Legal Compendium

LIVE LECTURES
DAILY PRACTICE PROBLEMS WITH

VIDEO SOLUTIONS
MOCK TEST SERIES
LAW CLAT
ACHIEVERS SECTIONAL TESTS
2024 EDITORIALS QUIZZES

WITH VIDEO SOLUTIONS
DOUBT SOLVING
MONTHLY MAGAZINES
SAVE BIG on LAW CLAT ACHIEVERS 2024 enrolment
Enjoy a discount of FLAT 500 off with COUPON CODE CLAT500

CONTENTS
1. SC Verdict on Demonetization�� 4
2. SC on Freedom of Speech of Ministers�� 6
3. SC expands ambit of Article 19 and 21�� 8
4. Kerala HC on Right to strike�� 11
5. Kerala HC on ART Act�� 12
6. Jallikattu�� 14
7. Chargesheet is not a Public Document�� 16
8. “Burden to Prove Mental Incapacity is on The Defence” : Supreme Court�� 18
9. When A Person Has Relinquished Rights in Father’s Self Acquired
Property, His Sons are Estopped From Claiming Share : SC�� 20
10. Cinema Theatres Can Prohibit Viewers from Bringing Food Articles
from Outside : Supreme Court�� 22
11. Bombay HC on Liquor Ban�� 24
Law
1 SC Verdict on Demonetization
The decision-making process should not be criticized
Why in News? solely because it originated from the Central
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has upheld, Government. “There must be great restraint in matters
by a majority of 4:1, the central government’s decision of economic policy. The court cannot replace the
made in 2016 to demonetize currency notes of Rs 500 executive’s wisdom with its own.”
and Rs 1,000 denominations. The majority, consisting The bench further ruled that Section 26(2) of the
of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, and RBI Act, which empowers the Centre to demonetize
V Ramasubramanian, concluded that the government’s any series of banknotes of any denomination, can be
notification from November 8, 2016, was valid and used to demonetize the entire series of currency. The
met the test of proportionality. Justice BV Nagarathna bench observed, “The word ‘any’ in Section 26(2) of
dissented, stating that while demonetization was well- the RBI Act should not be given a restrictive meaning.
intentioned and well-planned, it should be deemed Modern interpretation trends are pragmatic, and
unlawful based on legal grounds rather than its interpretations leading to absurdity should be avoided.
objectives. The purposes of the Act must be considered during
The 5-judge bench, comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer, interpretation.”
BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and BV The bench also concluded that Section 26(2) is not
Nagarathna, responded to a division bench reference. unconstitutional due to excessive delegation, as
The judgment had been reserved on December 7, 2022. there are inherent safeguards. “Delegation is given
The matter is now referred back to the division bench. to the Central Government, which is accountable to
Parliament, which in turn is accountable to the citizens
Rulings of the Verdict of the country. The Central Government is required to
take action after consultation with the Central Board,
Majority Ruling which serves as an inbuilt safeguard.”
Demonetization was reasonably connected to the
objectives of eradicating black marketing, terror Minority Ruling
funding, etc. The achievement of the objectives is not Justice B V Nagarthna provided the dissenting opinion.
relevant. She argued that “Any series” under Section 26(2)
The bench held that the prescribed 52-day period for of the RBI Act cannot mean “all series.” According to
currency exchange was not unreasonable. her, Section 26(2) only applies to a specific series of
4 LEGAL MONTHLY January 2023 www.pw.live

currency notes and not the entire series of currency 3. Mischief Rule (or Purposive Approach): This rule
notes of a denomination. involves examining the gap or mischief that the
The judge stated that the RBI Act does not envision statute was designed to address. It allows the court
the initiation of demonetization by the central to interpret the law in a manner that addresses
government. According to Section 26(2), the proposal
the identified problem, even if the plain meaning
for demonetization should originate from the central
board of the RBI. Justice Nagarathna further stated that of the words suggests a different outcome.
if demonetization were to be initiated by the central 4. Ejusdem Generis Rule: When a general term
government, such power would need to come from follows a specific list of items or categories, the
legislation or an ordinance derived from Entry 36 of ejusdem generis rule states that the general term
List I, which deals with currency, coinage, legal tender,
should be interpreted to include only similar
and foreign exchange.
things or matters as mentioned in the list. This
What is the Doctrine of Proportionality? rule helps to limit the scope of the general term.
The Doctrine of Proportionality is a legal principle that 5. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius: This Latin
applies in the field of Administrative Law, specifically maxim means “the expression of one thing is the
during the judicial review process. It requires a rational exclusion of another.” If a statute explicitly mentions
connection between the intended outcome and the certain items or categories, the implication is that
means employed to achieve it. anything not mentioned is intentionally excluded
Hon’ble Chandrachud in Puttaswamy (Privacy) from the statute’s application.
judgment, notes that any violation of Constitutional
6. Noscitur a Sociis: The principle of noscitur a
right must meet the three requirements of:
sociis states that the meaning of a word or phrase
Legality, i.e. there must be a law in existence
is determined by the context in which it appears.
Legitimate aim/State interest, which he illustrates
Words should be interpreted in association with
as including goals like national security, proper
deployment of national resources, and protection of other words or provisions within the statute to
revenue, social welfare; and ascertain their intended scope.
Proportionality of the legitimate aims with the 7. Presumption of Consistency: It is presumed that
object sought to be achieved. There should be a the legislature intends consistency and harmony
rational nexus between the objects and the means among various provisions of a statute or related
adopted to achieve them. statutes. When interpreting a provision, the court
assumes that the legislature did not intend to
What are the Rules of Interpretation?
create conflicting laws.
The rules of interpretation of statutes are guidelines
8. Presumption against Retroactivity: Statutes are
and principles used by courts and legal professionals to
understand and apply the meaning and intention behind generally presumed to operate prospectively
legislative acts or statutes. These rules assist in resolving unless there is clear language or necessary
ambiguities, filling gaps, and ensuring consistent and implication suggesting retroactive application.
fair application of the law. Here are some key rules of This presumption ensures that individuals are
interpretation commonly employed: not subjected to unexpected legal consequences
1. Literal Rule: The literal rule emphasizes the plain for past actions.
and ordinary meaning of the words in a statute.
These rules of interpretation, along with other legal
It assumes that the legislature’s intention is best
expressed through the language used. This rule is doctrines and principles, help courts to interpret
applied unless it leads to absurd or unjust results. statutes accurately and promote fairness, predictability,
2. Golden Rule: Under the golden rule, if the plain and consistency in the application of the law. It is
meaning of a statute leads to an absurd or important to note that the specific rules employed may
unreasonable result, the court may depart from vary across jurisdictions, and courts have the discretion
the literal interpretation and choose an alternative to adapt or combine rules based on the circumstances
meaning that aligns with the overall purpose and of each case.
spirit of the law.
www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 5

Law
2 SC on Freedom of Speech of Ministers
reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2). The

Why in News? court’s role is to protect fundamental rights within the
Recently, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court limits of lawful restrictions, rather than protecting the
unanimously and rightly ruled out any additional curbs restrictions and treating rights as residual privileges.
on free speech by ministers. Collective Responsibility:
The case (Kaushal Kishor v the State of UP), relates The majority ruling clarifies that the government has
to the Bulandshahar rape incident of 2016, in which vicarious responsibility for the ill-judged or hateful
the then Minister of the State termed the incident a remarks made by individual ministers. The flow of
‘political conspiracy and nothing else’. responsibility in collective responsibility is from
A writ petition was filed by the survivors before the the Council of Ministers to individual ministers and
SC and the court raised an important question: “Can not the other way around. The concept of collective
restrictions be imposed on a public functionary’s responsibility cannot be extended to every statement
freedom of speech and expression?”. made by a minister outside the legislative assembly.
A bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, Statement by an Individual Minister:
A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna The court addresses whether a statement by a minister,
also ruled that restrictions under Article 19(2) of inconsistent with citizens’ fundamental rights, can
the Constitution are exhaustive and no additional result in a constitutional tort. While a mere statement
restrictions can be incorporated into this list. may not be actionable, it becomes actionable if it
The majority opinion was authored by Justice leads to actual harm or loss for individuals. The court
Ramasubramaninan, while Justice Nagarathna wrote emphasizes the need for actual harm rather than just
the dissenting judgment. an inconsistent statement.
Dissenting Judgement:
Judgement of the Court
Hateful Public Discourse:
Majority Judgement: The minority judgement expresses concern over the
Reasonable Restrictions: prevalence of hateful public discourse, stating that
hate speech denies people dignity regardless of its
The majority ruling acknowledges that ministers, like
content. It emphasizes the special responsibility of
other citizens, have the right to freedom of expression
public functionaries and influential individuals to
under Article 19(1)(a). However, they are subject to
exercise restraint and responsibility in their speech, (a) to freedom of speech and expression;
considering the impact of their words. (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
Collective Responsibility:
(c) to form associations or unions;
The minority view holds that vicarious responsibility
can be attributed to the government if a minister’s view (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
represents the government’s stance and is related to (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of
state affairs. If a statement is inconsistent with the India; and
government’s view, it is attributed to the minister
(f) omitted
personally.
Statement by an Individual Minister: (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business.
The minority view suggests the need for a proper legal
framework to define acts and omissions that amount to Article 19(2) in The Constitution of India 1949,
a ‘constitutional tort.’ It implies the necessity of clear Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the
guidelines and regulations to determine the nature of
operation of any existing law, or prevent the State
actionable offenses committed by individual ministers.
from making any law, in so far as such law imposes
What is Article 19? reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right
Article 19 of the Constitution of India guarantees the conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of
right to freedom of speech and expression, and is the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of
typically invoked against the state. the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public
Article 19(1) in The Constitution Of India 1949, All order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of
citizens shall have the right court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Law
3 SC expands ambit of Article 19 and 21
Why in News? Majority Opinion

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court recently A fundamental right under Article 19/21 can be
made a significant ruling regarding the enforceability enforced against persons other than the state or its
of fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 against instrumentalities.
persons other than the state or its instrumentalities. The expansion of Article 21’s scope demonstrates the
evolution of the understanding of fundamental rights.
Background
The state has a duty to affirmatively protect Article 21
The majority judgment highlighted the expansion rights against threats, even if they come from non-state
of Article 21’s scope in various areas such as health, actors.
environment, transportation, education, and rights of
prisoners. Minority Opinion
The transformation in understanding the enforceability Justice Nagarathna expressed concerns regarding the
of rights shifted from ‘state’ to ‘authorities’ to horizontal application of fundamental rights under
‘instrumentalities of state’ to ‘agency of the government’ Articles 19 and 21 against private individuals and
to ‘impregnation with governmental character’ to entities.
‘enjoyment of monopoly status conferred by the state’
Recognizing such horizontal application would
to ‘deep and pervasive control’ to ‘nature of the duties/
undermine the distinction between fundamental rights
functions performed.’
and common law rights.
The majority opinion referred to Justice K.S.
Private bodies, acting in a private capacity, should
Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, where the right to
not be automatically subject to claims of fundamental
privacy was recognized as protecting individuals from
rights violations.
both state and non-state actors.
An alternate remedy under common law would make
The majority opinion held that the state has a duty to
the courts reluctant to entertain writ petitions in such
protect Article 21 rights against any threat to personal
cases.
liberty, even if it originates from a non-state actor.
Fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 may corporations, being created by statutes and having
not be justiciable horizontally, except for those rights the power to establish binding rules and regulations,
statutorily recognized or in cases of habeas corpus were considered as the State under Article 12 due to
against private individuals. their pervasive government control. Justice Mathew,
in his concurring judgment, stated that if an action
Against whom can fundamental rights is performed by an instrumentality or agency of the
be enforced? State, it would amount to State action. He provided
three determining factors to identify a state’s agency or
Part III of the Constitution of India guarantees certain instrumentality: financial and administrative control by
fundamental rights to the citizens of India as well as the State, performance of an essential public function,
other persons residing in India. These fundamental and carrying out business for the benefit of the public.
rights are guaranteed only against State action. In other
In R. D. Shetty Vs International Airport Authority & Ors.,
words, the State cannot act contrary to the fundamental
the Supreme Court established five tests to determine
rights and cannot by its action legislative or otherwise
whether an entity is an other authority: complete
curtail or take away the fundamental rights. Every
ownership or management of share capital by the State,
person aggrieved by curtailment or encroachment
enjoying monopoly status, transfer of a government
of the fundamental rights is entitled to approach the
department to the corporation, governmental character
Supreme Court under Article 32 or the High Court
in essence, and deep and pervasive State control.
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ajay Hasia Vs Khalid Mujib & Ors. case introduced tests
If the rights of a citizen are interfered with by any
to determine whether a body is an instrumentality
other person it only amounts to violation of his/her
of the Government, including complete share capital
civil rights and he/she can approach ordinary Civil
ownership by the Government, significant financial
Courts or Criminal Courts constituted by the State for
assistance from the State, monopoly status conferred
relief. Therefore, Article 12 of the Constitution of India
or protected by the State, deep and pervasive State
defines the word State for purposes of Part III of the
control, public importance of functions, and the transfer
Constitution of India, which reads as follows:
of a government department to the corporation.
“In this part, unless the context otherwise requires,
Private entities were also subjected to State action
the State includes the Government and Parliament
scrutiny. In M. C. Mehta & Anr. Vs Sri Ram Fertilizers
of India and the Government and the Legislature of
Ltd. & Ors., the Supreme Court emphasized the need
each of the States and all local or other authorities
to bring private companies under the strict scrutiny of
within the territory of India or under the control of the
fundamental rights by expanding the scope of Article
Government of India.”
12.
The definition of state has been further expanded by
J. P. Unni Krishnan & Ors. Vs State of A. P & Ors. held that
various Judicial Dictums. The major Judicial Dictums
private educational institutions performing a public
are given below
function of imparting education should not be allowed
In the case of University of Madras Vs Shanta Bai to violate Article 14 of the Constitution. It emphasized
& Anr, the Madras High Court established the the importance of enlarging the scope of Article 12 for
principle of ejusdem generis, stating that only essential public functions like education.
authorities performing governmental or sovereign
Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs Indian Institute of Chemical
functions can be included under Article 12 of the
Biology & Ors. clarified that the tests formulated in Ajay
Constitution of India. The Supreme Court of India
Hasia are not rigid principles. The cumulative effect of
later interpreted the definition of State in a narrow
all tests should be considered to determine whether a
sense, considering it as exhaustive and limited to
body is financially, functionally, and administratively
authorities of a similar nature.
dominated by or under government control.
In the case of Rajasthan Electricity Board Vs
Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. clarified
Mohan Lal & Ors, the Supreme Court expanded the
that certain bodies, such as corporations and societies
definition of other authorities to include entities
created by the State for trading activities, research and
created by the Constitution or under statutes, which
development works in the periphery of governmental
possess conferred powers by law. The commercial
functions, and private bodies discharging public duties,
activities carried out by such authorities were
fall under the category of other authorities in Article
deemed immaterial in determining their status
12.
under Article 12.
The case of Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. Vs V. K. Sodhi &
The case of Sukdev Singh & Ors. Vs Bhagat Ram & Anr.
Ors. examined whether the State Council of Education,
discussed the status of statutory corporations like
Research & Training (SCERT) qualified as a State under
ONGC, IFC, and LIC. The Supreme Court held that these

Article 12. The Supreme Court found no governmental Srikant Vs Vasantrao & Ors. emphasized that while a
interference or control, either financially, functionally, State Government and local or other authorities may
or administratively, in the Council’s workings fall under a common definition for the purpose of Part
Assam Small Scale Ind. Dev. Corporation & Ors. Vs J. D. III of the Constitution, they are distinct entities, and the
Pharmaceuticals & Anr. held that the Assam Small Scale enlarged definition of State under Article 12 does not
Industries Development Corporation was a statutory apply to other parts of the Constitution.
body and considered a State under Article 12 due to its
contractual obligations. Indian Medical Association Vs Union of India & Ors. held
However, these statutory bodies, corporations, that non-minority educational institutions’ right to
government companies, or public sector undertakings admit students of their choice should not be exercised
are not considered as State under Article 131 of the to the extent that it undermines the true nature of
Constitution. Article 131 does not apply when citizens education, damages the learning environment, and
or private bodies are parties alongside the State or hampers students’ ability to deal with the diversity
Government of India. of India. Considering the importance of education as
Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of a public function, the Supreme Court advocated for a
Karnataka & Ors. clarified that the enlarged definition liberal interpretation of State action under Article 12
of State under Article 12 does not extend to Article 131. to protect individuals’ fundamental right to education.
The Court emphasized that instrumentalities of the
State are different from the State Government, and the The National Commission to Review The Working
definitions under Article 12 apply specifically to Part III Of The Constitution 2002 recommended adding an
of the Constitution. explanation to Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Law
4 Kerala HC on Right to strike
The Trade Union Act, 1926, was the first legislation to

Why is it in the news? provide a limited right to strike by legalizing specific
The Kerala High Court has restated that no State activities of registered trade unions related to trade
government employee, worker, or association has the disputes, which would otherwise be considered a
legal entitlement to initiate a general strike or encourage breach of common economic law.
employees to strike, using the pretext of the fundamental Presently, the right to strike in India is recognized only
right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by to a limited extent as permitted within the boundaries
the Constitution. established by the law itself. It is considered a legitimate
weapon for trade unions.
What is the Right to Strike? The right to strike in the Indian constitution is not an
The right to strike refers to the collective refusal absolute right, but rather derived from the fundamental
by employees to work under the conditions set right to form a union. Similar to other fundamental
by employers. Strikes occur for various reasons, rights, it is subject to reasonable restrictions that the
primarily in response to economic conditions (known state can impose.
as economic strikes, aimed at improving wages and
benefits) or labor practices (intended to enhance What are the important Supreme Court
working conditions). judgments related to the Right to Strike?
In every country, whether democratic, capitalist, In the case of Delhi Police v. Union of India (1986), the
or socialist, workers are granted the right to strike. Supreme Court upheld the restrictions on the formation
However, this right should be seen as a last resort of associations by members of the non-gazetted police
because its misuse can have negative consequences on force after the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act,
production, financial profitability, and ultimately, the 1966, and the Rules amended by Amendment Rules,
country’s economy. 1970, came into effect.
In India, the right to protest is a fundamental right In the case of T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil
under Article 19 of the Constitution. However, the right Nadu (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that employees
to strike is not considered a fundamental right but do not have a fundamental right to resort to a strike.
rather a legal right, subject to statutory restrictions Furthermore, there is a prohibition on going on strike
outlined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This act under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct
is now encompassed within The Industrial Relations Rules, 1973.
Code, 2020.
Law
5 Kerala HC on ART Act
the jurisdiction of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and

Why in News?
categorizes offenses as cognizable.
The Kerala High Court has directed the National Assisted These provisions are having a deterrent effect on
Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board to alert the in vitro fertilization (IVF) practitioners nationwide,
Central Government about the need to have a re-look at the dissuading them from carrying out their professional
upper age limit prescribed for using assisted reproductive responsibilities due to the fear of prosecution.
technology.
Provisions of the ART (Regulation)
Background:
Act, 2021
The court issued the instruction while resolving a series
of petitions that contested the age limits of 50 years Regulation of ART clinics and banks:
for women and 55 years for men set by the Assisted The act mandates the registration of every ART clinic
Reproductive Technology (ART) (Regulation) Act, and bank under the National Registry of Banks and
2021, for individuals undergoing assisted reproductive Clinics of India, established by the Indian Council of
technology. Medical Research (ICMR).
The petitioners argue that the inclusion of an upper State governments will appoint registration authorities
age limit in Section 21 (G) of the ART Act is illogical, to facilitate the registration process, ensuring
arbitrary, unreasonable, and violates their recognized compliance with standards related to specialized
fundamental right to reproduction. manpower, physical infrastructure, and diagnostic
They are seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality facilities.
for this provision.
Registration is valid for five years, renewable for
The High Court has directed the National Assisted another five, but can be canceled or suspended for
Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board to violations of the act.
inform the Union government about the necessity of
reconsidering the upper age limit specified for the Conditions for gamete donation and supply:
utilization of assisted reproductive technology. Only registered ART banks are permitted to screen
In addition, the petitioners have challenged the gamete donors, collect and store semen, and provide
provision that brings medical practitioners under oocyte donors.
Semen can be obtained from males aged between 21 National and State Boards:
and 55, and oocytes from females aged between 23 and The National and State Boards for Surrogacy, established
35. under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, act as the
Oocyte donors must be married women with at least regulatory bodies for ART services.
one living child of their own (minimum three years
The National Board advises the central government
old).
on ART-related policies, monitors implementation,
A woman can donate oocytes once in her lifetime, with formulates codes of conduct and standards, and
a maximum of seven oocytes retrieved. oversees other bodies under the act.
A single donor’s gametes cannot be supplied to more
State Boards coordinate enforcement of policies and
than one couple.
guidelines based on the recommendations of the
Conditions for offering ART services: National Board.
ART procedures require written informed consent
Offences and Penalties:
from both the party seeking services and the donor.
Offences include abandoning or exploiting children
The party seeking services must provide insurance
born through ART, trading or importing human
coverage for the oocyte donor, protecting against any
embryos or gametes, using intermediates to obtain
loss, damage, or death.
donors, exploiting commissioning couples, women, or
Prohibition on clinics offering to provide a child of pre-
gamete donors, and transferring human embryos into
determined sex.
males or animals.
Genetic disease screening is required before embryo
For a first contravention, these offences carry a fine
implantation.
of five to ten lakh rupees. Subsequent contraventions
Rights of a child born through ART: result in imprisonment for eight to twelve years and a
A child born through ART is considered the biological fine of ten to twenty lakh rupees.
child of the commissioning couple, entitled to the same Clinics or banks advertising or offering sex-selective
rights and privileges as a natural child. ART face imprisonment of five to ten years, a fine of ten
Donors have no parental rights over the child. to twenty-five lakh rupees, or both.

Law
6 Jallikattu
Article 29 (1) is a fundamental right enshrined in

Why is it in the news? Part III of the Constitution, aiming to safeguard the
A group of petitions that aim to challenge a law educational and cultural rights of citizens.
in Tamil Nadu protecting Jallikattu, a bull-taming The court examined whether the existing laws
sport considered a cultural heritage of the state and perpetuated cruelty towards animals or if they were
claimed to be safeguarded under Article 29 (1) of the actually intended to ensure the survival and well-being
Constitution, were heard by a Constitution Bench of the of the native breed of bulls.
Supreme Court. The bench has reserved its judgment The five-judge Bench heard arguments regarding
on the matter. whether the new Jallikattu laws were relevant to Article
Although these practices may have deep cultural and 48 of the Constitution, which encourages the state to
traditional significance for certain communities, they adopt modern and scientific practices in agriculture
have faced controversy and criticism from advocates of and animal husbandry.
animal welfare. The Constitution Bench also assessed whether the
laws governing Jallikattu and bullock-cart races in
What is Jallikattu? Karnataka and Maharashtra would effectively serve the
Jallikattu is a traditional sport that enjoys popularity in objective of preventing cruelty to animals, as outlined
the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960.
The sport involves the release of a wild bull into a
crowd of people, and participants try to grab the bull’s
What are the Legal Interventions
hump and ride it for as long as they can or attempt to Associated with the Matter?
bring it under control. In 2011, the central government included bulls in the
Jallikattu is typically celebrated in January as part of list of animals for which training and exhibition were
the Tamil harvest festival known as Pongal. prohibited.
In May 2014, the Supreme Court banned Jallikattu
What are the Concerns Associated with through a judgment in the case of Animal Welfare
the Matter? Board of India vs A. Nagaraja, citing cruelty to animals
The primary issue at hand was whether Jallikattu as the reason.
should be granted constitutional protection as a In 2018, the Supreme Court referred the Jallikattu case
collective cultural right under Article 29 (1). to a Constitution Bench, where it is currently pending.
The bone of contention lies in the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act
Legislations Concerning Animal Welfare
of 2017 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in India
(Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules of 2017, which reopened
the possibility of conducting the popular bull-taming The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960:
sport in the name of culture and tradition, despite the India became one of the early adopters of
comprehensive legislation against animal cruelty with
Supreme Court’s ban in 2014. the implementation of the PCA Act.
The Act broadly defines «Animals» as all species,
Arguments in Favor: excluding humans. However, it does not provide a
Jallikattu is a religious and cultural event in Tamil Nadu precise definition of cruelty, but generally refers to the
that is celebrated by people from various backgrounds, infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering.
transcending caste and creed. The Act establishes a committee responsible for
overseeing animal experimentation to ensure their
The state government argued that instead of completely well-being and minimize avoidable pain.
eradicating a centuries-old practice that symbolizes
the identity of a community, it should be regulated and The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972:
reformed as society evolves. The Wildlife Protection Act, enacted on 9th September
1972, is a significant milestone in India’s wildlife
The government emphasized that banning such a conservation efforts.
practice would be seen as an assault on culture and
The Act comprises 60 sections and six schedules,
disregarding the sensitivities of the community. divided into eight chapters.
Jallikattu was portrayed as a means to conserve Wildlife» is defined under Section 2(37) as any animal,
the indigenous breed of livestock, highlighting its aquatic or land vegetation that is part of any habitat.
significance in maintaining the traditional heritage The Act aims to safeguard India’s wildlife, both
without violating principles of compassion and terrestrial and aquatic, along with their habitats.
humanity. It empowers the Central Government to declare certain
The government stated that the event’s cultural and animals as vermin for selective slaughter, upon the
social significance is being taught in high school request of the states.
curricula to ensure its preservation across generations. Draft Animal Welfare Act, 2011:
In response to the need for stricter penalties for animal
cruelty, the Animal Welfare Board of India proposed
Arguments in Opposition the draft Animal Welfare Act, 2011.
The Act aimed to expand the definition of animal abuse
The petitioners argued that animal life is interconnected and introduce more appropriate and severe penalties
for acts of cruelty.
with human life, and the principle of liberty applies to
all living beings, as recognized by the Constitution. The proposed penalties included imprisonment of up to
two years and a maximum fine of twenty-five thousand
The Tamil Nadu law was perceived as an attempt to rupees for the first offense, with higher penalties for
bypass the Supreme Court’s ban on Jallikattu. subsequent offenses.
Incidents of deaths and injuries to both humans and However, this draft bill is yet to be passed by Parliament.
bulls during Jallikattu events in various districts of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Bill,
state were highlighted.
2016:
The petitioners asserted that multiple tamers would In 2016, the Animal Welfare Board of India drafted the
attack the bulls, and extreme cruelty was inflicted upon Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Bill,
the animals. 2016, in response to the growing incidents of animal
They claimed that there was insufficient evidence to abuse and lenient punishments under the existing PCA
Act, 1960.
justify Jallikattu as an integral part of the culture.
The Bill aimed to strengthen animal protection
Critics drew parallels between Jallikattu and practices measures.
such as sati and dowry, which were once considered Despite appeals from the Animal Welfare Board
part of culture but were later abolished through and several NGOs, the Bill has not been passed by
legislation. Parliament.

Law
7 Chargesheet is not a Public Document
Why in News? How is a Chargesheet Different from an FIR?

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that chargesheets Provision:
are not ‘public documents’ and enabling their free public The term, ‘chargesheet’ is defined under Section 173
access violates the provisions of the Criminal Code of of the CrPC but First Information Report (FIR), has
Procedure (CrPC) as it compromises the rights of the not been defined in either the Indian Penal Code
accused, victim, and the investigation agencies. (IPC) or the CrPC. Instead, it finds a place under the
police regulations/ rules under Section 154 of CrPC,
What is a Chargesheet?
which deals with ‘Information in Cognizable Cases’.
A chargesheet, as defined under Section 173 CrPC, is the Time of Filing:
final report prepared by a police officer or investigative
While the chargesheet is the final report filed
agency after completing their investigation of a case.
towards the end of an investigation, an FIR is filed
In the K Veeraswami vs Union of India & Others (1991) at the ‘first’ instance’ that the police are informed of
case, the SC ruled that the chargesheet is a final report a cognizable offense (offence for which one can be
of the police officer under section 173(2) of the CrPC. arrested without a warrant; such as rape, murder,
A chargesheet must be filed against the accused within kidnapping).
a prescribed period of 60-90 days, otherwise, the arrest
Determination of Guilt:
is illegal, and the accused is entitled to bail.
An FIR does not decide a person’s guilt but a
Chargesheet Should Contain: Details of names, the
chargesheet is complete with evidence and is often
nature of the information, and offences. Whether the
used during the trial to prove the offenses the
accused is under arrest, in custody, or has been released,
accused is charged with.
whether any action was taken against him, these are all
important questions answered in the chargesheet. Terms & Conditions:
Procedure after Filing the Chargesheet: After preparing After filing an FIR, the investigation takes place.
the chargesheet, the officer-in-charge of the police Under Section 169 of the CrPC, the police can
station forwards it to a Magistrate, who is empowered only forward the case to the Magistrate if they
to take notice of the offences mentioned in it so that the have sufficient evidence, otherwise, the accused is
charges can be framed. released from custody.
According to Section 154 (3) of the CrPC, if any person Section 74: It defines public documents as those
is aggrieved by the refusal of authorities to file an FIR, which form the acts or records of sovereign authority,
they can send the complaint to the Superintendent of official bodies, tribunals, and of public offices either
Police, who will either investigate himself or direct it to legislative, judicial or executive in any part of India,
their subordinate. Commonwealth or a foreign country. It also includes
public records “kept in any State of private documents”.
A chargesheet is filed by the police or law-enforcement/
Documents mentioned in this section are only public
investigative agency only after they have gathered
documents, and certified copies of them must be
sufficient evidence against the accused in respect
provided by the public authority having custody of
of the offenses mentioned in the FIR, otherwise, a them.
‘cancellation report’ or ‘untraced report’ can be filed
Copy of chargesheets along with necessary public
when due to lack of evidence.
documents cannot be said to be public documents
under this section.
What is a FIR?
Section 76: Any public officer having custody of
It is a report of information that reaches the police first such documents must provide a copy upon demand
in point of time and that is why it is called the First and payment of a legal fee, along with a certificate
Information Report. of attestation that states the date, seal, name, and
designation of the officer.
It is generally a complaint lodged with the police by
the victim of a cognizable offence or by someone on As per Section 75 of the Evidence Act, all documents
his/her behalf. Anyone can report the commission of a other than those listed under Section 74 are private
cognizable offence either orally or in writing. documents.
The Supreme Court in the Youth Bar Association of
Why is a Chargesheet not a India vs Union of India case (2016) directed all police
Public Document? stations in the country to publish copies of FIRs online
within 24 hours of registration, except in cases where
According to the Court, a chargesheet cannot be made offences were of sensitive nature.
publicly available as it’s not a ‘public document’ under Only FIRs were covered by this ruling, and chargesheets
Sections 74 and 76 of the Evidence Act, 1872. were not included.

Law
“Burden To Prove Mental Incapacity

8 Is On The Defence” : Supreme Court
What Is M’Naghten Rule?
Why in News?
Daniel M’Naghten was a Scotsman, and he was tried for
Rejecting his plea of mental incapacity, the Supreme the murder of Edmund Drummond, Private Secretary
Court upheld the conviction of a man accused of killing of Sir Robert Peel, the then Prime Minister. He was
his two sons. under an insane delusion that Sir Robert Peel had
Where the accused is charged of murder, the burden injured him, and mistaking Drummond for Sir Robert
to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind, the Peel, he shot and killed him.
accused was incapable of knowing the consequences of The accused pleaded for insanity in his defence. The
his acts is on the defence», the bench of Justices Dinesh medical evidence that produced showed he was
Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed while suffering from a morbid delusion, due to which he lost
dismissing a criminal appeal. his power of control. And therefore, he was acquitted
on the ground of insanity.
Insanity as a defense under IPC As his acquittal caused a great sensation, it became
The Indian Penal Code considers insanity as a general the subject matter for debate in the House of Lords.
exception under section 84. Criminal intent is necessary Therefore, the House of Lords referred this matter
to make a person legally liable for a crime. And therefore, to a bench of fifteen judges who were ordered to lay
a person’s mental capacity to form a criminal intent is down the law relating to criminal responsibility in
significant in determining the criminal liability of that case of lunacy. The bench was asked to answer some
person. A person may lack enough mental ability to questions, and these questions and answers are known
form a criminal intent due to some defect of the mental as M’Naghten Rules. These M’Naghten Rules form the
faculty. basis of the modern law of insanity.
The defence of insanity can be pleaded where the The following proposition can be drawn from the
unsoundness of mind of the offender is to such an answers given by the judges:-
extent that he cannot understand the nature of the 1. Every person is believed to be of sound mind and
act or distinguish between what he is doing is right or to have a reasonable extent of justification to held
wrong. liable for the crime committed by him until it is
Unsoundness of a person’s mind as a defence is given proved to the jury’s satisfaction or the court that
under Chapter IV, section 84 of IPC. And, it is based on the man committing an offence was of unsound
M’Naghten’s Rule. mind at the time of the commission of the offence.
2. To plead for a defence of insanity, it must be proved 6. The rule does not explain the situation, whether
that the person was suffering from such a mental the insanity or unsoundness of mind of the person
disease at the time of the commission of the act, affects the public at large. Will it pose a threat to
which made him unable to understand the nature the public or not is not discussed in the rule.
of the act he was doing or what he was doing was
right or wrong. Difference Between Legal Insanity and Medical
3. If the accused was aware of the fact that the act he Insanity
was doing was not ought to be done and that act The term legal insanity and medical insanity are
was at the same time opposite to the law, he will different from each other. Medical insanity is entirely
be punishable. dependent on medical grounds. In contrast, legal
4. A medical witness who has not seen the accused insanity relies on those factors that are required to be
before the trial should not be asked for his proved in a court of law to permit the accused to be
viewpoint on evidence about what he thinks that pardoned for a charge. Legal insanity, on the one hand,
the accused is insane or not. provides a good defence from criminal liability and
5. Where the criminal act is committed by a man medical insanity does not.
under some insane delusion as to the surrounding Section 84 of IPC
facts, which conceals from him the true nature
The Indian law on insanity is given under section 84
of the act he is doing, he will be under the same
of the Indian Penal Code. It is based on the first two
degree of responsibility as he would have been on
prepositions given above.
the facts as he imagined them to be.
Section 84 of IPC says that if a person commits an
Criticism of M’Naghten Rule act because of unsoundness of mind, he will not be
M’Naghten Rule has been criticized for various reasons. liable for an offence. However, it is to be noted that
Some major reasons are as follows: the unsoundness of mind must be at the time of the
1. The rule evolved that a person is insane if he is commission of the act, and it must be to such an extent
unable to differentiate between right or wrong. that the offender is incapable of knowing the nature of
But there may be some medical conditions where the act or that what he was doing was either wrong or
a person knows of ‘what is right’ but is irresistible opposite to the law.
in doing wrong. It is often termed ‘irresistible A person could plead for the defense under this section
impulse’ where a person can’t prevent themselves
if he was unable to differentiate between good and evil
from doing wrong. For example, people suffering
because of unsoundness of mind. The accused can in no
from manias and paraphilias.
way be protected under this section if he knew that the
2. The rule has been criticized for making an easy act done by him is wrong, even if he did not know that
way to escape for the defendant. He can easily the act was opposed to the law.
escape from criminal liability if affected with
severe mental disorder irrespective of the fact Burden of Proving Fact Specially
that to what extent this disorder aided in the
accomplishment of crime.
within Knowledge
3. Some situations have been seen where the legal It is given in Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act
definition of insanity does not conjoint with the When any fact is specially within the knowledge of any
medical criteria laid down for insanity. person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
4. It is also criticised because only a legal definition
for insanity is given and a medical definition for Illustrations
insanity is not given under the M’Naghten rule. (a) When a person does an act with some intention
The M’Naghten rule will be adequate if it contains other than that which the character and
both. circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of
5. The rule does not explain or give details about proving that intention is upon him.
terms like temporary or permanent insanity. There (b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without a
may be an illness that is temporary in nature and ticket. The burden of proving that he had ticket is
rises at different intervals in a person’s lifetime. on him.

Law
When A Person Has Relinquished Rights

9 In Father’s Self Acquired Property, His Sons
Are Estopped From Claiming Share : SC
Dissatisfied, an appeal was filed before the High Court,
Why in News? which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice K.M. Joseph Sons of Chandran, successors of Chettiar’s son from the
and Hrishikesh Roy observed that when a son relinquishes first marriage, challenged the High Court’s ruling in the
the right to the self-acquired property of the father, then Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition.
the principle of estoppel is applied, and his sons do not
have a claim on that property. Analysis by Court
Factual Background of the Case The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on a suit
involving a separate property of Chettiar.
Lawsuit for property division brought by two children The Court determined that the Release Deed would
from a man’s second marriage. not affect the transfer of rights based on Sections 6 and
Property owned by Sengalani Chettiar, who had a son 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act.
from his first marriage and 5 daughters and a son from Unlike coparceners, individuals have no inherent right
his second marriage. to separate property in Hindu law.
Chettiar’s son from the first marriage, Chandran, The Court scrutinized the conduct of the son who
executed the Release Deed and the potential creation
executed a Release Deed in 1975.
of estoppel due to receiving consideration for
Chettiar passed away in 1988, and his wife from the relinquishment.
second marriage died in 2005. The intention of the father, as stated in the Release
Children from Chettiar’s second marriage filed Deed, was to deny any rights of the son to the property.
a partition suit, seeking to exclude successors of The Court concluded that the son’s conduct, combined
Chettiar’s son from the first marriage based on the with the receipt of consideration, would estop him
Release Deed. from acquiring rights in the property.
Trial Court declared the Release Deed null and void as The impact of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and
it was executed while the father was alive. Guardianship Act was also considered, but the Court
rejected the argument that the appellants, as minors
Plaintiffs were granted a 2/7 share in the property. at the time, should not be bound by the Release Deed.
Estoppel prevents a party from asserting a right they The case of Official Assignee, Madras v. Sampath
would have in the property if not for the estoppel. Naidu established that even if an heir apparent later
The Court held that the appellants, whose father acquires the property, any mortgage executed by them
beforehand is void.
was estopped from inheriting the property, would
not inherit rights under Section 8(a) of the Hindu Therefore, the transfer of spes succession is invalid
Succession Act. from the beginning (void ab initio).
The appellants could not claim immunity from estoppel Doctrine of Estoppel
based on Section 8(a) of the Hindu Succession Act.
The doctrine of estoppel is a legal principle that
A clear estoppel arose from the consideration received
prevents a person from asserting a right or claim that
by Chandran, preventing him and his children (the
is inconsistent with their previous statements, actions,
appellants) from making any claims to the property
or conduct.
based on equity.
It is based on the idea that it would be unfair or unjust
Transfer of Spes Succession to allow a person to go back on their word or to act in
a way that contradicts their previous representations.
Spes succession is the concept of future inheritance in Estoppel can arise in various situations, including
which a person is expected to inherit property from contracts, property rights, and even in family law
another individual. matters. Here are some examples:
An example can illustrate spes succession: Father (F) Example : In a contract dispute, Party A promises to
owns a property and has sole ownership during his sell a car to Party B and they both agree on the terms.
lifetime. No one, including his son (S), can sell the However, after Party B has made arrangements and
property without F’s consent. expenses based on the agreement, Party A suddenly
If F dies without a will, S would inherit the property, refuses to sell the car. In this case, Party A may be
estopped from denying the existence of the contract due
making S the heir apparent.
to Party B’s reliance and actions taken in expectation
However, there are two reasons why S’s succession to
Estoppel can be used as a defense or as a basis for
the property is uncertain.
enforcing rights and preventing unfairness in legal
Firstly, F has the authority to sell or dispose of the disputes.
property as he wishes, potentially leaving nothing for S. The doctrine of estoppel aims to ensure fairness,
Secondly, if S dies before F and attempts to transfer the promote consistency, and prevent individuals from
property without F’s consent, the transfer would be taking advantage of their own contradictory statements
void from the beginning and prohibited by the law. or actions.

Law
Cinema Theatres Can Prohibit Viewers From

10 Bringing Food Articles From Outside : Supreme Court
the right to admission, are free to decide whether
Why in News?
outside food should be allowed inside the premises.
Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY The Court also requested cinema hall owners to
Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha stated that a cinema consider requests from moviegoers with chronic
hall owner could prohibit movie-goers from carrying their diseases or dietary restrictions on a case-by-case basis.
own food and beverages inside cinema halls.
Senior Advocate KV Vishwanathan, representing
What is the Judgement? the appellants, argued that since cinema halls are
private properties, they have the right to reserve
The Court deemed the prohibition on bringing outside admission. He further stated that such prohibitions
food into cinemas as reasonable and justifiable. ensure security and are also seen in airports and other
According to the Court, this restriction is imposed places. Additionally, he pointed out that the Jammu
as a result of cinema owners exercising their right to and Kashmir Cinema (Regulations) Rules 1975 do
conduct a business or trade under Article 19(1)(g) of not mandate allowing outside food in theaters. While
the Constitution. The aim of prohibiting moviegoers acknowledging that visiting cinema halls or purchasing
from bringing their own food is to boost the sale of food food is not compulsory, he clarified that cinema halls
and beverages, which is a crucial aspect of the cinema
provide hygienic water for moviegoers, and guardians
business. The Court emphasized that if business
are allowed to bring food for infants during the visit.
owners were not allowed to determine various aspects
of their business within the bounds of the law, economic On the other hand, the counsel for the original
activity would suffer. Although moviegoers may have to petitioner argued that the cinema ticket represents
comply with this condition in order to enter the cinema a contract between moviegoers and the theater, and
hall and watch a movie, the Court stated that it does not in the absence of a prohibition printed on the ticket,
make the condition unfair or unreasonable. outside food cannot be banned. However, the bench
The Court added that the decision to watch a movie was not convinced by this argument. Justice PS
is entirely up to the viewers, and if they choose to Narasimha emphasized that cinema has the right to
enter a cinema hall, they must adhere to the terms and reserve admission, and cinema owners are entitled to
conditions set by the owners. Theater owners, having sell their own food and beverages.
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g). The
What is Freedom of Profession,
court issued comprehensive guidelines and binding
Occupation, Trade, or Business? directives to prevent such incidents in both public and
Article 19(1)(g) grants citizens the fundamental right private sectors.
to engage in any profession, occupation, trade, or Reasonable limitations on freedom of profession,
business. occupation, trade, or business
Scope What is Included and Article 19(6) allows for reasonable restrictions on the
fundamental right provided in Article 19(1)(g) under
The right to conduct a business includes the right to
close it down. the following circumstances:
In the case of Excel Wear v. Union of India (1978), the By imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of
Supreme Court deemed Section 25-O of the Industrial the general public.
Disputes Act, 1947 unconstitutional and invalid Through state monopolies: Sub-clause (ii) of Article
because it required employers to seek government 19(6) permits the state to enact laws to establish state
permission before shutting down their industrial monopolies, either partially or wholly, concerning any
operations, thereby violating Article 19(1)(g). trade, business, industry, or service. The citizen’s right
There is no entitlement to a specific job of one’s to engage in trade is subordinate to the state’s right to
choice. For instance, if an establishment closes and an establish a monopoly.
individual loses their job, they cannot claim a violation Moreover, Sub-clause (i) of Article 19(6) empowers the
of their fundamental right to engage in an occupation. state to prescribe, through legislation, the «professional
Engaging in dangerous, antisocial, or criminal activities or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any
is not a protected right. profession or carrying on any occupation, trade, or
No one can assert a right to conduct business exclusively business.»
with the government. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi
The right to trade does not include protection from Kasab Jamat (2005), the Supreme Court determined
competition in the marketplace. Thus, experiencing a that the phrase «in the interest of the general public»
loss of income due to competition does not infringe in Article 19(6) encompasses a broad range of
upon the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g). considerations, including public order, public health,
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Honorable public security, morals, the economic welfare of the
Supreme Court acknowledged that the sexual community, and the objectives mentioned in Part IV of
harassment of women in workplaces violates the the Constitution.

Law
11 Bombay HC on Liquor Ban

Justice Milind Jadhav directed that the ban should only
Why in News? be enforced on January 30, 2023, which corresponds
The Bombay High Court recently observed that to the day of voting. The court was addressing two writ
“imposing a prohibitory ban for a long period on petitions challenging the orders that prohibited liquor
merchant establishments and establishments which sales for four days from January 28 to January 31, in
provide livelihood is contrary to principles under light of the elections for graduate constituencies.
Article 21 of the Constitution and whenever such a The court emphasized that the current elections are not
thing happens, the authorities need to be thoughtful.” parliamentary elections and should not be subjected
to the same standards applied to those elections. The
Observing this, the bench directed that the prohibitory
court acknowledged the specific nature of elections for
ban imposed on liquor sale in Thane, Palghar, Raigad graduate constituencies.
and Nashik districts during elections for Maharashtra
Senior Advocate Atul Damle and advocate Suresh
Legislative Council seats for graduates’ and teachers’
Sabrad argued that the voter list is limited to registered
constituencies, shall be restricted to January 30, the
graduates, and implementing a four-day ban would
election day, and all other days stand exempted. have a detrimental impact on the livelihood and
businesses of the petitioners.
What is the Order?
AGP P. G. Sawant informed the court that in the Nashik
The duration of the liquor sale ban in Thane, constituency, the Chief Election Officer of Maharashtra
Palghar, Raigad, and Nashik districts, imposed due had imposed a three-day ban instead of the initially
to the Maharashtra Legislative Council graduate proposed four-day ban.
constituencies elections, was reduced by the Bombay The court urged the state government to address
High Court. The court recognized that an extended ban this recurring issue, as similar petitions often require
would infringe upon the right to livelihood of merchants, court intervention. In the interest of justice, the court
as protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. suggested that the ban should be restricted solely to
the day of voting.
The court stated that imposing a prolonged prohibition
on establishments that provide a means of living What is Right to Livelihood?
contradicts the principles enshrined in Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution. In such cases, the authorities The concept of livelihood encompasses essential
should exercise thoughtfulness, according to the court. aspects such as shelter, food, education, occupation,
and medical care. Over time, the Supreme Court’s compensation is provided to the landowner in exchange
perspective on the right to livelihood has evolved. In the for the land. Therefore, the plea of deprivation of the
case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, the right to livelihood under Article 21 is not sustainable
Court implied that the right to livelihood stems from in such cases.
the right to life, as no person can sustain themselves
In M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka & Ors, the Court
without the means of living.
held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the
The Court emphasized that the right to life under protection of livelihood. However, this right cannot
Article 21 extends beyond the mere preservation of be extended to avocations, businesses, or trades that
life itself. It includes the right to livelihood because are detrimental to public interest or have a negative
living without the means of sustenance is impossible. impact on public morals or order. Hence, regulating
Depriving a person of their means of livelihood would
or prohibiting certain video games is not a violation of
essentially deprive them of their right to life.
Article 21, as long as the procedure is reasonable, fair,
The Court further stated that although the state is not and just.
obligated to provide citizens with adequate means of
In U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing
livelihood, any deprivation of this right must adhere to
a fair and just procedure established by law. Individuals Society Limited, the right to shelter was recognized as
can challenge such deprivation as it infringes upon a fundamental right derived from the right to residence
their right to life as guaranteed by Article 21. (Article 19(1)(e)) and the right to life (Article 21).
The state has an obligation to provide facilities and
In the case of M. Paul Anthony v. Bihar Gold Mines Ltd.,
opportunities for building houses to ensure that the
the Court highlighted the close connection between
life and livelihood. It ruled that when a government right to shelter is meaningful for the underprivileged.
servant or an employee of a public undertaking is It is not necessary for every citizen to live in a well-
suspended pending a disciplinary inquiry, they are built comfortable house; a reasonable home, even if it
entitled to receive a subsistence allowance. The is a mud-built thatched house or a mud-built fireproof
Court emphasized that in such cases, the government accommodation, suffices.
servant is not exercising their right to life and other In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court
fundamental rights. held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right
However, if the deprivation of the right to livelihood available to every citizen and is implicit in the right to
is carried out through a fair, just, and reasonable life under Article 21. The right to shelter encompasses
procedure established by law and is in the best interest more than just protection for life and limb. It includes
of the public, the plea of deprivation of the right to adequate living space, a safe and decent structure,
livelihood under Article 21 is not valid. clean surroundings, access to basic amenities, and
The Court stated that when the state acquires land for infrastructure necessary for a person’s physical,
a public purpose using its power of eminent domain, mental, intellectual, and spiritual development.

I PASSAGE
SC decision on Demonetization
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench has upheld by 4:1 majority the decision taken by the Union Government six
years ago to demonetize the currency notes of Rs. 500 and Rs.1000 denominations.
The majority held that Centre’s notification dated November 8, 2016 is valid and satisfies the test of proportionality.
The Bench referred to the case of Modern Dental College and Research, wherein while considering a balance
between the right under Article 19(1)(g) and the reasonable restrictions under clause (6) of Article 19 of the
Constitution of India, observed that while examining as to whether the impugned provisions of the statute and
rules amount to reasonable restrictions and are brought out in the interest of the general public, the exercise that
is required to be undertaken is the balancing of fundamental right to carry on occupation on the one hand and the
restrictions imposed on the other hand. This is what is known as “doctrine of proportionality”. A limitation of a
constitutional right will be constitutionally permissible if:
(i) It is designated for a proper purpose;
(ii) the measures undertaken to effectuate such a limitation are rationally connected to the fulfilment of that
purpose;
(iii) the measures undertaken are necessary in that there are no alternative measures that may similarly achieve
that same purpose with a lesser degree of limitation; and finally
(iv) there needs to be a proper relation between the importance of achieving the proper purpose and the social
importance of preventing the limitation on the constitutional right.”
Reading out the majority judgment, Justice BR Gavai said demonetisation had a reasonable nexus with the objectives
(eradicating black marketing, terror funding, etc.) sought to be achieved. It is not relevant whether the objective
was achieved or not, he added.
One of the arguments raised by the petitioners to question the legality of the decision was that as per Section 26(2),
the Central Government can only demonetise certain specified series of currency notes of a denomination and not
the all series, as the provision uses the words “any series of bank notes”.
Rejecting the petitioners’ argument, the majority opined that a purposive and pragmatic interpretation must be
adopted with respect to this provision. The majority judgment written by Justice Gavai stated that “the modern
approach of interpretation is a pragmatic one, and not pedantic” and that “an interpretation which advances the
purpose of the Act and which ensures its smooth and harmonious working must be chosen”.
According to the majority, if Section 26 (2) is interpreted in a restricted manner, it may “lead to an anomalous
situation”.
“Delegation is made to Central Govt which is answerable to Parliament which in turn is answerable to the citizen of
the country. The Central Govt is required to take the action after the consultation with the Central Board and there
is an inbuilt safeguard.”
1 A government has passed a new law requiring all street vendors to obtain a permit in order to sell their products
on the street. The law imposes a fee of Rs. 5,000 for the permit, which is valid for one year. The city government
has stated that the purpose of the law is to regulate street vending and to ensure the safety and hygiene of the
food being sold. A group of street vendors has challenged the law in court, arguing that it violates their right to
livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Which of the following is most likely to be a factor
in determining whether the city government’s law imposing a fee of Rs. 5,000 for a street vending permit satisfies
the doctrine of proportionality?
A Whether the city government has a legitimate aim in regulating street vending and ensuring the safety and hygiene
of the food being sold
B Whether the city government’s law is rationally connected to the aim of regulating street vending and ensuring the
safety and hygiene of the food being sold
C Whether the fee of Rs. 5,000 is the least restrictive means of achieving the aim of regulating street vending and
ensuring the safety and hygiene of the food being sold
D Whether the importance of regulating street vending and ensuring the safety and hygiene of the food being
sold outweighs the importance of protecting the street vendors’ right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India

2 Suppose a group of citizens files a petition challenging the government’s decision to demonetize currency notes
of all denominations. The petitioners argue that the Central Government can only demonetize certain specified
series of currency notes of a denomination and not all series, as per Section 26(2) of the RBI Act. Which of the
following statements is most likely to support the majority judgment’s interpretation of Section 26(2)?
A A strict interpretation of Section 26(2) would ensure that the RBI Act is implemented in a consistent and predictable
manner.
B A purposive and pragmatic interpretation of Section 26(2) would ensure the smooth and harmonious working of
the Act.
C An interpretation of Section 26(2) that restricts the government’s power to demonetize all series of currency notes
would prevent any abuse of power by the government.
D An interpretation of Section 26(2) that allows the government to demonetize all series of currency notes would
violate the citizens’ fundamental right to carry on their occupation.
3 The Central Government has decided to demonetize all bank notes of Rs. 2000 denomination in the country
to combat the problem of counterfeit currency. A group of citizens has filed a petition challenging the legality
of the decision, citing Section 26(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, which allows the Central Government to
demonetize only certain specified series of currency notes of a denomination. How can the Central Government
justify its decision to demonetize all bank notes of Rs. 2000 denomination in light of the Reserve Bank of India
Act?
A By arguing that Section 26(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act should be interpreted restrictively to allow
demonetization of only specified series of currency notes, as per the petitioners’ argument.
B By arguing that a purposive and pragmatic interpretation should be adopted with respect to Section 26(2)
C By arguing that the objectives of demonetization (to combat counterfeit currency) have a reasonable nexus with the
decision, as per the test of proportionality laid down by the Supreme Court Constitution Bench.
D By arguing that the Central Government has the power to demonetize any series of bank notes under Section 26(2)
of the Reserve Bank of India Act, as the provision uses the words “any series of bank notes”.
4 The Central Government has decided to demonetize all bank notes of Rs. 100 denomination in the country
to combat the problem of fake currency. A group of citizens has filed a petition challenging the legality of the
decision. Can the Central Government’s decision to demonetize all bank notes of Rs. 100 denominations be
constitutionally permissible under the doctrine of proportionality?
A Yes, as the objectives of demonetization (to combat fake currency) have a reasonable nexus with the decision, as per
the test of proportionality laid down by the Supreme Court Constitution Bench.
B No, as the decision imposes a disproportionate limitation on the fundamental right to carry on occupation under
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
C It depends on whether the Central Government consulted with the Central Board before taking the decision, as per
the inbuilt safeguard mentioned in the majority judgment.
D It depends on whether there were alternative measures available that could have achieved the same purpose with
a lesser degree of limitation, as per the test of proportionality.

5 A state government has passed a law banning the sale and consumption of all types of meat within the state,
citing reasons such as environmental conservation and public health. A group of citizens has challenged the
law in the state High Court, citing the fundamental right to freedom of choice of food under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Can the state government’s law banning the sale and consumption of all types of meat be
constitutionally permissible under the doctrine of proportionality?
A Yes, as the objectives of environmental conservation and public health have a reasonable nexus with the decision,
as per the test of proportionality laid down by the Supreme Court Constitution Bench.
B No, as the decision imposes a disproportionate limitation on the fundamental right to freedom of choice of food
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
C It depends on whether there were alternative measures available that could have achieved the same purpose with
a lesser degree of limitation, as per the test of proportionality.
D It depends on whether the state government consulted with the state-level environmental board before taking the
decision, as per the inbuilt safeguard mentioned in the majority judgment.
II PASSAGE
SC on freedom of Speech of Minister
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously and rightly ruled out any additional curbs on
free speech by ministers. Like other citizens, they are guaranteed the right to freedom of expression under Article
19(1) (a), governed by the reasonable restrictions laid out in Article 19(2) — and those are enough, it said.
The right to express one’s own ideas, thoughts and opinions freely through writing, printing, picture, gestures,
spoken words or any other mode is the essence of freedom of speech and expression. It includes the expression of
one’s ideas through visible representations such as gestures, signs, and other means of the communicable medium.
It also includes the right to propagate one’s views through print media or through any other communication
channel. The right also includes the right not to speak.
However, the Constitution also imposes reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. The
restrictions are mentioned in Article 19(2) which states that “nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect
the operation of the existing law, neither can it prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such type of law
imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right bestowed by the said sub-clause in the interests of
the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, friendly relations with foreign states, the security of the State,
decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”.
The Court further said that “A statement may be made by a Minister either inside or outside the House of People/
Legislative Assembly of the State. A statement may also be made by a Minister in writing or by words spoken. A
statement may be made in private or in public. A statement may also be made by a Minister either touching upon
the affairs of the Ministry/ department of which he is in control or touching generally upon the policies of the
Government of which he is a part. A Minister may also make a statement, in the form of an opinion on matters
about which he or his department is not concerned or over which he has no control. All such statements need not
necessarily give rise to an action in tort or in constitutional tort.”
The Court by 4:1 majority added that statements made by Minister, even if traceable to any affairs of state or protecting
the govt, cannot be attributed vicariously to the govt even applying the principle of collective responsibility.
6 A Minister makes a public statement expressing his personal opinion on a matter that his department is not
concerned with. The statement is controversial and causes public outrage. Can the Minister be held liable for
constitutional tort under the existing restrictions on freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(2)?
A Yes, the Minister can be held liable for constitutional tort under the existing restrictions.
B No, the Minister cannot be held liable for constitutional tort under the existing restrictions.
C It depends on the specific circumstances of the case.
D Yes, the minister can be held liable.

7 A Minister makes a statement during a public speech that criticizes a political opponent and their policies. The
political opponent files a lawsuit against the Minister, claiming that the statement is defamatory. Which of the
following statements is correct based on the ruling of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court?
A The Minister is protected under the principle of collective responsibility and cannot be held accountable for their
statement.
B The Minister’s statement is not protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and they can be held accountable
for defamation.
C The Minister’s statement is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, but they can still be held accountable
for defamation under the reasonable restrictions of Article 19(2).
D The Minister’s statement is protected under the right to freedom of speech and expression and cannot be considered
defamatory.
8 A Minister makes a public statement that is critical of a particular religion, causing public outrage and protests.
Some people file a lawsuit against the Minister, claiming that the statement violates Article 19(2) of the
Constitution. Which of the following statements is correct based on the ruling of the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court?
A The Minister’s statement is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and cannot be considered a violation
of Article 19(2).
B The Minister’s statement is not protected under the right to freedom of speech and expression and can be restricted
by the State under Article 19(2).
C The Minister’s statement is protected under the right to propagate one’s views through any communication channel,
but can be subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
D The Minister’s statement is protected under the right to freedom of speech and expression, but can be considered
a violation of Article 19(2) if it promotes contempt against any religion.
9 A person is arrested on suspicion of a serious crime and taken into police custody. During interrogation, the
police ask the person several questions about their involvement in the crime. The person refuses to answer any
questions, invoking their right to remain silent. Which of the following statements is correct based on the right
to remain silent under Indian law?
A The person cannot invoke the right to remain silent during police interrogation, as it only applies during trial
proceedings.
B The person can invoke the right to remain silent during police interrogation, but it can be used against them as
evidence of guilt in court.
C The person can invoke the right to remain silent during police interrogation, and the prosecution cannot use their
silence as evidence of guilt in court.
D The person can invoke the right to remain silent during police interrogation, but it will only be effective if they have
already been charged with a crime.
10 A popular singer makes a public speech where she expresses her support for a particular political party and
urges her fans to vote for that party in the upcoming elections. A complaint is filed against her, alleging that she
has violated the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.
Which of the following statements is correct based on the right to freedom of speech and expression under Indian
law?

A The singer has violated the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution
and can be punished for her actions.
B The singer has not violated the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the
Constitution, as she has the right to express her political views in public.
C The singer can be punished for her actions only if her speech incites violence or creates public disorder.
D The singer can be punished for her actions only if her speech contains false and defamatory statements.
III PASSAGE
FR enforceable even against private person
A constitution bench of the Supreme Court has said that the fundamental rights in Article 19 and 21 of the
constitution are enforceable even against other persons, and not just the state and its instruments. The court held
that the government had the responsibility of protecting citizens from both the state and non-state actors when it
came to Article 21.
“The original thinking that these rights can be enforced only against the state, changed over a period of time.
The transformation was from ‘state’ to ‘authorities’ to ‘instrumentalities of state’ to ‘agency of the government’ to
‘impregnation with the governmental character’ to ‘enjoyment of monopoly status conferred by the state’ to ‘deep
and pervasive control’ to the ‘nature of the duties/functions performed’,” Justice Ramasubramanian is quoted as
having said.
It noted that in the landmark judgment of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India which upheld the right
to privacy, individuals were protected against interference by the state and non-state actors as well.
Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees six fundamental freedoms to every citizen of India, namely-
1. Freedom of speech and expression;
2. Freedom to assemble peacefully and without arms;
3. Freedom to form associations, unions or co-operative societies;
4. Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India;
5. Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, and
6. Freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
However, the Constitution also imposes reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. The
restrictions are mentioned in Article 19(2) which states that “nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect
the operation of the existing law, neither can it prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such type of law
imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right bestowed by the said sub-clause in the interests of
the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, friendly relations with foreign states, the security of the State,
decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution covers the arena of protection of human life and liberty. It prescribes that “no
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”
In India, the right to life has been granted a very broad connotation. As per Article 21 and its judicial interpretations,
‘life’ is not simply just the physical act of breathing. It includes the right to live with dignity, right to health, right to
livelihood, right to privacy, and a bundle of other similar rights.
11 A resident of a slum in India is about to be evicted from their home by the local authorities to make way for a
new development project. Which of the following options would be the most appropriate course of action for the
resident to take, based on the interpretation of the Right to Life in India?
A Accept the eviction and move out of the home immediately, as the local authorities have the legal right to carry out
the development project.
B Protest against the eviction and file a case in court, citing the Right to Life as encompassing the right to shelter and
the right to live with dignity.
C Refuse to leave the home and engage in a physical confrontation with the local authorities, arguing that their right
to life is being violated.
D Negotiate with the local authorities to be relocated to a different home in a different part of the city, without
challenging the legality of the eviction

12 A journalist publishes an article revealing personal information about an individual without their consent.
Which of the following fundamental rights would be violated by the journalist’s actions as per the interpretation
of the Right to Life in India?
A Right to equality
B Right to free speech
C Right to privacy
D Right to education
13 A group of citizens plans to hold a peaceful protest against a private company for environmental damage caused
by its operations. The company claims that the protest will harm its business and approaches the police to seek
a ban on the protest. Which of the following options is consistent with the fundamental rights enshrined in the
Indian Constitution?
A The police should ban the protest in the interest of public order, as provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
B The police should allow the protest to take place as long as it is peaceful and does not violate any laws.
C The police should ban the protest as it would be directed against a private company, which is not a state instrumentality.
D The police should ban the protest as it would violate the company’s right to carry on any occupation, trade, or
business under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.
14 A state government has passed a law mandating the death penalty for a wide range of offenses, including non-
violent crimes such as economic fraud. A group of activists has challenged the law, arguing that it violates the
right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Which of the following statements is true regarding the
right to life in India?
A The right to life under Article 21 does not extend to the right to avoid the death penalty for any offense.
B The government has the power to impose the death penalty for any offense it deems fit.
C The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to avoid the death penalty except in certain exceptional
circumstances.
D The right to life under Article 21 is only applicable in cases involving violent crimes.
15 A state government has passed a law that requires individuals to obtain a license from the government before
they can practice any profession or carry on any occupation in the state. A group of individuals has challenged
the law in court, claiming that it violates their right to carry on any profession as guaranteed under Article 19(1)
(g) of the Indian Constitution. Which of the following statements is true regarding the right to carry on any
profession in India?
A The right to carry on any profession is absolute and cannot be restricted by the state.
B The state can impose reasonable restrictions on the right to carry on any profession in the interest of public order,
morality, and health.
C The right to carry on any profession only applies to citizens of India and not to foreigners.
D The right to carry on any profession is only applicable to certain professions and not to all professions.

IV PASSAGE
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that no State government employee, worker, or association has the legal right
to call for a general strike or instigate the employees to strike, in the guise of the fundamental right of freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution.
A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly reiterated that Government
Employees who participate in general strikes, affecting the normal life of the public and Public Exchequer, are
not entitled to be protected under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. The provision protects the right to form
associations or unions.
Petitioner has also contended that Government of Kerala had enacted the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private
Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019 taking cue from the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,
1894, to deal with the damage to private property caused by the striking employees/mobs. In the earlier instances,
Government had invoked the provisions of the enactment to deal with such instances of violence/damage on the
days of Sabarimala protests and in the instant case, the respondents are bound to declare that the provisions of the
enactment would be invoked to deal any instances of damages to private property by the members/participants of
General Strike on 28th and 29th March, 2022.
Referring to the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960, Rule 77(b)(2), petitioner has submitted that a
service association shall not resort to any strike or use threat of strike as a means of achieving any of its purposes
or for any other reasons. Referring to Rule 77 (b)(10), petitioner has also submitted that a service association shall
not do any act which if done by a government servant contravening any of the provisions of the Kerala Government
Servants Conduct Rules. In Rule 86, there is an express prohibition from taking part in the strike. The above
provisions read together restrains a Government servant or an association from resorting to strike against the
policies of the Government.
The Court held “ In the light of the above and since action is being taken by the State Government against the erring
employees, we are of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of in terms of what is stated in the statement
filed by the 1st respondent.”
The Court further directed the State Government “to proceed with the action and do the necessary, in order to
ensure that the erring workers/employees who have acted against the Kerala Service Rules and other Conduct
Rules, circulars/notifications issued by the State Government, in regard to participation in strikes, in accordance
with law, and culminate in appropriate action.”
16 A government employee participated in a general strike called by a workers’ union, which caused significant
disruption to public life and resulted in damage to private property. The government has taken action against
the employee for violating the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960. Which of the following is true
based on the information given in the passage?
A The government employee has the legal right to participate in a general strike, even if it causes disruption to public
life and damage to private property.
B The Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960, prohibits government employees from participating in a
general strike, as it is considered a violation of the Conduct Rules.
C The government employee is protected under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution, which protects the right to form
D The government employee can argue that the Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation
Act, 2019 does not apply to their case since the Act was enacted to deal with violence/damage during Sabarimala
protests.
17 An employee of the State of Tamil Nadu participated in a general strike called by a workers’ union, which caused
significant disruption to public life and resulted in damage to private property. The government of Tamil Nadu
has acted against the employee for violating the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960. Which of the
following is true based on the information given in the passage?

A The employee is protected under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to form associations
or unions.
B The government of Tamil Nadu cannot take action against the employee for participating in the general strike.
C The Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960, do not apply to employees of the State of Tamil Nadu.
D The employee can argue that the Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019
does not apply to their case since the Act was enacted to deal with violence/damage during Sabarimala protests.
18 A workers’ union calls for a general strike in the state of Kerala to protest against the government’s new policies.
An employee of a private company decides to join the strike and participate in the protest. Can the employee be
penalized by the Kerala Government for participating in the strike?
A Yes, the employee can be penalized by their employer as they have violated the terms of their employment contract.
B No, the employee has the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to
participate in peaceful protests and strikes.
C No, the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960, Rule 77(b)(2) is not applicable on the man
D No, the employee cannot be penalized by their employer as the government has not declared the strike illegal.
19 A group of government employees decide to go on a strike in Kerala to demand a pay raise from the government.
The strike results in disruption of public services and damage to private property. The government of Kerala
decides to take action against the striking employees. Which of the following statements is true based on the
passage given earlier?
A The striking employees are protected under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution, which protects the right to form
B The Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019 cannot be invoked
to deal with the damage caused by the striking employees as it only applies to damage to public property.
C The government employees who participate in general strikes are not entitled to protection under Article 19(1)(c)
of the Constitution and can be penalized for violating the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960.
D The government of Kerala cannot take any action against the striking employees as they have the fundamental right
to freedom of speech and expression.
20 A group of government employees in Kerala decides to form a union to protect their rights and interests. Can they
be prevented from forming the union by the government?
A Yes, the government can prevent the employees from forming the union as the Kerala Government Servants Conduct
Rules, 1960, prohibits government employees from forming associations or unions.
B No, the employees have the fundamental right to form associations or unions, which is protected under Article
19(1)(c) of the Constitution.
C Yes, the government can prevent the employees from forming the union if the union’s formation is deemed to be
against the interests of the government or the public.
D No, the employees can form the union only if they have the permission of the government, as the government has
the authority to regulate the formation of associations or unions of its employees.

V PASSAGE
The Kerala High Court has directed the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board to alert
the Central Government about the need to have a re-look at the upper age limit prescribed for using assisted
reproductive technology.
Justice V.G. Arun passed the directive while recently disposing of a batch of writ petitions filed by couples
challenging the age limit of 50 years for women and 55 years for men prescribed under the Assisted Reproductive
Technology(ART) (Regulation) Act, 2021 for undergoing the assisted reproductive technology.
The Court also pointed out that in most of the countries providing ART services, the practice is regulated by
domestic legislation, guidelines or both. in countries like France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and UK do
not have a specified age limit, but prescribes that the maximum age limit of the mother shall be within the natural
reproductive age of a woman.
The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2020 was passed with amendments by the Lok Sabha
on December 1, 2021, to prevent misuse and to ensure the safe and ethical practices of assisted reproductive
technology services.
Chapter III of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2020 lays down procedures for registration.
Section 15(1) of the aforementioned Chapter mandates registration of clinics or banks for undertaking assisted
reproductive technology or to render assisted reproductive technology procedures in any form. Further Section
15(2) provides that an application for registration under sub-section (1) shall be made to the National Registry
through the State Board. This mandate acts as a check for any kind of improper or fraudulent use of the concerned
technology which can harm the lives of people.
Only a recognized ART bank is allowed to screen gamete donors, collect and store semen, and provide oocyte
donors. Males between the ages of 21 and 55 can donate semen, while females between the ages of 23 and 35 can
donate oocytes. An oocyte donor should be a happily married lady with at least one living child (minimum three
years of age). A woman can only contribute one oocyte once throughout her life, and she can only have seven
oocytes extracted from her. A single donor’s gamete cannot be sent to more than one commissioning couple by a
bank (couple seeking services).
The child born through assisted reproductive technology is presumed to be the commissioning couple’s biological
child, and the said child is entitled to all of the rights and privileges afforded to a natural child only from the
commissioning couple under any legislation in effect at the time. A donor relinquishes all parental rights over the
child or children resulting from his or her gamete.
21 A couple aged 55 and 60 years respectively, want to undergo assisted reproductive technology to have a child.
They approach an ART bank for the procedure. Based on the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act,
2021, what is the likely outcome of the couple’s request?
A The couple’s request will be granted as there is no age limit prescribed for assisted reproductive technology in India.
B The couple’s request will be denied as the age limit prescribed for women and men under the Act is 50 years and
55 years respectively.
C The ART bank can provide the service to the couple at their discretion, regardless of the age limit prescribed under
the Act.
D The couple can appeal to the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board to have the age limit
reviewed and waived for their specific case.
22 A couple wishes to undergo assisted reproductive technology to conceive a child. The male partner is 60 years
old, and the female partner is 45 years old. They have filed an application for registration under the Assisted
Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2020, with a recognized ART bank. What is the legal position
regarding the couple’s eligibility for assisted reproductive technology under the ART (Regulation) Bill, 2020?

A The couple is eligible as the ART (Regulation) Bill, 2020 does not specify an age lmit for undergoing assisted
reproductive technology.
B The couple is not eligible as the male partner is over the age limit of 55 years prescribed under the ART (Regulation)
Act, 2021.
C The couple is eligible as the female partner is under the age limit of 50 years prescribed under the ART (Regulation)
Act, 2021.
D The couple is eligible as they have filed an application for registration with a recognized ART bank, which will
ensure safe and ethical practices.
23 A fertility clinic in India is offering assisted reproductive technology services without registration under the ART
(Regulation) Bill, 2020. A couple has approached the clinic for the services.
What is the legal position regarding the couple’s eligibility for undergoing assisted reproductive technology at
an unregistered clinic?
A The couple is eligible to undergo assisted reproductive technology at the unregistered clinic as long as they sign a
waiver absolving the clinic of any responsibility.
B The couple is not eligible to undergo assisted reproductive technology at the unregistered clinic as the ART
(Regulation) Bill, 2020 mandates registration of clinics offering the services.
C The couple is eligible to undergo assisted reproductive technology at the unregistered clinic as the ART (Regulation)
Bill, 2020 does not specify the registration requirements.
D The couple is eligible to undergo assisted reproductive technology at the unregistered clinic as long as they provide
a valid medical certificate stating the need for the services.
24 A woman who has donated her oocytes in the past wants to donate them again for assisted reproductive
technology purposes. She meets all the eligibility criteria prescribed under the ART (Regulation) Bill, 2020.
Can the woman donate her oocytes again under the ART (Regulation) Bill, 2020?
A Yes, the woman can donate her oocytes again, but only after a gap of three years since her last donation.
B No, the woman cannot donate her oocytes again as the ART (Regulation) Bill, 2020 prohibits repeat donation.
C Yes, the woman can donate her oocytes again, but only after obtaining written consent from her spouse or partner.
D Yes, the woman can donate her oocytes again, as there are no restrictions under the ART (Regulation) Bill, 2020 on
the number of times a woman can donate her oocytes.
25 A newly established clinic that offers assisted reproductive technology procedures wants to start providing its
services to patients. What is the legal requirement under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill,
2020 for the clinic to start providing its services?
A The clinic can start providing its services immediately without any registration as it is a new establishment.
B The clinic can start providing its services only after obtaining a provisional registration from the National Registry.
C The clinic can start providing its services only after obtaining a permanent registration from the National Registry.
D The clinic can start providing its services only after obtaining a registration from the State Board.

VI PASSAGE
The Supreme Court on 8 December 2022 reserved its judgment on a batch of petitions challenging the
constitutionality of laws permitting Jalikattu. The apex court had in an earlier judgment (Animal Welfare Board
of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors 2014) banned the bull-taming sport. Meanwhile, protests against the ban broke out
across Tamil Nadu and the state government, in response, passed the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu
Amendment) Act, 2017. The purpose of the 2017 amendment act was to continue with Jalikattu while ensuring
“the survival and wellbeing of the native breeds of bulls.” However, soon after, petitions challenging the 2017
amendment to the 1960 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA) were filed in the top court, which referred the
case to the current constitution bench.
While petitioners in the case have argued that the sport is cruel towards bulls and goes against their fundamental
rights, Tamil Nadu has contested it.
“That’s been the law in Nagaraj. It has recognised Personhood in animals,” Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing
the petitioners (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) said.
“When the Constitution itself recognises that cruelty to animals cannot be perpetrated, then that means the
Constitution recognises the rights of animals. They have to be read with Part III. They cannot be read by de hors
Part III,” Luthra added.
However, over the course of the hearings Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state of Tamil Nadu said
that the Nagaraj (2014) judgment “presumes that because there is a duty to preserve the wellbeing of the animal,
the animal has a right to demand it.”
But not every duty results in a corresponding right as a matter of law, according to Sibal.
“My duty is to respect the national flag. There is no right involved. Several of those duties in 51A. No right involved.
It is just that we don’t cause a moral wrong in our dealing with animals. To not cause unnecessary pain,” he said.
The petitioners’ lawyers, have argued that Jallikattu caused unnecessarry pain and suffering to bulls and thus
demanded that the Tamil Nadu Act be struck down.
Pointing towards Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act (1960), they have argued that it places a duty
on persons responsible for animals in their care to prevent the infliction of ‘unnecessary pain and suffering.’
Sibal , thus, pointed to the 2017 amendment by the Tamil Nadu government and how it ensures that no unnecessary
pain is caused – This includes receiving prior permission from the district collector or the magistrate to organise an
event, regular monitoring by the AWBI, and medical checks to ensure the bulls have not been drugged.
26 A group of individuals from Tamil Nadu organize a Jalikattu event without obtaining prior permission from the
district collector or magistrate. The event is attended by a large crowd, and several bulls are seen to be visibly
distressed and in pain.
What action can be taken against the organizers of the Jalikattu event based on the law given in the passage?
A No action can be taken as the event was held in Tamil Nadu where Jalikattu is permitted by law.
B The organizers can be fined for holding the event without obtaining prior permission from the district collector or
magistrate.
C The organizers can be charged with animal cruelty as several bulls were visibly distressed and in pain during the
event.
D The organizers cannot be held responsible as they ensured that the bulls were not drugged before the event
27 What was the outcome of the earlier judgment by the Supreme Court related to Jalikattu?
A The Supreme Court allowed Jalikattu to continue with certain conditions and restrictions.
B The Supreme Court banned Jalikattu, stating that it is cruel towards animals.
C The Supreme Court referred the case to the state government to make a decision on the matter.
D The Supreme Court did not pass any judgment related to Jalikattu.

28 X a person living in Jaipur, Rajasthan buys a Husky Dog for Rs 1lakh. Huskies are native to Siberia and have evolved
thick furs to survive in extremely cold climates. X keeps the dog tied up in extreme heat. Seeing the deplorable
condition of the Dog X’s neighbor who ia an animal rights activist files a case against him under Section 3 of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (1960). Decide which of the following option is true?
A X is liable because he caused the Dog unnecessary pain and suffering

B X is liable because he violated Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017
C X is not liable because animals do not have any rights
D X is liable because he bought the dog instead of adopting
29 Which of the following actions would be considered a violation of Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act (1960)?
A Providing the dog with proper food, water, and shelter.

B Keeping the dog in a small cage all day without any human interaction and feeding it once daily.
C Training the dog for agility competitions, which may cause temporary discomfort or exertion but is done with the
dog’s safety in mind.
D Administering a sedative to the dog to keep it quiet during a medical check up.
30 What is the significance of the fundamental duties mentioned in the Indian Constitution in the context of the
debate on Jalikattu?
A The fundamental duties impose a duty on the state to protect the rights of animals and prevent any form of cruelty
towards them.
B The fundamental duties impose a duty on individuals to preserve the well-being of animals and prevent any form
of cruelty towards them.
C The fundamental duties do not have any relevance in the context of the debate on Jalikattu.
D The fundamental duties only apply to citizens who are involved in animal husbandry or agriculture, and not to
individuals who participate in Jalikattu.

VII PASSAGE
In a plea seeking free public access to chargesheets and final reports filed as per Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the bench of MR Shah* and CT Ravikumar, JJ has held that the States cannot be directed to put
such information on their websites.
The prayer seeking free public access to chargesheets and final reports was made relying on ruling in Youth Bar
Association of India v. Union of India, wherein the Supreme Court had directed copies of FIRs to be published within
24 hours of their registration on the police websites or on the websites of the State Governments.
As per Section 173 Cr.P.C. and Section 207 Cr.P.C., the Investigating Agency is required to furnish the copies of the
report along with the relevant documents to be relied upon by the prosecution to the accused and to none others.
Therefore, if the relief as prayed in the present petition is allowed and all the chargesheets and relevant documents
produced along with the chargesheets are put on the public domain or on the websites of the State Governments it
will be contrary to the Scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Documents mentioned in Section 74 of the Evidence Act only can be said to be public documents, the certified
copies of which are to be given by the concerned police officer having the custody of such a public document. As
per Section 75 of the Evidence Act all other documents other than the documents mentioned in Section 74 of the
Evidence Act are all private documents. As per Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 The following documents
are public documents :—
(1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts—
(i) of the sovereign authority,
(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and
(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, 1[of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of
a foreign country; 1[of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country;”
(2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents.
The court held “ Therefore, the chargesheet/documents along with the chargesheet cannot be said to be public
documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, reliance placed upon Sections 74 & 76 of the Evidence Act is
absolutely misplaced.”
Hence, upon finding the reliance placed on all the provisions and the ruling in Youth Bar Association of India, to be
absolutely misconceived and misplaced, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief as prayed
in the present petition.
31 A group of activists filed a petition seeking free public access to all documents related to a high-profile criminal
case. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the court’s reasoning, as stated in the passage above?
A The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief as prayed in the present petition, and directed the State
Governments to put all chargesheets and relevant documents on their websites.
B The court found the reliance placed on the provisions of the Evidence Act and the ruling in Youth Bar Association
of India to be absolutely correct, and granted the petition to provide free public access to chargesheets and final
reports.
C The court held that States cannot be directed to put chargesheets and final reports on their websites, as it would
be contrary to the Scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code and the documents cannot be considered public under
Section 74 of the Evidence Act.
D The court found that only certified copies of chargesheets and relevant documents could be provided to the accused,
and the public had no right to access these documents under the Criminal Procedure Code or the Evidence Act
32 In the context of the Indian Evidence Act, which of the following documents would be considered a public
document according to Section 74 of the Act?

A A chargesheet filed by an investigating agency in a criminal case
B A private agreement between two individuals
C A diary entry made by a public officer in the course of their official duties
D A document generated by a private company for internal use
33 Ravi was arrested and charged with robbery by the local police. He was provided with a copy of the chargesheet
and relevant documents as required by law. However, Ravi’s lawyer has requested additional documents from the
investigating agency to prepare for the trial. Which of the following statements is true in this scenario?
A Ravi’s lawyer is entitled to all documents related to the case as per the ruling in Youth Bar Association of India v.
Union of India.
B The investigating agency is required to provide Ravi’s lawyer with any additional documents that they request.
C Ravi’s lawyer is only entitled to the documents mentioned in Section 173 and Section 207 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
D The investigating agency cannot provide any additional documents to Ravi’s lawyer as it would be contrary to the
Scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code.
34 In a criminal case, the investigating agency has filed a chargesheet along with relevant documents in the court as
per Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused has requested the court to direct the investigating
agency to provide them with copies of all the documents filed in the court. Which of the following statements is
true in this scenario?
A The accused is entitled to all documents filed in the court under the right to information.
B The accused is entitled to copies of all documents filed in the court as per Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
C The accused is not entitled to any additional documents as per the Scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code.
D The accused is entitled to copies of all documents filed in the court as per Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act.
35 In a criminal case, the investigating agency has filed a chargesheet along with relevant documents in the court as
per Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused has been provided with copies of the chargesheet
and relevant documents filed by the investigating agency. However, the accused has requested copies of the
documents that were not relied upon by the prosecution. Which of the following statements is true in this
scenario?
A The accused is entitled to copies of all documents related to the case.

B The accused is not entitled to copies of any documents not relied upon by the prosecution.
C The accused is entitled to copies of all documents not relied upon by the prosecution.
D The accused is entitled to copies of all documents related to the case as per Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act.

VIII PASSAGE
Supreme Court of India has stated that cinema hall owners are entitled to set their own terms and conditions for
the sale of food inside theatres. The court was hearing a batch of appeals that theatre owners and the Multiplex
Association of India had filed. They challenged a 2018 verdict of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which ruled
that multiplexes and theatres cannot prevent the audience from carrying their own food and beverages inside the
movie halls.
The condition of entry is imposed as a direct result of the exercise of the right of cinema owners to carry on a
business or trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The commercial logic of prohibiting movie goers
from carrying their own food to the cinema hall is to stimulate and boost a vital aspect of the business – the sale
of food and beverages. If business owners are not permitted to determine the various facets of their business (in
accordance with law), economic activity would come to a grinding halt.
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution recognizes the right of citizens to practice any profession, or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business. This right includes all activities which enable citizens to generate economic benefits
and earn a livelihood.2 The right recognized in Article 19(1)(g) is not an unfettered right and the state may impose
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right, in terms of Article 19(6).
Article 19(6 ) reads as follows “(6) Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any
existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general
public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause, and, in particular,
nothing in the said sub clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the
State from making any law relating to,
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation,
trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business,
industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise”
The fundamental aspect which needs to be noted is that the trade and business of operating cinema theatres is
subject to regulation by the state. In this case, the State Government has framed the 1975 Rules to regulate the
industry. Admittedly, the 1975 Rules do not contain a rule compelling the owner of a cinema theatre to allow a
movie goer to bring food or beverages from outside within the precincts of the theatre
We are therefore of the view that the High Court transgressed its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
by directing the cinema hall owners not to prohibit movie goers from carrying eatables and beverages from outside
within the precincts of a cinema hall and by directing the state to enforce this direction to the cinema hall owners.
Absent a statutory regulation which regulates the right to conduct the business of operating a cinema hall, the
imposition of such a restraint would affect the legitimate rights of a theatre owner.
36 A cinema hall owner in India is challenged by a group of consumers for prohibiting them from carrying their
own food and beverages inside the theatre. The consumers argue that this policy violates their right to freedom
of choice and is against the public interest. In response, the cinema hall owner cites the 1975 Rules that regulate
the cinema industry in the state. Which of the following statements is true according to the passage?
A The 1975 Rules explicitly prohibit cinema hall owners from prohibiting movie-goers from carrying food and
beverages from outside.
B The 1975 Rules do not contain any rule compelling cinema hall owners to allow movie-goers to bring food or
beverages from outside within the precincts of the theatre.
C The 1975 Rules allow cinema hall owners to determine the various facets of their business in accordance with the
law.
D The 1975 Rules do not regulate the right to conduct the business of operating a cinema hall.

37 A state government in India wants to impose a restriction on the sale of food and beverages in cinema halls to
protect the public health. Which of the following statements is true according to the passage?
A The state government cannot impose any restrictions on the sale of food and beverages in cinema halls as it would
violate the cinema hall owners’ right to carry on any occupation, trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution.
B The state government can impose reasonable restrictions on the sale of food and beverages in cinema halls in the
interest of the general public under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
C The state government can prohibit cinema hall owners from selling any food and beverages within the precincts of
the theatre as it would be in the interest of the general public.
D The state government needs to pass a new law to regulate the sale of food and beverages in cinema halls as there is
no existing law that addresses this issue.
38 Which of the following is true about the restrictions that can be imposed on the right to carry on any occupation,
trade or business under Article 19(6) of the Indian Constitution?
A The state cannot impose any restrictions on the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
B The state can impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public.
C The state can impose any restrictions it deems necessary on the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
D The right to carry on any occupation, trade or business is an unfettered right and cannot be subject to any restrictions.
39 Ravi runs a small grocery store in a residential area of a city. He is planning to expand his business by opening
another store in a commercial area. However, the local authorities have denied him permission to do so, stating
that there are already too many grocery stores in the area. Ravi believes that his right to carry on any occupation,
trade or business is being violated under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. Which of the following is
true regarding the situation?
A Ravi’s right to carry on any occupation, trade or business cannot be restricted by the local authorities.
B The local authorities can impose reasonable restrictions on Ravi’s right to carry on any occupation, trade or business
in the interests of the general public.
C Ravi’s right to carry on any occupation, trade or business is an unfettered right and cannot be subject to any
restrictions.
D The local authorities cannot impose any restrictions on Ravi’s right to carry on any occupation, trade or business in
a commercial area.
40 Suppose a group of individuals has started an online news portal that exposes corruption in the government and
powerful business entities. However, the government has passed a law that prohibits the publication of any news
or information that may damage the reputation of the government or any business entity. The individuals believe
that the law violates their right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Indian Constitution. Which of the following is true regarding the government’s law?
A The government’s law is valid as it is in the interests of public order and therefore, a reasonable restriction on the
right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(6).
B The government cannot pass such a law as it is a violation of the right to freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
C The government can pass such a law as it is necessary to protect the reputation of the government and businesses,
which is a legitimate aim under Article 19(6).
D The individuals can challenge the law in court as it is arbitrary and violative of the right to freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).

IX PASSAGE
Rejecting his plea of mental incapacity, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man accused of killing his
two sons.
“Where the accused is charged of murder, the burden to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind, the accused
was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is on the defence”, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari
and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed while dismissing a criminal appeal. The court found that he was neither suffering
from any medically determined mental illness nor could be said to be a person under a legal disability of unsound
mind.
The Court held that If motive is proved, that would supply another link in the chain of circumstantial evidence and ,
absence of motive can be a ground to reject the prosecution case. Such an absence of motive is a factor that weighs
in favor of the accused.
The burden of proving the existence of circumstances to bring the case within the purview of Section 84 IPC lies on
the accused in terms of Section 105 of the Evidence Act; and where the accused is charged of murder, the burden
to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the consequences of his
acts is on the defence.
Section 84 of IPC deals with Act of a person of unsound mind.—Nothing is an offence which is done by a person
who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that
he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
Further Section 86 says that In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge
or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the
same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was
administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
The court held that For what has been discussed hereinabove, we are satisfied that there is no infirmity in the
findings concurrently recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court that the prosecution case is amply established
by cogent and convincing chain of circumstances, pointing only to the guilt of the appellant, who caused the death
of victim children, his sons, by strangulation and also caused the evidence of offence to disappear by throwing the
dead bodies into the canal. The submissions evolved for the purpose of the present appeal that the appellant be
extended the benefit of alleged want of mental capacity also remain baseless and could only be rejected. Therefore,
no case for interference is made out and dismissed the appeal
41 A man is accused of killing his wife by strangulation. He pleads mental incapacity as a defense. What burden of
proof lies with the accused in this case according to Section 105 of the Evidence Act?
A The burden to prove that the accused did not have the motive to commit the crime
B The burden to prove that the accused was suffering from a medically determined mental illness
C The burden to prove that the accused did not know the nature of his act or that he was doing something wrong or
contrary to law due to unsoundness of mind
D The burden to prove that the accused was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of committing the
crime
42 A man is charged with murder and pleads not guilty on the grounds that he was intoxicated at the time of the
alleged crime. how will the accused be liable if he did the act in a state of intoxication?

A The accused will not be held liable as he was intoxicated at the time of the act
B The accused will be held liable as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated
C The accused will be held liable only if the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his
knowledge or against his will
D The accused will be held liable only if the prosecution can prove that he had the specific intent to commit the crime
43 A man is charged with murder, and the prosecution is not able to presents evidence that he had a motive to
commit the crime. Does the absence of a motive provide a defense for the accused?
A Yes, the absence of motive can be a ground to reject the prosecution case, and the accused can be acquitted.
B No, the absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case, and the accused can still be convicted
if the other evidence supports his guilt.
C Yes, the accused can claim that he acted under unsoundness of mind, and the prosecution must prove that he had a
motive to commit the crime.
D No, the accused can claim that he acted under intoxication, and the prosecution must prove that he had a motive to
commit the crime.
44 A man is charged with murder, and he claims that he committed the crime while he was under the influence of
alcohol. How will the court deal with his claim?
A The court will dismiss his claim, as intoxication is not a defense for murder under the Indian Penal Code.
B The court will ask the prosecution to prove that the accused had the same knowledge and intent as he would have
had if he had not been intoxicated.
C The court will ask the accused to prove that he was administered the alcohol without his knowledge or against his
will.
D The court will ask the accused to prove that he was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of the crime.
45 A man is charged with murder, and he claims that he was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of the
crime. What is the burden of proof in such a case?
A The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was not suffering from unsoundness of mind at
the time of the crime.
B The burden of proof is on the accused to prove that he was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of the
crime.
C The burden of proof is on the medical examiner to determine if the accused was suffering from unsoundness of
mind at the time of the crime.
D The burden of proof is on the jury to determine if the accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time
of the crime.

X PASSAGE
The Bombay High Court recently observed that “imposing a prohibitory ban for a long period on merchant
establishments and establishments which provide livelihood is contrary to principles under Article 21 of the
Constitution and whenever such a thing happens, the authorities need to be thoughtful.”
The directive principles of state policy (DPSP) in the constitution of India (article 47) state that “.... the State shall
endeavor to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of
drugs which are injurious to health”. The Directive Principles are not-justiciable rights of the people but fundamental
in the governance of the country. Alcohol prohibition in India is in force in the states of Bihar, Gujarat, Mizoram,
and Nagaland.All other Indian states and union territories permit the sale of alcohol. Dry Days in India are specific
days when the sale of alcohol is prohibited in the states which otherwise allow sale and consumption of alcohol.
Dry Days are fixed by the respective state government. Most Indian states observe dry days on major religious
festivals/occasions depending on the popularity of the festival in that region. National holidays such as Republic
Day (26 January), Independence Day (15 August) and Gandhi Jayanti (2 October) are usually dry days throughout
India.[8] Dry days also depend on the establishment selling alcohol. For example, generally 5-star hotels do not
have to observe all the dry days that liquor stores and small bars may have to. Dry days are also observed on and
around voting days.[9][10] National dry days also occur during Election Commission of India-ordained voting and
result days.
A single-judge bench of Justice Milind N Jadhav was on January 25 hearing two pleas, against the deputy secretary
and assistant chief election officer of Maharashtra state challenging the January 5 order imposing a ban on liquor
sale in Nashik district for the proposed election to be held on January 30 for the Nashik graduates’ constituency.
Noting that imposing a ban for a longer period would curtail the fundamental rights of the petitioners, the bench
observed, “The aforementioned issue is a recurring issue and therefore, the State Government is directed to take
note of the same… The present elections are not Parliamentary elections and the yardstick applicable to those
elections cannot be applied to elections for graduate constituencies.”
Granting relief to the petitioner associations, the bench directed the respondent authorities to file their substantive
affidavits in reply to the pleas within four weeks and posted further hearing to February 22.
46 Which of the following scenarios would be contrary to the principles under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
as per the Bombay High Court’s recent observation?
A A state government imposes a ban on liquor sale for a month in a particular district due to rising cases of alcoholism
and health concerns.
B A local body imposes a ban on liquor sale in a particular area during a religious festival, which is celebrated by a
majority of people in that area.
C A state government imposes a ban on liquor sale for a week in a particular district during an election, citing security
concerns and maintaining law and order.
D A state government imposes a permanent ban on liquor sale in a particular district, citing the Directive Principles
of State Policy in the Indian Constitution.
47 A state government has imposed a permanent ban on the sale of alcohol in a particular district citing health
concerns and the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 47 of the Indian Constitution. Is this ban valid
under the Indian Constitution?

A Yes, the state government has the power to impose a permanent ban on the sale of alcohol under Article 47 of the
Indian Constitution.
B No, a permanent ban on the sale of alcohol would violate the principles under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
C Yes, a permanent ban on the sale of alcohol is a justiciable right under the Directive Principles of State Policy in the
Constitution of India.
D No, the state government can only impose a temporary ban on the sale of alcohol for a reasonable period and not a
permanent ban.
48 The state government has imposed a ban on the sale of alcohol in a district during an upcoming festival. A group
of restaurant owners in the district have filed a petition challenging the ban, stating that it violates their right to
livelihood. Which article of the Indian Constitution can the restaurant owners rely on in their petition?
A Article 19(1)(g) - Right to Freedom of Occupation, Trade or Business
B Article 21 - Right to Life and Personal Liberty
C Article 25 - Right to Freedom of Religion
D Article 26 - Right to Manage Religious Affairs
49 In which of the following situations would the imposition of a long-term ban on merchant establishments and
establishments providing livelihood be contrary to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?
A A city experiencing high levels of pollution imposes a ban on all vehicles for a month to improve air quality.
B The government imposes a ban on the sale of tobacco products to discourage smoking and improve public health.
C A city imposes a ban on street vendors in certain areas to reduce congestion and improve pedestrian safety.
D The government imposes a ban on the sale of meat during a religious festival to protect public order.
50 In a state where alcohol is permitted to be sold, the government has announced a week-long ban on the sale of
alcohol in the entire state. The ban has been imposed to celebrate a religious festival that is widely celebrated in
the state. The ban applies to all establishments that sell alcohol, including bars and liquor stores. An association
of bar owners has challenged the ban in court, stating that it violates their fundamental rights. Which of the
following is the best course of action for the court to take?
A Uphold the ban as it is in line with the government’s duty to observe religious sentiments of the people.
B Strike down the ban as it violates the fundamental rights of the bar owners.
C Limit the ban to only those areas where the festival is celebrated and allow the sale of alcohol in other areas.
D Suspend the ban until the association of bar owners provides evidence of the negative impact the ban will have on
their business.

XI PASSAGE
Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed that when a son relinquishes
the right to the self-acquired property of the father, then the principle of estoppel is applied. Section 115 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 incorporates the meaning of estoppel as when one person either by his act or omission,
or by declaration, has made another person believe something to be true and persuaded that person to act upon
it, then in no case can he or his representative deny the truth of that thing later in the suit or in the proceedings. In
simple words, estoppel means one cannot contradict, deny or declare to be false the previous statement made by
him in the Court. Therefore, the court ruled that his sons do not have a claim on that property.
As per the suit details a suit for partition was filed by two children from a man’s second marriage regarding a self-
acquired property of Sengalani Chettiar. Chandran, the son from Chettiar’s first marriage, executed a Release Deed
before his death. Chettiar passed away in 1988, and his wife from the second marriage passed away in 2005. The
plaintiffs sought to exclude the successors of the son from the first marriage based on the Release Deed signed in
1975 , but the Trial court deemed it void as it was executed while Chettiar was still alive. The plaintiffs were granted
a 2/7 share. The High Court allowed a challenge to this decision, which was then appealed by Chandran’s sons to
the Supreme Court.
Based on the ‘Release Deed’, the court inferred that the intention of the father was to deny any right of the son
in regard to the property. It was contended that as per Sec 8(1) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, The
natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are
necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the
minor’s estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant.. The argument put forth by
the appellants before the Apex Court was that they were minors at the time of the ‘Release Deed’.
However, the Court refused to discard the ‘Release Deed’ based on this argument and noted that Chandran himself
had no right on the property. In regard to estoppel, the Court referred to Section 8(a) of the Hindu Succession Act,
as per which the rights would not devolve on the appellant whose father was estopped to inherit the property in
view of the relinquishment.
The court noted that there is a clear case of estoppel which resulted from Chandran relinquishing his rights, thereby
allowing his father i.e., Chettiar free to deal with the property without being haunted by any claims from him or his
successors. Hence, the Apex Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.
51 Which of the following statements is FALSE based on the given passage?
A Estoppel means one cannot contradict or deny a previous statement made by him in the court.
B Natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the
benefit of the minor
C The rights do not devolve on the appellant whose father was estopped to inherit the property in view of the
relinquishment
D A minor can be bound by a personal covenant made by the natural guardian under the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act.
52 Mr. Gupta, a Hindu man, passed away leaving behind his self-acquired property. His wife passed away several
years ago, and they had two sons, Rohit and Rahul. Rohit claims that he is entitled to a larger share of the property
as he had invested a significant amount of money in the maintenance and renovation of the property, while Rahul
did not contribute anything. Rahul argues that since the property was self-acquired by their father, they both
have an equal right to it. Which of the following statements is TRUE based on the given passage?

A Rohit is entitled to a larger share of the property since he invested more money in its maintenance and renovation.
B Rahul is entitled to a larger share of the property as he did not contribute anything towards its maintenance and
renovation.
C Both Rohit and Rahul have an equal right to their father’s self-acquired property.
D The law does not recognize the contributions made by either son towards the maintenance and renovation of the
property.
53 Which of the following statements is true about the relinquishment of a son’s right to self-acquired property of
the father, as per the law?
A A son can relinquish his right to the property only after the death of his father.
B A son can relinquish his right to the property during the lifetime of his father.
C Once a son has relinquished his right to the property, he can contest it later in the court of law.
D The relinquishment of a son’s right to the property has no legal effect.
54 What is the legal implication of executing a release deed for a self-acquired property?
A The release deed is void as it was executed while the property owner was alive
B The release deed can be used to exclude the successors of the person who executed it
C The release deed is only applicable to ancestral properties, not self-acquired ones
D The release deed can be challenged by the successors of the person who executed it, even if it was executed before
their birth
55 Ravi is the natural guardian of his minor son Rohit, who inherited a property from his deceased grandfather. Ravi
decides to sell the property. Which of the following statements is true?
A Ravi has the power to sell the property as he is the natural guardian of his minor son.
B Ravi cannot sell the property without seeking permission from the court as it is a minor’s property.
C Ravi can only sell the property if the sale is for the benefit of the minor.
D Ravi can only sell the property after Rohit reaches the age of majority.

Answer Key
1. (b) 2. (b) 3. (b) 4. (d) 5. (c) 6. (b) 7. (c) 8. (d) 9. (c) 10. (b)
11. (b) 12. (c) 13. (b) 14. (c) 15. (b) 16. (b) 17. (c) 18. (c) 19. (c) 20. (b)
21. (b) 22. (b) 23. (b) 24. (b) 25. (c) 26. (c) 27. (b) 28. (a) 29. (b) 30. (b)
31. (c) 32. (c) 33. (c) 34. (b) 35. (b) 36. (b) 37. (b) 38. (b) 39. (b) 40. (d)
41. (c) 42. (b) 43. (a) 44. (b) 45. (b) 46. (d) 47. (b) 48. (a) 49. (a) 50. (b)
51. (d) 52. (c) 53. (b) 54. (b) 55. (c)

Solution
1. (b) The correct option is B) Whether the city working must be chosen. Therefore, option B is
government’s law is rationally connected to the most likely to support the majority judgment’s
aim of regulating street vending and ensuring the interpretation of Section 26(2). Options A and
safety and hygiene of the food being sold. C are incorrect because they do not align with
Reasoning: In order to determine whether the the majority’s interpretation. Option D is also
city government’s law imposing a fee of Rs. 5,000 incorrect because it does not relate to the issue
for a street vending permit satisfies the doctrine of interpretation of Section 26(2) of the Act.
of proportionality, the law must meet three 3. (b) Correct answer: (B) By arguing that a purposive
requirements - it must have a legitimate aim, it and pragmatic interpretation should be adopted
must be rationally connected to that aim, and it with respect to Section 26(2)
must be proportionate, i.e., the benefits of the law In the given scenario, the Central Government
must outweigh its negative impact on the street has decided to demonetize all bank notes of Rs.
vendors’ right to livelihood. 2000 denomination in the country to combat
Option A is incorrect because the legitimacy of the problem of counterfeit currency, which is a
the city government’s aim is already established legitimate objective. However, a group of citizens
in the scenario as being to regulate street vending has filed a petition challenging the legality of the
and ensure the safety and hygiene of the food decision, citing Section 26(2) of the Reserve Bank
being sold. of India Act,
Option C is also incorrect because the fee of Rs. In such a situation, the Central Government can
5,000 may or may not be the least restrictive justify its decision by arguing that a purposive
means of achieving the aim of regulating street and pragmatic interpretation should be adopted
vending and ensuring the safety and hygiene of the with respect to Section 26(2) of the Reserve
food being sold. However, it is important to note Bank of India Act. As per the passage given an
that this factor is a part of the third requirement interpretation which advances the purpose of
of proportionality and not the second. the Act and ensures its smooth and harmonious
Option D is also incorrect because the importance working must be chosen.
of the aim of regulating street vending and Therefore, in this scenario, the Central
ensuring the safety and hygiene of the food being Government can argue that demonetizing all bank
sold has already been established in the scenario. notes of Rs. 2000 denomination is a pragmatic
However, this option is relevant in the third measure that advances the purpose of combating
requirement of proportionality, which involves counterfeit currency, and ensures the smooth
balancing the importance of the law’s aim against and harmonious working of the Reserve Bank of
its negative impact on the street vendors’ right to India Act. By adopting a purposive and pragmatic
livelihood. interpretation, the Central Government can
Option B is the correct answer because it refers to justify its decision to demonetize all bank notes
the second requirement of proportionality, which of Rs. 2000 denomination, even though Section
requires that the law is rationally connected to 26(2) of the Act uses the word ‘any’
the aim of regulating street vending and ensuring 4. (d) Correct answer: (D) It depends on whether
the safety and hygiene of the food being sold. there were alternative measures available that
In other words, the law must have a reasonable could have achieved the same purpose with a
and logical connection to the aim it seeks to lesser degree of limitation, as per the test of
achieve. The court will examine whether the proportionality.
law’s provisions are designed to achieve the As per the Supreme Court Constitution
stated aim, and whether they are necessary and Bench’s judgment discussed in the passage,
proportionate to achieve that aim. a limitation on a constitutional right will be
2. (b) Explanation: The majority judgment in the constitutionally permissible if it satisfies the
case held that a purposive and pragmatic test of proportionality. One of the requirements
interpretation must be adopted with respect to of this test is that the measures undertaken to
Section 26(2) of the Act. They argued that an effectuate the limitation are necessary, meaning
interpretation that advances the purpose of the that there are no alternative measures that may
Act and ensures its smooth and harmonious

similarly achieve the same purpose with a lesser In the scenario presented, the Minister is
degree of limitation. expressing a personal opinion on a matter
In the given scenario, the Central Government that his department is not concerned with.
has decided to demonetize all bank notes of Rs. While the statement may be controversial and
100 denominations to combat the problem of cause public outrage, it does not violate any of
the reasonable restrictions outlined in Article
fake currency. To determine the constitutionality
19(2). Therefore, the Minister cannot be held
of this decision, one must apply the test of
liable for constitutional tort under the existing
proportionality and consider whether there
restrictions.
were alternative measures available that could
have achieved the same purpose with a lesser 7. (c) The Minister’s statement is protected under
degree of limitation. For example, the Central Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, but they can
Government could have considered introducing still be held accountable for defamation under
the reasonable restrictions of Article 19(2).
new security features in Rs. 100 notes or
While the ruling of the Constitution Bench of the
implementing stricter enforcement measures
Supreme Court affirmed that ministers have the
against the circulation of fake currency.
same right to free speech as other citizens, they
Therefore, the constitutionality of the Central can still be subject to the reasonable restrictions
Government’s decision would depend on outlined in Article 19(2), including restrictions
whether there were alternative measures on defamation. Therefore, the Minister can be
available that could have achieved the same held accountable for defamation under the
purpose with a lesser degree of limitation, as per reasonable restrictions of Article 19(2), even if
the test of proportionality. their statement is related to a political opponent
5. (c) Under the doctrine of proportionality, a limitation and their policies.
on a constitutional right will be constitutionally 8. (d) The Minister’s statement is protected under the
permissible if it satisfies a four-pronged test. One right to freedom of speech and expression, but
of the prongs is that the measures undertaken can be considered a violation of Article 19(2) if
to effectuate such a limitation are necessary, in it promotes contempt against any religion.
that there are no alternative measures that may While the Constitution Bench of the Supreme
similarly achieve that same purpose with a lesser Court upheld the right of Ministers to free speech,
degree of limitation. This means that if there they also acknowledged that this right is subject
were alternative measures available that could to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2),
have achieved the same purpose with a lesser including restrictions related to the promotion
degree of limitation, then the decision imposing of contempt against any religion. Therefore, if
the limitation would not be constitutionally the Minister’s statement is deemed to promote
permissible. contempt against a particular religion, it can
be considered a violation of Article 19(2) and
Hence, option C is the correct answer, as it
restricted by the State.
correctly reflects the importance of exploring
and considering alternative measures before 9. (c) The person can invoke the right to remain silent
taking a decision that imposes a limitation on during police interrogation, and the prosecution
cannot use their silence as evidence of guilt
a constitutional right, under the doctrine of
in court. In India, the right to remain silent
proportionality.
is recognized as a fundamental right under
6. (b) Answer: B. No, the Minister cannot be held Article 20(3) of the Constitution. This means
liable for constitutional tort under the existing that a person has the right to not incriminate
restrictions. themselves during police interrogation or trial
According to the passage, Article 19(2) of the proceedings. If the person invokes their right
Indian Constitution lays out the reasonable to remain silent during police interrogation, the
restrictions on the right to freedom of speech prosecution cannot use their silence as evidence
and expression. One of these restrictions is that of guilt in court. This right applies to all persons,
the exercise of this right can be limited in the regardless of whether they have already been
interest of “decency or morality” or to prevent charged with a crime.
“incitement to an offence.” However, the passage 10. (b) The singer has not violated the restrictions on
also notes that not all statements made by a freedom of speech and expression under Article
Minister will necessarily give rise to an action in 19(2) of the Constitution, as she has the right to
constitutional tort. express her political views in public. In India,

freedom of speech and expression is recognized interpretations, ‘life’ is not simply just the
as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of physical act of breathing. It includes the right
the Constitution. While this right is not absolute to live with dignity, right to health, right to
and can be subject to reasonable restrictions, livelihood, right to privacy, and a bundle of
such restrictions must be narrowly tailored other similar rights. The recent Supreme Court
and imposed only for legitimate reasons, such judgment in India regarding fundamental
as protecting public order, morality, or national rights also established that fundamental rights
security. In the present scenario, the singer has in Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution are
not incited violence or created public disorder enforceable against non-state actors as well. In
through her speech, nor has she made false and the scenario given, the activists have challenged
defamatory statements. As such, her speech falls a law that mandates the death penalty for a
within the scope of protected expression under wide range of offenses, including non-violent
Indian law, and she cannot be punished for
crimes such as economic fraud. Therefore, the
expressing her political views in public.
activists can argue that the law violates the
11. (b) The most appropriate course of action for the right to life under Article 21, which includes the
resident would be Option B - to protest the right to avoid the death penalty except in certain
eviction and file a case in court, citing the Right exceptional circumstances. Hence, option C is the
to Life as encompassing the right to shelter and correct answer. Options A, B, and D are incorrect
the right to live with dignity. The Right to Life as they do not reflect the broad interpretation of
includes the right to a basic standard of living,
the right to life under Article 21 and its judicial
which includes access to adequate housing.
interpretations in India.
As per the interpretation of the Right to Life
in India, the local authorities must respect the 15. (b) Explanation: The right to carry on any profession
right to shelter and the right to live with dignity as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the
of the residents. Therefore, the resident should Indian Constitution is not an absolute right
challenge the eviction and seek legal recourse to and can be subject to reasonable restrictions
protect their fundamental rights. imposed by the state in the interest of public
12. (c) Right to privacy order, morality, and health. Therefore, the state
government’s law requiring individuals to obtain
Explanation: The Right to Life in India has been
a license before practicing any profession may be
interpreted to include the right to privacy, which
valid as long as it does not unreasonably restrict
has been recognized as a fundamental right under
Article 21. Publishing personal information the right. Option A is incorrect as the right to
about an individual without their consent would carry on any profession is not an absolute right.
be a violation of this right. Options A, B, and D are Option C is incorrect as the right to carry on any
not relevant in this scenario and do not involve profession applies to all individuals, whether
the violation of the Right to Life. they are citizens of India or not. Option D is
incorrect as the right to carry on any profession
13. (b) The police should allow the protest to take place
applies to all professions, subject to reasonable
as long as it is peaceful and does not violate any
laws. Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution restrictions.
guarantees the right to assemble peacefully 16. (b) The Kerala Government Servants Conduct
and without arms, and this right is enforceable Rules, 1960, prohibits government employees
against non-state actors as well. The company’s from participating in a general strike, as it is
claim that the protest would harm its business considered a violation of the Conduct Rules. The
does not provide a valid ground for banning passage clearly states that Rule 77(b)(2) of the
the protest, and the police should not prevent Conduct Rules restrains a service association
peaceful protests merely because they may be from resorting to any strike or using the threat of
inconvenient or unpopular. strike to achieve its purposes. Additionally, Rule
14. (c) Explanation: The right to life under Article 21 77(b)(10) prohibits a service association from
of the Indian Constitution covers the arena doing any act that contravenes the provisions
of protection of human life and liberty. It of the Conduct Rules. Finally, Rule 86 expressly
prescribes that “no person shall be deprived prohibits government employees from taking
of his life or personal liberty except according part in a strike. Therefore, the government
to the procedure established by law.” In India, employee mentioned in the scenario is in
the right to life has been granted a very broad violation of the Conduct Rules and is subject to
connotation. As per Article 21 and its judicial disciplinary action by the government.

17. (c) The passage talks about workers working in 23. (b) The couple is not eligible to undergo assisted
kerala. But as per the question the worker works reproductive technology at the unregistered
in Tamil Nadu. So the rules do not apply on him. clinic as the ART (Regulation) Bill, 2020 mandates
18. (c) As per the passage, the Kerala High Court has registration of clinics offering the services.
reiterated that no State government employee, 24. (b) No, the woman cannot donate her oocytes again
worker, or association has the legal right to call as the ART (Regulation) Bill, 2020 prohibits
for a general strike or instigate employees to repeat donation.
strike, in the guise of the fundamental right of As per the Assisted Reproductive Technology
freedom of speech and expression guaranteed (Regulation) Bill, 2020, an oocyte donor can only
by the Constitution. However, Private companies donate one oocyte once throughout her life, and
and their employees are not bound by the Kerala she can only have seven oocytes extracted from
Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960. her. In the scenario given in the question, the
19. (c) The government employees who participate in woman has already donated her oocytes in the
general strikes are not entitled to protection past.
under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution and can 25. (c) The clinic can start providing its services only
be penalized for violating the Kerala Government after obtaining a permanent registration from
Servants Conduct Rules, 1960. As per the the National Registry.
passage, the Kerala High Court has reiterated
Explanation: As per the Assisted Reproductive
that government employees who participate in
Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2020, any clinic or
general strikes, affecting the normal life of the
bank that offers assisted reproductive technology
public and public exchequer, are not entitled
procedures in any form must obtain registration
to be protected under Article 19(1)(c) of the
from the National Registry through the State
Constitution, which protects the right to form
Board. This means that the clinic must apply
associations or unions. Additionally, the Kerala
for registration with the State Board, which will
Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960,
forward the application to the National Registry.
Rule 77(b)(2) prohibits a service association
The National Registry will then assess the
from resorting to any strike or using the threat
application and grant a permanent registration
of a strike as a means of achieving any of its
to the clinic, subject to certain conditions and
purposes or for any other reason. Rule 77(b)(10)
requirements. Only after obtaining a permanent
also prohibits a service association from doing
registration, the clinic can start providing its
any act which, if done by a government servant,
services to patients.
contravenes any of the provisions of the Kerala
Government Servants Conduct Rules. Therefore, 26. (c) The organizers can be charged with animal
the striking employees can be penalized for cruelty as several bulls were visibly distressed
violating these rules and can be held liable for and in pain during the event. As per the Prevention
any damage caused during the strike. of Cruelty to Animal Act (1960), it is the duty of
persons responsible for animals in their care to
20. (b) No, the employees have the fundamental right to
prevent the infliction of ‘unnecessary pain and
form associations or unions, which is protected
suffering.’ Additionally, the 2017 amendment by
under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. The
the Tamil Nadu government requires organizers
passage only deals with State government
to obtain prior permission to organize an
employee, worker, or associations who call for
event and to ensure that no unnecessary pain
a general strike or instigate the employees to
is caused. Since the organizers held the event
strike but doesnot affect the right to form unions.
without obtaining permission and several bulls
21. (b) The couple’s request will be denied as the age were visibly distressed and in pain, they can be
limit prescribed for women and men under the charged with animal cruelty.
Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation)
27. (b) The Supreme Court banned Jalikattu in an
Act, 2021, is 50 years and 55 years respectively.
earlier judgment (Animal Welfare Board of
The Act lays down procedures for registration
India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors 2014), stating that it is
and mandates that only recognized ART banks
cruel towards animals. However, in response to
are allowed to provide the procedure while
protests against the ban, the state government
adhering to the specified age limit.
passed the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
22. (b) The couple is not eligible as the male partner is (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, which
over the age limit of 55 years prescribed under allowed Jalikattu to continue under certain
the ART (Regulation) Act, 2021. conditions and restrictions. Petitions challenging

the constitutionality of this amendment act are rather that the petitioner was not entitled to the
currently being heard by the Supreme Court in a relief sought.
new case. 32. (c) Explanation: The correct answer is C because
28. (a) As per the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act defines
(1960), it is the duty of persons responsible for a public document as one that is “forming the
animals in their care to prevent the infliction of acts, or records of the acts of public officers,
‘unnecessary pain and suffering.’ legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of
India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign
29. (b) would be considered a violation of Section 3 of
country”. Therefore, a diary entry made by a
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (1960).
public officer in the course of their official duties
Keeping a dog in a small cage all day without
would be considered a public document.
any human interaction and feeding it once daily
can cause physical and psychological harm to Option A is incorrect because chargesheets
the animal, resulting in unnecessary pain or filed by investigating agencies in criminal cases
suffering. cannot be considered public documents under
Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, as stated in
30. (b) The fundamental duties mentioned in the Indian
the passage above. Option B is incorrect because
Constitution impose a duty on individuals to private agreements between two individuals are
preserve the well-being of animals and prevent not public documents under Section 74. Option
any form of cruelty towards them. This duty is D is incorrect because documents generated
reflected in Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty by private companies for internal use are not
to Animal Act (1960), which places a duty on public documents under Section 74 of the Indian
persons responsible for animals in their care to Evidence Act.
prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain and
33. (c) Explanation: The correct answer is C because
suffering. The petitioners in the case challenging
Section 173 and Section 207 of the Code of
the legality of Jalikattu argue that the sport
Criminal Procedure require the investigating
causes unnecessary pain and suffering to bulls,
agency to furnish the copies of the chargesheet
which goes against their fundamental duties as
and relevant documents to be relied upon by
citizens to protect the well-being of animals. the prosecution to the accused and to none
31. (c) The correct answer is C. The passage explains others. Therefore, Ravi’s lawyer is only entitled
that a bench of MR Shah and CT Ravikumar, to the documents mentioned in Section 173 and
JJ held that States cannot be directed to put Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
chargesheets and final reports on their websites, Option A is incorrect because while the ruling in
as it would be contrary to the Scheme of the Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India
Criminal Procedure Code. The court also found directed copies of FIRs to be published within 24
that the chargesheet/documents along with hours of their registration on police websites or
the chargesheet cannot be considered public on the websites of the State Governments, it did
documents under Section 74 of the Evidence not grant unrestricted access to all documents
Act. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled related to a criminal case. Option B is incorrect
to the relief as prayed in the present petition because the investigating agency is only required
seeking free public access to chargesheets and to provide the accused with the documents
final reports filed under Section 173 of the Code mentioned in Section 173 and Section 207 of
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. the Code of Criminal Procedure. Option D is
Option A is incorrect because the court did not incorrect because the investigating agency may
grant the petitioner’s relief and did not direct the be required to provide additional documents to
State Governments to put all chargesheets and the court if requested, but they are not required
relevant documents on their websites. Option to provide such documents to the accused or
B is incorrect because the court did not find the their lawyer.
reliance placed on the provisions of the Evidence 34. (b) Explanation: The correct answer is B because
Act and the ruling in Youth Bar Association Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
of India to be absolutely correct, and did not requires the investigating agency to furnish
grant the petition to provide free public access the copies of the report along with the relevant
to chargesheets and final reports. Option D is documents to be relied upon by the prosecution
incorrect because the court did not find that only to the accused. Therefore, the accused is entitled
certified copies of chargesheets and relevant to copies of all documents filed in the court as per
documents could be provided to the accused, but Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Option A is incorrect because the right to the right of citizens to practice any profession or
information does not necessarily grant to carry on any occupation, trade, or business,
unrestricted access to all documents filed in this right is not absolute, and the state may
a criminal case. Option C is incorrect because impose reasonable restrictions on its exercise in
the accused is entitled to copies of documents the interest of the general public under Article
as per Section 173 of the Code of Criminal 19(6). Therefore, if the state government wants
Procedure. Option D is incorrect because Section to impose a restriction on the sale of food and
74 of the Indian Evidence Act only applies to beverages in cinema halls to protect public
public documents, and not all documents filed health, it can do so if the restriction is reasonable
in a criminal case can be classified as public and in the interest of the general public. However,
documents. the state needs to pass a new law to regulate the
35. (b) Explanation: The correct answer is B because the sale of food and beverages in cinema halls as
investigating agency is only required to furnish there is no existing law that addresses this issue.
copies of the report along with the relevant Therefore, option B is the correct answer.
documents to be relied upon by the prosecution
38. (b) Explanation: Article 19(6) of the Indian
to the accused as per Section 173 of the Code
Constitution allows the state to impose
of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the accused
is not entitled to copies of any documents not reasonable restrictions on the right to carry
relied upon by the prosecution. on any occupation, trade or business in the
interests of the general public. The right to carry
Option A is incorrect because the accused is only
on any occupation, trade or business is not an
entitled to copies of the chargesheet and relevant
unfettered right and can be subject to reasonable
documents filed by the investigating agency, and
restrictions by the state in the interests of public
not all documents related to the case. Option C
welfare. Therefore, option B is the correct answer.
is incorrect because the accused is not entitled
to copies of any documents not relied upon by Option A is incorrect because it implies that there
the prosecution. Option D is incorrect because can be no restrictions on the right to carry on
Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act only applies any occupation, trade or business, which is not
to public documents, and not all documents filed true. Option C is incorrect because it implies that
in a criminal case can be classified as public the state can impose any restrictions it deems
documents. necessary, which is not true as the restrictions
must be reasonable and in the interests of the
36. (b) The correct answer is (B) The 1975 Rules do not
contain any rule compelling cinema hall owners general public. Option D is incorrect for the same
to allow movie-goers to bring food or beverages reason as option A.
from outside within the precincts of the theatre. 39. (b) Explanation: While Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian
Explanation: According to the passage, the Constitution guarantees the right to carry on
State Government has framed the 1975 Rules any occupation, trade or business, this right is
to regulate the cinema industry in the state. not absolute and can be subject to reasonable
However, these rules do not contain a provision restrictions by the state or local authorities in
that explicitly prohibits cinema hall owners from the interests of the general public, as per Article
prohibiting movie-goers from carrying food and 19(6). In this case, the local authorities have
beverages from outside. The passage states that denied Ravi permission to open another grocery
absent a statutory regulation that regulates the store in a commercial area, citing an excess of
right to conduct the business of operating a similar stores in the area. This could be seen as
cinema hall, the imposition of such a restraint a reasonable restriction in the interests of the
would affect the legitimate rights of a theatre general public, as it may prevent overcrowding
owner. Therefore, cinema hall owners have the and promote competition among existing stores.
right to determine the various facets of their Therefore, option B is the correct answer. Option
business in accordance with the law. A and C are incorrect as they imply an absolute
37. (b) The state government can impose reasonable right to carry on any occupation, trade or
restrictions on the sale of food and beverages in business without any restrictions, which is not
cinema halls in the interest of the general public true. Option D is incorrect as it suggests that the
under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. local authorities cannot impose any restrictions
Explanation: The passage explains that while on Ravi’s right to carry on any occupation, trade
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution recognizes or business in a commercial area, which is not
true.

40. (d) The individuals can challenge the law in court the motive of the accused. Therefore Option A is
as it is arbitrary and violative of the right to correct
freedom of speech and expression guaranteed 44. (b) The court will ask the prosecution to prove
under Article 19(1)(a). that the accused had the same knowledge and
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution intent as he would have had if he had not been
guarantees the right to freedom of speech and intoxicated. Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code
expression to all citizens. However, this right is states that if an act is not an offense unless done
not absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be with a particular knowledge or intent, a person
imposed on it in the interests of the sovereignty who does the act in a state of intoxication shall
and integrity of India, the security of the State, be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same
friendly relations with foreign States, public knowledge and intent as he would have had
order, decency or morality, or in relation to if he had not been intoxicated. Therefore, the
contempt of court, defamation or incitement to court will ask the prosecution to prove that the
an offence. accused had the same knowledge and intent to
In the given scenario, the government has commit murder as he would have had if he had
passed a law that prohibits the publication of not been intoxicated.
any news or information that may damage the 45. (b) The burden of proof is on the accused to prove
reputation of the government or any business that he was suffering from unsoundness of mind
entity. Such a law would be a clear violation of at the time of the crime. Section 84 of the Indian
the right to freedom of speech and expression Penal Code states that “nothing is an offence
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) as it restricts which is done by a person who, at the time of
the publication of truthful information that is in doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is
the public interest. The government cannot claim incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or
that the law is in the interests of public order or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary
decency as these grounds are not applicable to to law.” Therefore, if an accused claims that he
the present case. was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the
time of the crime, the burden of proof is on him
Therefore, the individuals can challenge the law
to prove that he was incapable of knowing the
in court as it is arbitrary and violative of the right
nature of the act or that he was doing what is
to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed
either wrong or contrary to law.
under Article 19(1)(a). The court may strike
down the law if it is found to be unconstitutional 46. (d) A permanent ban on liquor sale in a particular
and violative of fundamental rights. district would be contrary to the principles under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as per the
41. (c) The burden to prove that the accused did not
recent observation of the Bombay High Court.
know the nature of his act or that he was doing
The court noted that imposing a prohibitory ban
something wrong or contrary to law due to
for a long period on merchant establishments
unsoundness of mind lies with the accused
and establishments which provide livelihood is
in this case according to Section 105 of the contrary to principles under Article 21 of the
Evidence Act. The accused must prove that he Constitution. The Directive Principles of State
was incapable of knowing the consequences of Policy in the Constitution of India also state
his actions due to unsoundness of mind. that the state shall endeavor to bring about
42. (b) The accused will be held liable as if he had the prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating
same knowledge as he would have had if he had drinks and drugs, but they are not justiciable
not been intoxicated according to Section 86 rights.
of the Indian Penal Code. Intoxication is not a Option A: A state government imposing a ban
defense to a criminal charge, and the accused will on liquor sale for a month in a particular district
be held responsible for his actions as if he had due to rising cases of alcoholism and health
the same knowledge and intent as he would have concerns would not be contrary to the principles
had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as
thing which intoxicated him was administered long as the ban is not permanent and is imposed
to him without his knowledge or against his will. for a reasonable period. The Directive Principles
43. (a) As per the passage absence of motive can be of State Policy in the Constitution of India state
a ground to reject the prosecution case. In the that the state shall endeavor to bring about
present case the prosecution is not able to prove prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating

drinks and drugs, but they are not justiciable right to freedom of religion and are not relevant
rights. to the restaurant owners’ petition.
Option B: A local body imposing a ban on liquor 49. (a) Explanation: In options B, C, and D, the ban is
sale in a particular area during a religious festival, imposed with the objective of improving public
which is celebrated by a majority of people in health, safety, and public order , respectively.
that area, would not be contrary to the principles However, in option A, the ban on vehicles may
under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as impact the livelihood of people who depend on
long as the ban is not permanent and is imposed transportation services, and may not necessarily
for a reasonable period. Dry days are observed be a proportionate response to the issue of
in various states on major religious festivals/ pollution. Hence, it may be contrary to Article 21
occasions and national holidays such as Republic of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the
Day, Independence Day, and Gandhi Jayanti. right to life and livelihood.
Option C: A state government imposing a ban 50. (b) Strike down the ban as it violates the fundamental
on liquor sale for a week in a particular district rights of the bar owners.
during an election, citing security concerns
Explanation: The ban on the sale of alcohol, even
and maintaining law and order, would not
for a limited period of time, cannot be imposed
necessarily be contrary to the principles under
arbitrarily by the government. The association of
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. However,
bar owners has challenged the ban, citing that
the recent observation of the Bombay High Court
it violates their fundamental rights. Therefore,
noted that a prohibitory ban for a long period on
the court should strike down the ban as it
merchant establishments and establishments
goes against the principles of Article 21 of the
which provide livelihood is contrary to principles
Constitution. The other options are not the
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore,
correct course of action as they either support
the ban should not be imposed for a longer
the violation of fundamental rights or do not
period than necessary.
provide a solution to the issue at hand.
Overall, Option D is the correct option because
51. (d) Explanation: As per Section 8(1) of the Hindu
a permanent ban on liquor sale would violate
the principles under Article 21 of the Indian Minority and Guardianship Act, a guardian can in
Constitution, as per the recent observation no case bind the minor by a personal covenant.
of the Bombay High Court. The other options Therefore, option D is false as it contradicts the
could be permissible, as long as the bans are not given law. The other options are true based on
permanent and are imposed for a reasonable the given passage.
period. 52. (c) The correct answer is C) Both Rohit and Rahul
47. (b) Explanation: Option B is the correct option have an equal right to their father’s self-acquired
because a permanent ban on the sale of alcohol property.
would violate the principles under Article 21 The given passage does not provide any indication
of the Indian Constitution,. The other options that the contributions made by the sons towards
are incorrect because a permanent ban on the the maintenance and renovation of the property
sale of alcohol is not a justiciable right under affect their rights to their father’s self-acquired
the Directive Principles of State Policy in the property. It is stated that the property was self-
Constitution of India, and the state government acquired by their father, which means that it was
can only impose a temporary ban for a reasonable not inherited by him from his ancestors. In such
period. cases, according to the Hindu Succession Act, all
48. (a) Explanation: Option A is the correct option legal heirs of the deceased have an equal right
as Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution to the self-acquired property, regardless of their
provides the right to freedom of occupation, contributions towards it. Therefore, both Rohit
trade or business, which includes the right to and Rahul have an equal right to their father’s
carry on the business of selling alcohol. The self-acquired property.
restaurant owners can challenge the ban on the 53. (b) Reasoning: As per the passage given above, when
grounds that it violates their fundamental right a son relinquishes his right to the self-acquired
to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g). Option B property of the father, the principle of estoppel is
is incorrect because Article 21 deals with the applied, and the son or his representative cannot
right to life and personal liberty and may not later deny the truth of that thing in the court of
be directly applicable in this scenario. Options law. The passage also clarifies that the rights
C and D are also incorrect as they deal with the would not devolve on the son’s successors whose

father was estopped to inherit the property in of estoppel is applied, and the father is free to
view of the relinquishment. deal with the property without being haunted
Option A is incorrect as per the Indian law, as by any claims from him or his successors. In this
a son can relinquish his right to the property case, the Release Deed was used to exclude the
during the lifetime of his father. successors of the son from the first marriage
based on the intention of the father to deny any
Option C is also incorrect as per the principle of
right of the son in regard to the property.
estoppel, as a son or his representative cannot
later deny the truth of the relinquishment in the 55. (c) Ravi can only sell the property if the sale is for the
court of law. benefit of the minor.
Option D is incorrect, as the relinquishment of Explanation: As per Section 8(1) of the Hindu
a son’s right to the property has a legal effect as Minority and Guardianship Act, the natural
per the Indian law. guardian of a Hindu minor has power to do all
acts which are necessary or reasonable and
Therefor, B is the correct answer
proper for the benefit of the minor or for the
54. (b) The release deed can be used to exclude the realization, protection, or benefit of the minor’s
successors of the person who executed it. The estate; but the guardian can in no case bind
Supreme Court in the above passage ruled that the minor by a personal covenant. In the given
when a son relinquishes the right to the self- scenario, Ravi can only sell the property if it for
acquired property of the father, then the principle the benefit of the minor.

M E N T O R S
SHIVANI SOLANKI ISRAA RAIS

(LEGAL REASONING)
(LEGAL REASONING)
> 2+ years of Teaching Experience
in CLAT > 3+ Years of Teaching Experience
in Judicial Services Examinations
> A Practicing Advocate (2+ Years)
> B.A LL.B./LL.M. (Constitutional
> LLB/LLM/Cleared UGC-NET (2022) Law)
SOUMYA GUPTA PRAMOD YADAV

(CURRENT AFFAIRS) (QUANTITATIVE TECHNIQUES)
> 4+ years of Teaching Experience > 6+ years of Teaching Experience
in CDS, NDA in Government Exams
> SSC, NEET and other competitive > B.S.C. in Mathematics
exams
JUHI NARULA
(ENGLISH & LOGICAL REASONING)
> 12+ years of Teaching Experience
in CAT/GMAT/GRE/SAT
> MHRM, B.Tech

Legal Compendium

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Legal Compendium

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

LIVE LECTURES

DAILY PRACTICE PROBLEMS WITH

MOCK TEST SERIES

2024 EDITORIALS QUIZZES

SAVE BIG on LAW CLAT ACHIEVERS 2024 enrolment

Enjoy a discount of FLAT 500 off with COUPON CODE CLAT500

4 LEGAL MONTHLY January 2023 www.pw.live

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 5

2 SC on Freedom of Speech of Ministers

reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2). The

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 7

3 SC expands ambit of Article 19 and 21

Why in News? Majority Opinion

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 9

10 LEGAL MONTHLY January 2023 www.pw.live

4 Kerala HC on Right to strike

 The Trade Union Act, 1926, was the first legislation to

5 Kerala HC on ART Act

the jurisdiction of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 13

 Article 29 (1) is a fundamental right enshrined in

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 15

7 Chargesheet is not a Public Document

Why in News? How is a Chargesheet Different from an FIR?

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 17

“Burden To Prove Mental Incapacity

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 19

When A Person Has Relinquished Rights

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 21

Cinema Theatres Can Prohibit Viewers From

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 23

11 Bombay HC on Liquor Ban

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 25

26 LEGAL MONTHLY January 2023 www.pw.live

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 27

28 LEGAL MONTHLY January 2023 www.pw.live

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 29

30 LEGAL MONTHLY January 2023 www.pw.live

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 31

32 LEGAL MONTHLY January 2023 www.pw.live

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 33

34 LEGAL MONTHLY January 2023 www.pw.live

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 35

36 LEGAL MONTHLY January 2023 www.pw.live

A X is liable because he caused the Dog unnecessary pain and suffering

A Providing the dog with proper food, water, and shelter.

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 37

38 LEGAL MONTHLY January 2023 www.pw.live

A The accused is entitled to copies of all documents related to the case.

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 39

40 LEGAL MONTHLY January 2023 www.pw.live

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 41

42 LEGAL MONTHLY January 2023 www.pw.live

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 43

44 LEGAL MONTHLY January 2023 www.pw.live

A Article 19(1)(g) - Right to Freedom of Occupation, Trade or Business

B Article 21 - Right to Life and Personal Liberty

C Article 25 - Right to Freedom of Religion

D Article 26 - Right to Manage Religious Affairs

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 45

51 Which of the following statements is FALSE based on the given passage?

46 LEGAL MONTHLY January 2023 www.pw.live

www.pw.live January 2023 LEGAL MONTHLY 47

48 LEGAL MONTHLY January 2023 www.pw.live

The Trade Union Act, 1926, was the first legislation to

Article 29 (1) is a fundamental right enshrined in