Comprehension
A thought-provoking book titled The Morality of Law by Lon L. Fuller on moral philosophy insists on a distinction between “morality of aspiration” and “morality of duty”. From the view of the morality of aspiration, human conduct does not bear on mandatory rules but on conceptions of the “Good Life”, of “what beseems a human being functioning at his best to human capacities”. Because no law can compel a man to live up to the excellence of which he is capable. But for workable standards of judgment, the morality of duty lays down the basic rules without which an ordered society directed towards certain specific goals must fail of its mark.
Because the duty ties it very closely to what is “rationally discoverable” and “objective”, as contrasted with the morality of aspiration based on subjectivism. However, moralists may differ as to what range of conduct should fall within the respective spheres of duty and the morality of aspirations. “When we are passing a judgment of moral duty, it seems absurd to say that such a duty can in some way flow directly from knowledge of a situation of fact.” Due to the fact that before we conclude “that a duty ought to exist”, however well we may understand the facts, by the close connection between understanding a person's ideals, approval and disapproval, it is clear that duties are not purely matters of preference.
Does this mean that duties are rationally discoverable, and a matter of choice, even if not of “ineffable preference”? Presumably not, since when we pass a moral judgment of duty, it “ought” to exist. It is necessary to distinguish between the accepted morality of a social group and the personal morality of individuals. “Duty” may appear in all of these, but the satisfaction is very often a matter of degree varying from situation to situation.
The rule of a morality of duty is necessary for social living. The morality of aspiration provides a general idea of the perfection we ought to acquire. If we consider the whole range of moral issues, we may imagine a yardstick which begins at the bottom with the most obvious demands of social living and extends upward to the highest reaches of human aspirations. Somewhere along this scale an invisible pointer marks the dividing line where the pressure of duty leaves off and the challenge of excellence begins.
The whole field of moral argument is an undeclared war over the location of this pointer. Those we regard as being moralistic are always trying to inch the pointer upward so as to expand the area of duty, bludgeoning us into a belief that we are duty bound to embrace this pattern of human conduct, instead of making us realize a pattern of life they consider worthy of human nature.
Because the duty ties it very closely to what is “rationally discoverable” and “objective”, as contrasted with the morality of aspiration based on subjectivism. However, moralists may differ as to what range of conduct should fall within the respective spheres of duty and the morality of aspirations. “When we are passing a judgment of moral duty, it seems absurd to say that such a duty can in some way flow directly from knowledge of a situation of fact.” Due to the fact that before we conclude “that a duty ought to exist”, however well we may understand the facts, by the close connection between understanding a person's ideals, approval and disapproval, it is clear that duties are not purely matters of preference.
Does this mean that duties are rationally discoverable, and a matter of choice, even if not of “ineffable preference”? Presumably not, since when we pass a moral judgment of duty, it “ought” to exist. It is necessary to distinguish between the accepted morality of a social group and the personal morality of individuals. “Duty” may appear in all of these, but the satisfaction is very often a matter of degree varying from situation to situation.
The rule of a morality of duty is necessary for social living. The morality of aspiration provides a general idea of the perfection we ought to acquire. If we consider the whole range of moral issues, we may imagine a yardstick which begins at the bottom with the most obvious demands of social living and extends upward to the highest reaches of human aspirations. Somewhere along this scale an invisible pointer marks the dividing line where the pressure of duty leaves off and the challenge of excellence begins.
The whole field of moral argument is an undeclared war over the location of this pointer. Those we regard as being moralistic are always trying to inch the pointer upward so as to expand the area of duty, bludgeoning us into a belief that we are duty bound to embrace this pattern of human conduct, instead of making us realize a pattern of life they consider worthy of human nature.
Question: 1
Which of the following statements regarding the ‘morality of aspiration’ is untrue?
Which of the following statements regarding the ‘morality of aspiration’ is untrue?
Show Hint
Remember: Morality of Duty = minimum standards for society; Morality of Aspiration = striving for human excellence.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- The morality of aspiration is based on inevitable rules for ordered social living.
- The morality of aspiration impulses towards perfection and excellence.
- The law cannot regulate the morality of aspiration because it is subjective in nature.
- The law cannot compel a man to adhere to the best of his human capabilities.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding “morality of aspiration”.
According to Lon L. Fuller, the morality of aspiration is not about mandatory rules but about ideals — the “good life” and striving towards human excellence. It is aspirational, subjective, and not enforceable by law.
Step 2: Why option (A) is incorrect.
“Inevitable rules for ordered social living” refers to the morality of duty, not the morality of aspiration. The morality of aspiration is about perfection and ideals, not basic mandatory social rules.
Step 3: Verifying other options.
- (B) True — aspiration aims at perfection and excellence.
- (C) True — it is subjective, hence beyond law’s regulation.
- (D) True — law cannot compel excellence.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
According to Lon L. Fuller, the morality of aspiration is not about mandatory rules but about ideals — the “good life” and striving towards human excellence. It is aspirational, subjective, and not enforceable by law.
Step 2: Why option (A) is incorrect.
“Inevitable rules for ordered social living” refers to the morality of duty, not the morality of aspiration. The morality of aspiration is about perfection and ideals, not basic mandatory social rules.
Step 3: Verifying other options.
- (B) True — aspiration aims at perfection and excellence.
- (C) True — it is subjective, hence beyond law’s regulation.
- (D) True — law cannot compel excellence.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
The rules for morality of duty command:
The rules for morality of duty command:
Show Hint
Morality of Duty is about the bare minimum to keep society functioning — it is the legal “floor” of moral obligation.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- To conduct best to human capacity.
- To conduct necessary for self-survival.
- To conduct equally as others’ conduct.
- To conduct necessary for social living.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding “morality of duty”.
Fuller describes the morality of duty as the basic minimum rules without which an ordered society cannot function. These are enforceable and form the foundation for social living.
Step 2: Matching with the options.
- (A) Best to human capacity → morality of aspiration, not duty.
- (B) Self-survival → too narrow, not the societal focus.
- (C) Equal conduct → fairness-related but not the core definition.
- (D) Necessary for social living → matches Fuller’s definition exactly.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Therefore, morality of duty lays down the rules essential for maintaining social order.
\[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]
Fuller describes the morality of duty as the basic minimum rules without which an ordered society cannot function. These are enforceable and form the foundation for social living.
Step 2: Matching with the options.
- (A) Best to human capacity → morality of aspiration, not duty.
- (B) Self-survival → too narrow, not the societal focus.
- (C) Equal conduct → fairness-related but not the core definition.
- (D) Necessary for social living → matches Fuller’s definition exactly.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Therefore, morality of duty lays down the rules essential for maintaining social order.
\[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
Consider the statements:
(I) The moralistic philosophy always strives to encroach into the area of morality of aspiration to bring it as duty for the social living.
(II) The moralistic philosophers compel us to embrace the pattern of human conduct, instead of making us realize a pattern of life that is worthy of human nature.
Choose the correct answer from the code given below.
Consider the statements:
(I) The moralistic philosophy always strives to encroach into the area of morality of aspiration to bring it as duty for the social living.
(II) The moralistic philosophers compel us to embrace the pattern of human conduct, instead of making us realize a pattern of life that is worthy of human nature.
Choose the correct answer from the code given below.
(II) The moralistic philosophers compel us to embrace the pattern of human conduct, instead of making us realize a pattern of life that is worthy of human nature.
Choose the correct answer from the code given below.
Show Hint
Fuller warns against forcing ideals of excellence into the legal sphere of enforceable duties.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Both (I) and (II) are true.
- Both (I) and (II) are untrue.
- (I) is true and (II) is untrue.
- (II) is true and (I) is untrue.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Linking with Fuller’s theory.
Fuller’s discussion in The Morality of Law describes “moralistic philosophy” as attempting to expand the sphere of duty into areas traditionally left for aspiration. It seeks to impose certain patterns of conduct as obligations.
Step 2: Verifying statement (I).
This matches Fuller’s observation that moralists try to shift the “pointer” upward, converting aspirational goals into obligatory duties.
Step 3: Verifying statement (II).
Also correct — moralists compel people to follow a conduct pattern they deem ideal, rather than letting individuals pursue excellence freely.
Step 4: Conclusion.
Both statements reflect Fuller’s critique accurately.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
Fuller’s discussion in The Morality of Law describes “moralistic philosophy” as attempting to expand the sphere of duty into areas traditionally left for aspiration. It seeks to impose certain patterns of conduct as obligations.
Step 2: Verifying statement (I).
This matches Fuller’s observation that moralists try to shift the “pointer” upward, converting aspirational goals into obligatory duties.
Step 3: Verifying statement (II).
Also correct — moralists compel people to follow a conduct pattern they deem ideal, rather than letting individuals pursue excellence freely.
Step 4: Conclusion.
Both statements reflect Fuller’s critique accurately.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
Which of the following element is not required for the formation of decision regarding a moral duty?
Which of the following element is not required for the formation of decision regarding a moral duty?
Show Hint
Moral duties require objective and rational judgment, not personal subjective views.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Rationality
- Objectivity
- Subjectivity
- Knowledge regarding the circumstances
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Decision-making for moral duty.
Fuller’s concept of moral duty is rooted in rational, objective standards, grounded in facts and social requirements.
Step 2: Eliminating options.
- Rationality: Needed to assess obligations logically.
- Objectivity: Ensures fairness and universality.
- Knowledge of circumstances: Necessary for applying duty to specific cases.
Step 3: Why subjectivity is excluded.
Subjectivity is associated with personal preference and aspiration, not enforceable duty.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]
Fuller’s concept of moral duty is rooted in rational, objective standards, grounded in facts and social requirements.
Step 2: Eliminating options.
- Rationality: Needed to assess obligations logically.
- Objectivity: Ensures fairness and universality.
- Knowledge of circumstances: Necessary for applying duty to specific cases.
Step 3: Why subjectivity is excluded.
Subjectivity is associated with personal preference and aspiration, not enforceable duty.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
The concept of duty as characterised by Lon L. Fuller seems:
The concept of duty as characterised by Lon L. Fuller seems:
Show Hint
Fuller’s “duty” is adaptable — it changes as society’s moral expectations evolve.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Dynamic
- Static
- Personal
- Fictional
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Fuller’s approach to duty.
Duty evolves with social needs and moral expectations; it is not fixed. The dividing line between duty and aspiration can shift over time.
Step 2: Why dynamic fits.
Since the “pointer” between duty and aspiration can move, duty changes in response to societal developments.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
Duty evolves with social needs and moral expectations; it is not fixed. The dividing line between duty and aspiration can shift over time.
Step 2: Why dynamic fits.
Since the “pointer” between duty and aspiration can move, duty changes in response to societal developments.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 6
Which of the following statements is not true?
Which of the following statements is not true?
Show Hint
“Morality of Duty” = compulsory minimum standards; “Morality of Aspiration” = voluntary pursuit of excellence.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- ‘Morality of duty’ is non-obligatory.
- ‘Morality of duty’ is obligatory.
- Rules of ‘morality of aspiration’ are a challenge to human conduct.
- Human excellence is the end of ‘morality of aspiration’.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding the false statement.
Morality of duty is by definition obligatory — it sets minimum conduct standards required for social order. Calling it “non-obligatory” is incorrect.
Step 2: Checking other statements.
- (B) Correct — morality of duty is indeed obligatory.
- (C) Correct — aspiration challenges human conduct towards excellence.
- (D) Correct — human excellence is the ultimate aim of aspiration.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
Morality of duty is by definition obligatory — it sets minimum conduct standards required for social order. Calling it “non-obligatory” is incorrect.
Step 2: Checking other statements.
- (B) Correct — morality of duty is indeed obligatory.
- (C) Correct — aspiration challenges human conduct towards excellence.
- (D) Correct — human excellence is the ultimate aim of aspiration.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Jurisprudence
- Match List-I with List-II\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Provision} & \textbf{Case Law} \\ \hline \text{(A) Strict Liability} & \text{(1) Ryland v. Fletcher} \\ \hline \text{(B) Absolute Liability} & \text{(II) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India} \\ \hline \text{(C) Negligence} & \text{(III) Nicholas v. Marsland} \\ \hline \text{(D) Act of God} & \text{(IV) MCD v. Subhagwanti} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Jurisprudence
- Eugen Ehrlich in his theory includes the following: (A) Law is to be found in Social Facts
(B) Living Law is the fact that governs social life
(C) If statute is not observed in practice, it is not part of living law
(D) The task of law is 'social engineering' Choose the correct answer from the options given below:- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Jurisprudence
- "Legal theory is science, not volition. It is knowledge of what the law is, not of what the law ought to be." It was said by:
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Jurisprudence
- Match List-I with List-II\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{List-1} & \textbf{List-II} \\ \hline \text{(A) Complete Justice} & \text{(I) Article 137} \\ \hline \text{(B) Special Leave Petition} & \text{(II) Article 131} \\ \hline \text{(C) Review of the Judgments} & \text{(III) Article 142} \\ \hline \text{(D) Original Jurisdiction} & \text{(IV) Article 136} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Jurisprudence
- The solidary obligation imposes ___________ liability in law.
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Jurisprudence
View More Questions
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu’ 2008(3) Apex Court Judgements 232 (SC), while granting the custody to the maternal grandparents observed: In our judgement, the law relating to custody of a child is fairly well settled and it is this. In deciding a difficult and complex question as to custody of minor, a Court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a humane problem in live in relationship and is required to be solved with human touch. A Court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the Court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, may bound, to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable consideration. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgement, the Court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the Court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal’-(2009)1 SCC 42, while giving paramount importance to the welfare of the child, which should include moral and ethical values, besides ethical well-being, observed as under:
When the court is confronted with conflicting demands made by the parents, each time it has to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues. The Court then does not give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor. As observed recently in Mausami Moitra Ganguli case, the Court has to give due weightage to the child’s ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings, but over and above physical comforts, the moral and ethical values have also to be noted. They are equal if not more important than the others.
(Extracts from Jaswinder Singh and Another vs Surjit Singh, AIR 2010 (NOC) 425 (P. & H.))- CLAT PG - 2025
- Family Laws
- The Companies Act, 2013 does not deal with insolvency and bankruptcy when the companies are unable to pay their debts or the aspects relating to the revival and rehabilitation of the companies and their winding up if revival and rehabilitation is not possible. In principle, it cannot be doubted that the cases of revival or winding up of the company on the ground of insolvency and inability to pay debts are different from cases where companies are wound up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013. The two situations are not identical. Under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013, even a running and financially sound company can also be wound up for the reasons in clauses (a) to (e). The reasons and grounds for winding up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 are vastly different from the reasons and grounds for the revival and rehabilitation scheme as envisaged under the IBC. The two enactments deal with two distinct situations and in our opinion, they cannot be equated when we examine whether there is discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the revival and rehabilitation of the companies, certain sacrifices are required from all quarters, including the workmen. In case of insolvent companies, for the sake of survival and regeneration, everyone, including the secured creditors and the Central and State Government, are required to make sacrifices. The workmen also have a stake and benefit from the revival of the company, and therefore unless it is found that the sacrifices envisaged for the workmen, which certainly form a separate class, are onerous and burdensome so as to be manifestly unjust and arbitrary, we will not set aside the legislation,solely on the ground that some or marginal sacrifice is to be made by the workers. We would also reject the argument that to find out whether there was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or whether the right to life under Article 21 Constitution of India was infringed, we must word by word examine the waterfall mechanism envisaged under the Companies Act, 2013, where the company is wound up in terms of grounds (a) to (e) of Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013; and the rights of the workmen when the insolvent company is sought to be revived, rehabilitated or wound up under the Code. The grounds and situations in the context of the objective and purpose of the two enactments are entirely different.
(Extracted, with edits and revision, from the judgement in Moser Baer Karamchari Union Thr. President Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Union of India and Ors, 2023 SCC Online SC 547)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Company Law
- Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) speaking for himself and Punchhi, J., endorsed the recommendations in the following words-The time is ripe for taking stock of the working of the various Tribunals set up in the country after the insertion of Articles 323-A and 323-B in the Constitution. After the incorporation of these two articles, Acts have been enacted where-under tribunals have been constituted for dispensation of justice. Sufficient time has passed, and experience gained in these last few years for taking stock of the situation with a view to finding out if they have served the purpose and objectives for which they were constituted. Complaints have been heard in regard to the functioning of other tribunals as well and it is time that a body like the Law Commission of India has a comprehensive look-in with a view to suggesting measures for their improved functioning. That body can also suggest changes in the different statutes and evolve a model on the basis whereof tribunals may be constituted or reconstituted with a view to ensuring greater independence. An intensive and extensive study needs to be undertaken by the Law Commission in regard to the Constitution of tribunals under various statutes with a view to ensuring their independence so that the public confidence in such tribunals may increase and the quality of their performance may improve.
Before parting with the case, it is necessary to express our anguish over the ineffectiveness of the alternative mechanism devised for judicial review. The judicial review and remedy are the fundamental rights of the citizens. The dispensation of justice by the tribunal is much to be desired.
(Extracted with Edits from R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 119)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
- The elements of tort of negligence consist in – (a) duty of care; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty has been carelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unless the exacts a duty in the given circumstances to observe care. Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whether duty exists in a particular situation involves determination of law. Hence, three ingredients are necessary for the existence of a duty of care: (i) foreseeability of the damage, (ii) proximity of relationship between the parties; and (iii) whether it is “just, fair and reasonable” that the law should impose a duty of care. In Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman, 1990 2AC 605, the court held that breach of duty is concerned with the standard of care that ought to have been adopted in the circumstances and whether the defendant’s conduct fell below that standard i.e., whether he was careless.
The court while quoting Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997 stated that as a tort, negligence consists of legal duty to take care and breach of that duty. Duty determines whether the type of loss suffered by the plaintiff in the particular way in which to occurred can ever be actionable. The division of negligence into duty, breach and consequent damage is convenient for the purpose of exposition but it can be confusing because the issues will often overlap. The process of determining a breach of duty involves three steps: First, it is necessary to ascertain the qualities of the reasonable person, given the qualities attributed to him, would have taken in the circumstances. The factors that are permissible to take into account in this regard are prescribed by law, but the amount of care that the reasonable person would have taken is a question of fact. Thirdly, it must be determined whether the defendant took less care than the reasonable person would have taken.
(Extracts from Managing Director, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Deepti Singh and Ors., 2019 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Law of Torts
- Article 14 of the Constitution stipulates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 15(1) states that the State should not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 15(4) stipulates that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Clause (1) of Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Clause (2) stipulates that no citizen shall be discriminated in or be ineligible for any employment or office under the State on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Clause (4) of the provision states that nothing in Article 16 shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens, which in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The purpose of the equal opportunity principle in Article 16(1) and the reservation provision in Article 16(4) has emerged as a focal point of the jurisprudence on reservations in this Court. A discussion of the journey of the competing models of equality that the Court has espoused and their evolution over the course of the years is necessary to understand the constitutional vision on equality.
The impugned constitutional amendments by which Article 16 (4-A) and 16 (4-B) have been inserted, flow from Article 16 (4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16 (4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons which enables the State to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the state administration under article 335. Sub-categorization within a class is a constitutional requirement to secure substantive equality in the event that there is a distinction between two sections of a class; Sub-classification must not lead to the exclusion of one of the categories in the class. A model that provides sufficient opportunities to all categories of the class must be adopted; and Sub-classification among a class must be on a reasonable basis.
Justice Bela Trivedi opined, in dissent, that presidential list of scheduled castes notified under Article 341 cannot be altered by the States. Any change to this list can only be made by a law enacted by Parliament. Sub-classification, according to her would amount to tampering with the Presidential List and undermine the object Article 341, which aims to eliminate political influence in the SC-ST List. Further, she emphasised the importance of adhering to the rule of plain and literal interpretation. She mentions that any preferential treatment for a sub-class within the presidential list would deprive other classes within the same category of their benefits. In the absence of executive or legislative power, state lack the competence to sub-classify castes and the benefit reserved for all SCs. Allowing states to do so would constitute a colourable exercise of power, which is impermissible under law. Justice Trivedi concluded by affirming that affirmative action by States must remain within constitutional boundaries and held that the law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah case was correct and should be upheld.
(Extract from The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. 2024 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
View More Questions