to act. A second myth relates to the use of lethal force. The popular notion is that the police need special orders to open fire. Once again, it is not so.

An unlawful assembly (popularly known as a mob or a riotous mob) has been defined in the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) in Section 141 as “An assembly of five or more persons, where the common object of the persons composing that assembly is committing violence or where such assembly of five or more persons is likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace”.

How exactly the legal power of the police to use force, vested in Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”), is to be used was prescribed in the case of Karam Singh v. Hardayal Singh And Ors. It was held that before any force can be used, three prerequisites are to be satisfied. Firstly, there should be an unlawful assembly. Secondly, such assembly is ordered to be dispersed, and thirdly, in spite of such orders to disperse, the assembly should have refused to disperse. Thus, the police can never have any excuse for not acting or waiting for orders from their superiors or the political executive.

It is a popular misconception that the police need an order from a magistrate in order to act. Section 129 of the CrPC speaks of ‘Any executive magistrate or officer in charge of a police station or, in the absence of such officer in charge, any police officer, not below the rank of a sub-inspector’. This means that any one of them can order the use of force to disperse an unlawful assembly. One often finds police officers taking a plea that while they wanted to use force, the executive magistrate did not issue orders even though the law does not say that only an executive magistrate can issue such an order. If there is an executive magistrate around, it is generally considered good practice to obtain her or his orders, but it is not stated anywhere that it is mandatory.

Inspector Ishmeet and his team finally reach the location where Mouli is hiding, a park in a remote suburb. There, they find Mouli talking to two of his associates, and overhear them planning to rob a nearby bank. Inspector Ishmeet shouts out to Mouli and his associates, telling them to “Stand still” and “Do not move!”. Mouli and his associates instead start running away from the spot, and Inspector Ishmeet and his team chase them down and start hitting them with lathis (wooden sticks). Once again, Inspector Ishmeet claims that this was a valid exercise of his power under S. 129 of the CrPC. Which of the following are reasons why this was not a valid exercise of the Inspector’s powers under S. 129 of the CrPC?

Question 13

Direction: Each set of questions in this section is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the preceding passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purposes of this Section. Please answer each question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the corresponding passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the questions.

Passage

There is a popular myth, often fostered by the police itself, that the force requires ‘orders’ from their superiors, i.e. the political executive, in order to ‘act’. In reality, under the law, the police have adequate powers and they do not need any orders from anybody, provided they are ‘aware’ of their powers and have the will to act. A second myth relates to the use of lethal force. The popular notion is that the police need special orders to open fire. Once again, it is not so.

An unlawful assembly (popularly known as a mob or a riotous mob) has been defined in the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) in Section 141 as “An assembly of five or more persons, where the common object of the persons composing that assembly is committing violence or where such assembly of five or more persons is likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace”.

How exactly the legal power of the police to use force, vested in Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”), is to be used was prescribed in the case of Karam Singh v. Hardayal Singh And Ors. It was held that before any force can be used, three prerequisites are to be satisfied. Firstly, there should be an unlawful assembly. Secondly, such assembly is ordered to be dispersed, and thirdly, in spite of such orders to disperse, the assembly should have refused to disperse. Thus, the police can never have any excuse for not acting or waiting for orders from their superiors or the political executive.

It is a popular misconception that the police need an order from a magistrate in order to act. Section 129 of the CrPC speaks of ‘Any executive magistrate or officer in charge of a police station or, in the absence of such officer in charge, any police officer, not below the rank of a sub-inspector’. This means that any one of them can order the use of force to disperse an unlawful assembly. One often finds police officers taking a plea that while they wanted to use force, the executive magistrate did not issue orders even though the law does not say that only an executive magistrate can issue such an order. If there is an executive magistrate around, it is generally considered good practice to obtain her or his orders, but it is not stated anywhere that it is mandatory.

Mouli and his associates ran away from the spot, and when Inspector Ishmeet’s team finally caught up with them, five more of Mouli’s associates had joined Mouli. The eight of them were standing outside a local bank, armed with sticks and stones, and were breaking all the windows in the bank in an attempt to scare people and raid the bank. As Inspector Ishmeet was tired from chasing Mouli and his group and had stopped somewhere to rest, Head Constable Kumar was leading the police team, and he ordered the team to start firing upon Mouli’s group to stop them. Did he have the authority to do so?

Question 14

Direction: Each set of questions in this section is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the preceding passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purposes of this Section. Please answer each question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the corresponding passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the questions.

Passage

There is a popular myth, often fostered by the police itself, that the force requires ‘orders’ from their superiors, i.e. the political executive, in order to ‘act’. In reality, under the law, the police have adequate powers and they do not need any orders from anybody, provided they are ‘aware’ of their powers and have the will to act. A second myth relates to the use of lethal force. The popular notion is that the police need special orders to open fire. Once again, it is not so.

An unlawful assembly (popularly known as a mob or a riotous mob) has been defined in the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) in Section 141 as “An assembly of five or more persons, where the common object of the persons composing that assembly is committing violence or where such assembly of five or more persons is likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace”.

How exactly the legal power of the police to use force, vested in Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”), is to be used was prescribed in the case of Karam Singh v. Hardayal Singh And Ors. It was held that before any force can be used, three prerequisites are to be satisfied. Firstly, there should be an unlawful assembly. Secondly, such assembly is ordered to be dispersed, and thirdly, in spite of such orders to disperse, the assembly should have refused to disperse. Thus, the police can never have any excuse for not acting or waiting for orders from their superiors or the political executive.

It is a popular misconception that the police need an order from a magistrate in order to act. Section 129 of the CrPC speaks of ‘Any executive magistrate or officer in charge of a police station or, in the absence of such officer in charge, any police officer, not below the rank of a sub-inspector’. This means that any one of them can order the use of force to disperse an unlawful assembly. One often finds police officers taking a plea that while they wanted to use force, the executive magistrate did not issue orders even though the law does not say that only an executive magistrate can issue such an order. If there is an executive magistrate around, it is generally considered good practice to obtain her or his orders, but it is not stated anywhere that it is mandatory.

Inspector Ishmeet finally caught up with this team, and managed to stop them just before they opened fire on Mouli and his associates. He then shouted at Mouli and his group to disperse, and when they did not, he tried to call up the local executive magistrate, to obtain her order to use force on Mouli and his associates. Was it necessary for him to obtain the executive magistrate’s orders in that situation?

Question 15

Direction: Each set of questions in this section is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the preceding passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purposes of this Section. Please answer each question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the corresponding passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the questions.

Passage

There is a popular myth, often fostered by the police itself, that the force requires ‘orders’ from their superiors, i.e. the political executive, in order to ‘act’. In reality, under the law, the police have adequate powers and they do not need any orders from anybody, provided they are ‘aware’ of their powers and have the will to act. A second myth relates to the use of lethal force. The popular notion is that the police need special orders to open fire. Once again, it is not so.

An unlawful assembly (popularly known as a mob or a riotous mob) has been defined in the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) in Section 141 as “An assembly of five or more persons, where the common object of the persons composing that assembly is committing violence or where such assembly of five or more persons is likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace”.

How exactly the legal power of the police to use force, vested in Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”), is to be used was prescribed in the case of Karam Singh v. Hardayal Singh And Ors. It was held that before any force can be used, three prerequisites are to be satisfied. Firstly, there should be an unlawful assembly. Secondly, such assembly is ordered to be dispersed, and thirdly, in spite of such orders to disperse, the assembly should have refused to disperse. Thus, the police can never have any excuse for not acting or waiting for orders from their superiors or the political executive.

It is a popular misconception that the police need an order from a magistrate in order to act. Section 129 of the CrPC speaks of ‘Any executive magistrate or officer in charge of a police station or, in the absence of such officer in charge, any police officer, not below the rank of a sub-inspector’. This means that any one of them can order the use of force to disperse an unlawful assembly. One often finds police officers taking a plea that while they wanted to use force, the executive magistrate did not issue orders even though the law does not say that only an executive magistrate can issue such an order. If there is an executive magistrate around, it is generally considered good practice to obtain her or his orders, but it is not stated anywhere that it is mandatory.

When the executive magistrate did not pick up Inspector Ishmeet’s call, he decided to take matters into his own hands. He shouted again at Mouli’s group, telling them to disperse. This time, Mouli and his group got scared, and ran away in different directions. Inspector Ishmeet was, however, very keen to catch them, and he then ordered his team to start firing at them. Did he have the authority to do so under S. 129 of the CrPC?