Comprehension
In taking this view, Justice Rajagopala Ayyangar, speaking for a majority of five judges, relied upon the judgment of Justice Frankfurter, speaking for the US Supreme Court in Wolf v Colorado, which held:
“The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police … is basic to a free society… We have no hesitation in saying that were a State affirmatively to sanction such police incursion into privacy it would run counter to the guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
While the Court observed that the Indian Constitution does not contain a guarantee similar to the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, it proceeded to hold that:
“Nevertheless, these extracts would show that an unauthorised intrusion into a person‘s home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right of a man an ultimate essential of ordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilisation. An English Common Law maxim asserts that ―every man‘s house is his castle‖ and in Semayne case [5 Coke 91: 1 Sm LC (13th Edn) 104 at p. 105] where this was applied, it was stated that ―the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress as well as for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose‖. We are not unmindful of the fact that Semayne case [(1604) 5 Coke 91: 1 Sm LC (13th Edn) 104 at p. 105] was concerned with the law relating to executions in England, but the passage extracted has a validity quite apart from the context of the particular decision. It embodies an abiding principle which transcends mere protection of property rights and expounds a concept of ―personal liberty‖ which does not rest on any element of feudalism or on any theory of freedom which has ceased to be of value.”
Source: Excerpt taken from the Judgment delivered by a 9 Judge bench of the Supreme Court in 2017 and authored by Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud. J.
“The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police … is basic to a free society… We have no hesitation in saying that were a State affirmatively to sanction such police incursion into privacy it would run counter to the guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
While the Court observed that the Indian Constitution does not contain a guarantee similar to the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, it proceeded to hold that:
“Nevertheless, these extracts would show that an unauthorised intrusion into a person‘s home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right of a man an ultimate essential of ordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilisation. An English Common Law maxim asserts that ―every man‘s house is his castle‖ and in Semayne case [5 Coke 91: 1 Sm LC (13th Edn) 104 at p. 105] where this was applied, it was stated that ―the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress as well as for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose‖. We are not unmindful of the fact that Semayne case [(1604) 5 Coke 91: 1 Sm LC (13th Edn) 104 at p. 105] was concerned with the law relating to executions in England, but the passage extracted has a validity quite apart from the context of the particular decision. It embodies an abiding principle which transcends mere protection of property rights and expounds a concept of ―personal liberty‖ which does not rest on any element of feudalism or on any theory of freedom which has ceased to be of value.”
Source: Excerpt taken from the Judgment delivered by a 9 Judge bench of the Supreme Court in 2017 and authored by Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud. J.
Question: 1
The above passage is from which of the following judgments?
The above passage is from which of the following judgments?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- The above passage is from which of the following judgments?
- Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 1 SCC 10.
- Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
- Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 10.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The correct Option is (C):Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India,(2017) 10 SCC 1.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
Which of the following is directly related with the central idea of the passage mentioned above?
Which of the following is directly related with the central idea of the passage mentioned above?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- Right to Privacy of an individual, being part of the Right to Life.
- The extent and scope of the ‗ordered liberty‘ as a tenet of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution
- Right to Life of an individual apart from mere animal existence.
- All of the above
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The correct Option is (D):All of the above
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
The above passage mentions, "Every man‟s house is his castle."Who amongst the following has stated this quote in the Semayne‘s Case?
The above passage mentions, "Every man‟s house is his castle."Who amongst the following has stated this quote in the Semayne‘s Case?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- Justice Rowland.
- Justice Holmes.
- Lord Justice A.W. Semens.
- Justice Blackburn
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The correct Option is (B):Justice Holmes.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
The above passage mentions, Every man‟s house is his castle.Who amongst the following has stated this quote in the Semayne‘s Case?
The above passage mentions, Every man‟s house is his castle.Who amongst the following has stated this quote in the Semayne‘s Case?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- harak Singh v. State of U.P.
- M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
- Rustom Cavasji Cooper v. Union of India
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The correct Option is (A):harak Singh v. State of U.P.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
Which of the following is not an interpretation of the Right to Privacy as explained by the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy judgment?
Which of the following is not an interpretation of the Right to Privacy as explained by the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy judgment?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- The destruction by the State of a sanctified personal space, of body and mind is violative of the guarantee against arbitrary state action
- The intersection between one‘s mental integrity and privacy entitles the individual to the freedom of self-determination.
- The privacy of an individual recognises an inviolable right to determine how freedom shall be exercised.
- The guarantee of privacy is a guarantee against the arbitrary State action
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The correct Option is (C):The privacy of an individual recognises an inviolable right to determine how freedom shall be exercised.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 6
Which of the following is true in relation to the scope of the newly evolved ‗Right to Privacy‘?
Which of the following is true in relation to the scope of the newly evolved ‗Right to Privacy‘?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- The Right to Privacy cannot be denied, even if there is a miniscule fraction of the population which is affected.
- The majoritarian concept applies to the Constitutional Rights and the Courts must adhere to the majoritarian view.
- One‘s sexual orientation is undoubtedly not an attribute of privacy.
- Right to Privacy is an unrestricted and inviolable right, outside the fetters of any State action.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The correct Option is (A):The Right to Privacy cannot be denied, even if there is a miniscule fraction of the population which is affected.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 7
In which of the following cases the Supreme Court held that, “Sexual orientation is an attribute of privacy. Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected on an even platform. The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the coreof the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.”
In which of the following cases the Supreme Court held that, “Sexual orientation is an attribute of privacy. Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected on an even platform. The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the coreof the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.”
Updated On: Jul 19, 2024
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India.
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India.
- NALSA v. Union of India
- Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Fundation.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The correct Option is (A):Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 8
Speaking for four of the nine judges, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, observes, “Individually, these information silos may seem inconsequential. In aggregation, they disclose the nature of the personality; food habits, language, health, hobbies, sexual preferences, friendships, ways of dress and political affiliation.” Which of the following is in context of the above statement?
Speaking for four of the nine judges, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, observes, “Individually, these information silos may seem inconsequential. In aggregation, they disclose the nature of the personality; food habits, language, health, hobbies, sexual preferences, friendships, ways of dress and political affiliation.” Which of the following is in context of the above statement?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- Right to Privacy
- Informational/Data Privacy
- The Aadhaar Act, 2016.
- None of the above.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The correct Option is (B):Informational/Data Privacy
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 9
Which of the following is not a tenet of the term ‗Life‘ under Article 21 of the Constitution?
Which of the following is not a tenet of the term ‗Life‘ under Article 21 of the Constitution?
Updated On: Jul 19, 2024
- Right to Die with Dignity
- Right to Live with Dignity
- Freedom of Sexual Orientation
- Right to Reputation
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The correct Option is (D):Right to Reputation
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 10
Recently, it has been reported that in Uttar Pradesh more than 50% of the people booked under the National Security Act were involved in cow slaughter. In Puttaswamy, which of the following judges has included food preferences in his judgment?
Recently, it has been reported that in Uttar Pradesh more than 50% of the people booked under the National Security Act were involved in cow slaughter. In Puttaswamy, which of the following judges has included food preferences in his judgment?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
- Justice Dipak Misra
- Justice R. F. Nariman
- Justice Jasti Chelameshwar
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The correct Option is (D):Justice Jasti Chelameshwar
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Constitutional Laws
- Which Constitutional Amendment Act introduced the concept of consequential seniority in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
- Which of the following cases held that a constitutional authority cannot do indirectly what it is not permitted to do directly, specifically in the context of repromulgation of ordinances, and considered this practice as a fraud on the Constitution?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
- Under the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, which of the following persons who have to file or defend a case is entitled to legal services under the Act?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
- In which of the following cases, talaq-e-biddat was declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
- Which constitutional authority is allowed to empower any other court (except the Supreme Court) to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers (to issue directions or orders or writs) exercisable by the Supreme Court under Article 32?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
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
- 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
- Live-in relationship, as such, as already indicated, is a relationship which has not been socially accepted in India, unlike many other countries. In Lata Singh v. State of U.P. [(2006) 5 SCC 475: (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 478] it was observed that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterosexual sex does not amount to any offence even though it may be perceived as immoral. However, in order to provide a remedy in civil law for protection of women, from being victims of such relationship, and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society, first time in India, the DV Act has been enacted to cover the couple having relationship in the nature of marriage, persons related by consanguinity, marriages, etc. We have few other legislations also where reliefs have been provided to woman placed in certain vulnerable situations. Section 125 Cr.P.C. of course, provides for maintenance of a destitute wife and Section 498-A IPC is related to mental cruelty inflicted on women by her husband and in-laws. Section 304-B IPC deals with the cases relating to dowry death. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was enacted to deal with the cases of dowry demands by the husband and family members. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides for grant of maintenance to a legally wedded Hindu wife, and also deals with rules for adoption. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 refers to the provisions dealing with solemnisation of marriage also deals with the provisions for divorce. For the first time, though, the DV Act, Parliament has recognised a “relationship in the nature of marriage” and not a live-in relationship simpliciter. We have already stated, when we examine whether a relationship will fall within the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” within the meaning of Section 2(f ) of the DV Act, we should have a close analysis of the entire relationship invariably, it may be a question of fact and degree, whether a relationship between two unrelated persons of the opposite sex meets the tests judicially evolved.
(This extract is taken from Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Family Laws
- The environmental rule of law, at a certain level, is a facet of the concept of the rule of law. But it includes specific features that are unique to environmental governance, features which are sui generis. The environmental rule of law seeks to create essential tools such as conceptual, procedural and institutional, to bring structure to the discourse on environmental protection. It does so to enhance our understanding of environmental challenges of how they have been shaped by humanity’s interface with nature in the past, how they continue to be affected by its engagement with nature in the present and the prospects for the future, if we were not to radically alter the course of destruction which humanity’s actions have charted.
The environmental rule of law seeks to facilitate a multi-disciplinary analysis of the nature and consequences of carbon footprints and in doing so it brings a shared understanding between science, regulatory decisions and policy perspectives in the field of environmental protection. It recognises that the “law” element in the environmental rule of law does not make the concept peculiarly the preserve of Lawyers and Judges. On the contrary, it seeks to draw within the fold all stakeholders in formulating strategies to deal with current challenges posed by environmental degradation, climate change and the destruction of habitats. The environmental rule of law seeks a unified understanding of these concepts. There are significant linkages between concepts such as sustainable development, the polluter pays principle etc. The universe of nature is indivisible and integrated. The state of the environment in one part of the earth affects and is fundamentally affected by what occurs in another part. Every element of the environment shares a symbiotic relationship with the others. It is this inseparable bond and connect which the environmental rule of law seeks to explore and understand in order to find solutions to the pressing problems which threaten the existence of humanity. The environmental rule of law is founded on the need to understand the consequences of our actions going beyond local, State and national boundaries. The rise in the oceans threatens not just maritime communities. The rise in temperatures, dilution of glaciers and growing desertification have consequences which go beyond the communities and creatures whose habitats are threatened. They affect the future survival of the entire eco-system. The environmental rule of law attempts to weave an understanding of the connections in the natural environment which make the issue of survival a unified challenge which confronts human societies everywhere.
(Extract from Pragnesh Shah v. Arunkumar Sharma (2022) 11 SCC 493 )- CLAT PG - 2025
- Environmental Law
View More Questions