Comprehension
The Supreme Court of India observed that, while appreciating the existence of the right to peaceful protest against a legislation ..., we have to make it unequivocally clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent must be in designated places alone.
The present case was not even one of protests taking place in an undesignated area but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters. We cannot accept the plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest.
The present case was not even one of protests taking place in an undesignated area but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters. We cannot accept the plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest.
Question: 1
Which of the following judgments relating to right to peaceful protest has the above excerpt been taken from?
Which of the following judgments relating to right to peaceful protest has the above excerpt been taken from?
Show Hint
Right to protest is subject to reasonable restrictions — blocking public ways indefinitely is unconstitutional.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 648.
- Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 266.
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637.
- Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 439.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding the excerpt.
The excerpt discusses the right to peaceful protest but with restrictions — protests cannot indefinitely occupy public ways or cause prolonged inconvenience to the public.
Step 2: Link to the judgment.
This reasoning comes from the Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh) judgment, where the Supreme Court held that while peaceful protest is constitutional, it must be in designated places and cannot block public roads indefinitely.
Step 3: Eliminating other options.
- (A) M.C. Mehta: Environmental law.
- (B) ADR: Electoral reforms.
- (C) Anuradha Bhasin: Internet shutdown and press freedom in J&K.
\[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]
The excerpt discusses the right to peaceful protest but with restrictions — protests cannot indefinitely occupy public ways or cause prolonged inconvenience to the public.
Step 2: Link to the judgment.
This reasoning comes from the Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh) judgment, where the Supreme Court held that while peaceful protest is constitutional, it must be in designated places and cannot block public roads indefinitely.
Step 3: Eliminating other options.
- (A) M.C. Mehta: Environmental law.
- (B) ADR: Electoral reforms.
- (C) Anuradha Bhasin: Internet shutdown and press freedom in J&K.
\[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
Which of the following judgments is not related to right to assemble as enshrined under the Constitution of India?
Which of the following judgments is not related to right to assemble as enshrined under the Constitution of India?
Show Hint
When identifying unrelated cases, focus on the constitutional provision at issue — here Article 19(1)(b).
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324.
- Sampurna Behura v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 433.
- Bimal Gurung v. Union of India, (2018) 15 SCC 480.
- Anita Thakur v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2016) 15 SCC 525.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Identifying the subject matter.
The right to assemble peacefully is under Article 19(1)(b). Cases (A), (C), and (D) deal with protest rights and state restrictions on assembly.
Step 2: Why (B) is unrelated.
Sampurna Behura relates to juvenile justice and child protection mechanisms, not the right to assembly.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]
The right to assemble peacefully is under Article 19(1)(b). Cases (A), (C), and (D) deal with protest rights and state restrictions on assembly.
Step 2: Why (B) is unrelated.
Sampurna Behura relates to juvenile justice and child protection mechanisms, not the right to assembly.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
As per the judgment of In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident, (2012) 5 SCC 1, which of the following statement is not correct?
As per the judgment of In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident, (2012) 5 SCC 1, which of the following statement is not correct?
Show Hint
Article 21’s “right to life” covers all essential aspects of dignified living — including the right to sleep.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Right to sleep is not a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- An individual is entitled to sleep as comfortably and as freely as he breathes.
- Sleep, is a fundamental and basic requirement without which the existence of life would be in peril.
- State’s compelling interest in regulation of subject was discussed in this case.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Core holding of the case.
The Supreme Court in In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident held that the right to sleep is a part of the right to life under Article 21.
Step 2: Why (A) is incorrect.
Contrary to option (A), the Court recognised that sleep is essential for human existence and dignity, and therefore constitutionally protected.
Step 3: Validity of other options.
- (B) and (C) restate the Court’s findings.
- (D) is correct — the Court discussed state interest in regulating assemblies while balancing rights.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
The Supreme Court in In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident held that the right to sleep is a part of the right to life under Article 21.
Step 2: Why (A) is incorrect.
Contrary to option (A), the Court recognised that sleep is essential for human existence and dignity, and therefore constitutionally protected.
Step 3: Validity of other options.
- (B) and (C) restate the Court’s findings.
- (D) is correct — the Court discussed state interest in regulating assemblies while balancing rights.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
Which of the following statement is not correct in relation to right to assemble under the Constitution of India?
Which of the following statement is not correct in relation to right to assemble under the Constitution of India?
Show Hint
For Article 19(1)(b), remember: peaceable + without arms; restrictions only on sovereignty & integrity and public order under 19(3)—not morality/decency.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- The assembly should be peaceful.
- Reasonable restrictions stated under Article 19 for right to assemble are sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, morality.
- The assembly should be without arms.
- Reasonable restrictions on right to assemble are provided in Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Recall the constitutional text.
Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Article 19(3) permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order. ⇒ No reference to “morality” in Article 19(3).
Step 2: Test each option.
(A) Matches the phrase “peaceably” in Article 19(1)(b) ⇒ correct.
(B) Adds “morality” as a restriction ground. “Decency or morality” appears in Article 19(2) (speech), not in 19(3) ⇒ incorrect.
(C) Matches the phrase “without arms” in Article 19(1)(b) ⇒ correct.
(D) Correctly identifies Article 19(3) as the restriction clause ⇒ correct.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]
Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Article 19(3) permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order. ⇒ No reference to “morality” in Article 19(3).
Step 2: Test each option.
(A) Matches the phrase “peaceably” in Article 19(1)(b) ⇒ correct.
(B) Adds “morality” as a restriction ground. “Decency or morality” appears in Article 19(2) (speech), not in 19(3) ⇒ incorrect.
(C) Matches the phrase “without arms” in Article 19(1)(b) ⇒ correct.
(D) Correctly identifies Article 19(3) as the restriction clause ⇒ correct.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
The rule prohibiting demonstrations by government servants was discussed in which of the following judgments?
The rule prohibiting demonstrations by government servants was discussed in which of the following judgments?
Show Hint
Kameshwar Prasad = peaceful demonstration by gov’t servants protected (subject to reasonable limits); no absolute ban; no fundamental right to strike.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Union of India v. Naveen Jindal, (2004) 2 SCC 510.
- Ram Bahadur Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1975 SC 223.
- Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166.
- Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Identify the case and issue.
Kameshwar Prasad examined Rule 4-A of the Bihar Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956, which absolutely prohibited “any form of demonstration” by government servants.
Step 2: Holding in brief.
The Supreme Court held an absolute ban on peaceful demonstrations violates Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) (speech and assembly). The Court distinguished peaceful demonstrations from strikes and clarified that there is no fundamental right to strike for government servants, but peaceful demonstrations cannot be totally banned.
Step 3: Eliminate distractors.
(A) concerns the right to fly the national flag; (B) is a later Bihar case; (D) concerns press freedom and newsprint control—none address the specific government servants’ demonstrations rule like Kameshwar Prasad.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]
Kameshwar Prasad examined Rule 4-A of the Bihar Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956, which absolutely prohibited “any form of demonstration” by government servants.
Step 2: Holding in brief.
The Supreme Court held an absolute ban on peaceful demonstrations violates Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) (speech and assembly). The Court distinguished peaceful demonstrations from strikes and clarified that there is no fundamental right to strike for government servants, but peaceful demonstrations cannot be totally banned.
Step 3: Eliminate distractors.
(A) concerns the right to fly the national flag; (B) is a later Bihar case; (D) concerns press freedom and newsprint control—none address the specific government servants’ demonstrations rule like Kameshwar Prasad.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 6
Which of the following judges of the Supreme Court of India were part of the Bench in the judgment as given in the excerpt?
Which of the following judges of the Supreme Court of India were part of the Bench in the judgment as given in the excerpt?
Show Hint
For the “Shaheen Bagh” ruling: remember the trio—Kaul, Bose, Murari.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Indira Banerjee, JJ.
- Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ.
- Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ.
- Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Krishna Murari, JJ.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Identify the case from the excerpt.
The passage (designated places for protests; blocking public way is impermissible) is from \textbf{Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (Shaheen Bagh), (2020) 10 SCC 439}.
Step 2: Bench composition.
The case was decided by a three-judge bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (author), Justice Aniruddha Bose, and Justice Krishna Murari.
Step 3: Eliminate distractors.
(A) wrongly includes Justice Indira Banerjee; (B) omits Justice Kaul; (D) omits Justice Bose. Only (C) matches the actual bench.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]
The passage (designated places for protests; blocking public way is impermissible) is from \textbf{Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (Shaheen Bagh), (2020) 10 SCC 439}.
Step 2: Bench composition.
The case was decided by a three-judge bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (author), Justice Aniruddha Bose, and Justice Krishna Murari.
Step 3: Eliminate distractors.
(A) wrongly includes Justice Indira Banerjee; (B) omits Justice Kaul; (D) omits Justice Bose. Only (C) matches the actual bench.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Constitutional Laws
- Which article of the Indian Constitution abolishes untouchability?
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- Mass Communication and Journalism
- Constitutional Laws
- Which part of the Indian Constitution deals with the Fundamental Rights?
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- Mass Communication and Journalism
- Constitutional Laws
- During which period was the 'Meri Mati Mera Desh' programme held?
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- Mass Communication and Journalism
- Constitutional Laws
Match List-I with List-II
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Constitutional Laws
- Identify the descending order in which the following sources of International law are mentioned in Article 38 (1) of the statute of International Court of Justice: (A) Judicial Decisions
(B) General Principles of International Law
(C) Treaties
(D) International Customs Choose the correct answer from the options given below:- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- 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