Comprehension
To every State whose land territory is at any place washed by the sea, international law attaches a corresponding portion of maritime territory. International law does not say to a State: “You are entitled to claim territorial waters if you want them.” No maritime State can refuse them. International law imposes upon a maritime State certain obligations and confers upon it certain rights arising out of the sovereignty which it exercises over its maritime territory.
The possession of this territory is not optional, not dependent upon the will of the State, but compulsory. In the ninth edition of Oppenheim's International Law, the nationality of ships in the high seas has been referred to in paragraph 287, wherein it has been observed that the legal order on the high seas is based primarily on the rule of International Law which requires every vessel sailing the high seas to possess the nationality of, and to fly the flag of, one State, whereby a vessel and persons on board the vessel are subjected to the law of the State of the flag and in general subject to its exclusive jurisdiction.
In paragraph 291 of the aforesaid discourse, the learned author has defined the scope of flag jurisdiction to mean that jurisdiction in the high seas is dependent upon the Maritime Flag under which vessels sail, because no State can extend its territorial jurisdiction to the high seas. Of course, the aforesaid principle is subject to the right of “hot pursuit”, which is an exception to the exclusiveness of the flag jurisdiction over ships on the high seas in certain special cases.
The possession of this territory is not optional, not dependent upon the will of the State, but compulsory. In the ninth edition of Oppenheim's International Law, the nationality of ships in the high seas has been referred to in paragraph 287, wherein it has been observed that the legal order on the high seas is based primarily on the rule of International Law which requires every vessel sailing the high seas to possess the nationality of, and to fly the flag of, one State, whereby a vessel and persons on board the vessel are subjected to the law of the State of the flag and in general subject to its exclusive jurisdiction.
In paragraph 291 of the aforesaid discourse, the learned author has defined the scope of flag jurisdiction to mean that jurisdiction in the high seas is dependent upon the Maritime Flag under which vessels sail, because no State can extend its territorial jurisdiction to the high seas. Of course, the aforesaid principle is subject to the right of “hot pursuit”, which is an exception to the exclusiveness of the flag jurisdiction over ships on the high seas in certain special cases.
Question: 1
A Coastal State, subject to the obligations imposed by International Law, has sovereignty over its:
A Coastal State, subject to the obligations imposed by International Law, has sovereignty over its:
Show Hint
Territorial sovereignty of a coastal State extends not just over waters, but also the seabed, subsoil, and airspace — similar to sovereignty over land territory.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Territorial waters, the seabed and subsoil underlying such waters, and the air space above them.
- Territorial waters, the seabed and subsoil underlying such waters.
- Territorial waters only.
- Territorial waters and the air space above them.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Sovereignty over maritime zones.
According to international law, particularly as codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a coastal State exercises full sovereignty over its territorial waters, the seabed and subsoil beneath such waters, and the air space above. This sovereignty is similar to that exercised over its land territory.
Step 2: Scope of rights and obligations.
This sovereignty is subject to obligations imposed by international law, including innocent passage rights of foreign vessels. However, within this 12 nautical mile zone from the baseline, the State’s authority is supreme over the water column, the seabed and subsoil, and the airspace above.
Step 3: Elimination of wrong options.
- (B) excludes air space, which is incorrect as airspace sovereignty is also recognised.
- (C) excludes seabed, subsoil, and air space, hence incomplete.
- (D) excludes seabed and subsoil, which is part of the sovereign rights.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
According to international law, particularly as codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a coastal State exercises full sovereignty over its territorial waters, the seabed and subsoil beneath such waters, and the air space above. This sovereignty is similar to that exercised over its land territory.
Step 2: Scope of rights and obligations.
This sovereignty is subject to obligations imposed by international law, including innocent passage rights of foreign vessels. However, within this 12 nautical mile zone from the baseline, the State’s authority is supreme over the water column, the seabed and subsoil, and the airspace above.
Step 3: Elimination of wrong options.
- (B) excludes air space, which is incorrect as airspace sovereignty is also recognised.
- (C) excludes seabed, subsoil, and air space, hence incomplete.
- (D) excludes seabed and subsoil, which is part of the sovereign rights.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
Which provision of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) makes an express declaration that: ``No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.''?
Which provision of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) makes an express declaration that: ``No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.''?
Show Hint
High seas are part of the “global commons” — UNCLOS Article 89 ensures no State can claim them as its territory.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Article 86
- Article 87
- Article 88
- Article 89
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding the high seas principle.
Under UNCLOS, the high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or landlocked, and no State may claim sovereignty over any part of them. This principle ensures freedom of navigation, overflight, laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses.
Step 2: Relevant Article.
Article 89 of UNCLOS clearly declares: “No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.”
Step 3: Elimination of options.
- (A) Article 86 defines the scope of the high seas provisions but does not contain the prohibition.
- (B) Article 87 details the freedoms of the high seas but not the sovereignty prohibition.
- (C) Article 88 reserves the high seas for peaceful purposes but is not the relevant provision here.
- (D) Article 89 specifically addresses the sovereignty prohibition.
\[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]
Under UNCLOS, the high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or landlocked, and no State may claim sovereignty over any part of them. This principle ensures freedom of navigation, overflight, laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses.
Step 2: Relevant Article.
Article 89 of UNCLOS clearly declares: “No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.”
Step 3: Elimination of options.
- (A) Article 86 defines the scope of the high seas provisions but does not contain the prohibition.
- (B) Article 87 details the freedoms of the high seas but not the sovereignty prohibition.
- (C) Article 88 reserves the high seas for peaceful purposes but is not the relevant provision here.
- (D) Article 89 specifically addresses the sovereignty prohibition.
\[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
According to Article 94(7) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS), in the event of a marine casualty or incident of navigation on the high seas involving a ship flying a State’s flag and causing loss of life or serious injury to nationals of another State, which of the following shall be the duty of the Flag State?
According to Article 94(7) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS), in the event of a marine casualty or incident of navigation on the high seas involving a ship flying a State’s flag and causing loss of life or serious injury to nationals of another State, which of the following shall be the duty of the Flag State?
Show Hint
For Art. 94(7), look for the keyword “cause an inquiry to be held” — that’s the flag-State’s specific duty after serious high-seas casualties.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- To conform to generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices and to take any steps which may be necessary to mitigate the damage so caused.
- To cause an inquiry to be held by or before suitably qualified person(s) into such casualty or incident.
- To investigate the matter and, if appropriate, take any action necessary to remedy the situation.
- To assume jurisdiction under its internal law over such casualty or incident in respect of its administrative, technical and social implications.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Identify the precise obligation in Art. 94(7).
UNCLOS Article 94 sets out flag-State duties. Clause (7) specifically mandates that, where a serious marine casualty on the high seas involves a ship flying a State’s flag and results in loss of life or serious injury to nationals of another State, the flag State shall cause an inquiry to be held by or before suitably qualified persons.
Step 2: Distinguish from broader/other duties.
While Articles 94(1)–(6) speak of general compliance with international regulations and effective jurisdiction/control, clause (7) pinpoints the investigative duty via a formal inquiry before qualified persons.
Step 3: Eliminate distractors.
(A) General compliance duty — not the specific Art. 94(7) obligation.
(C) Vague “investigate/take action” — lacks the formal inquiry requirement.
(D) Internal-law jurisdiction reference — broader administrative aspects, not the mandated inquiry.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]
UNCLOS Article 94 sets out flag-State duties. Clause (7) specifically mandates that, where a serious marine casualty on the high seas involves a ship flying a State’s flag and results in loss of life or serious injury to nationals of another State, the flag State shall cause an inquiry to be held by or before suitably qualified persons.
Step 2: Distinguish from broader/other duties.
While Articles 94(1)–(6) speak of general compliance with international regulations and effective jurisdiction/control, clause (7) pinpoints the investigative duty via a formal inquiry before qualified persons.
Step 3: Eliminate distractors.
(A) General compliance duty — not the specific Art. 94(7) obligation.
(C) Vague “investigate/take action” — lacks the formal inquiry requirement.
(D) Internal-law jurisdiction reference — broader administrative aspects, not the mandated inquiry.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
Territorial waters are not only ‘territory’ but also a compulsory _________ to the coastal state.
Territorial waters are not only ‘territory’ but also a compulsory _________ to the coastal state.
Show Hint
Think of territorial waters as the automatic maritime extension of land territory — in legal terms, an appurtenance.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Liability
- Equitable interest
- Appurtenance
- Trust
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Meaning of “appurtenance”.
In public international law, an appurtenance is something that naturally and inseparably attaches to the principal thing. Territorial waters are treated as a necessary extension of a coastal State’s land territory.
Step 2: Why compulsory.
International law (as reflected in UNCLOS and classic writers) treats territorial sea as inherent and compulsory to maritime States — not optional or dependent on a claim — carrying both rights (sovereignty) and obligations (e.g., innocent passage).
Step 3: Eliminate distractors.
(A) Liability = responsibility, not an attachment to territory.
(B) Equitable interest = private-law proprietary notion, inapt here.
(D) Trust = fiduciary concept, not the status of territorial waters.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]
In public international law, an appurtenance is something that naturally and inseparably attaches to the principal thing. Territorial waters are treated as a necessary extension of a coastal State’s land territory.
Step 2: Why compulsory.
International law (as reflected in UNCLOS and classic writers) treats territorial sea as inherent and compulsory to maritime States — not optional or dependent on a claim — carrying both rights (sovereignty) and obligations (e.g., innocent passage).
Step 3: Eliminate distractors.
(A) Liability = responsibility, not an attachment to territory.
(B) Equitable interest = private-law proprietary notion, inapt here.
(D) Trust = fiduciary concept, not the status of territorial waters.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
The right of ‘hot pursuit’, which has been codified in Article 111 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) recognises that:
The right of ‘hot pursuit’, which has been codified in Article 111 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) recognises that:
Show Hint
“Hot pursuit” ends where another State’s sovereignty begins — it’s only valid on the high seas or international waters.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- A vessel, if it has committed a violation of the laws of a foreign State while in that State’s sovereign or territorial waters, may be pursued onto the high seas.
- A vessel, if it has committed a violation of the provisions of the UNCLOS while in that State’s sovereign or territorial waters, may be pursued onto the high seas.
- A vessel, if it has committed a violation of the laws of a foreign State while in that State’s sovereign or territorial waters, may be pursued onto the foreign State’s sovereign or territorial waters.
- A vessel, if it has committed a violation of the laws of a foreign State while in that State’s sovereign or territorial waters, may be pursued onto a third State’s sovereign or territorial waters.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding “Hot Pursuit” in UNCLOS.
Article 111 UNCLOS codifies the right of “hot pursuit” — it allows a coastal State to pursue and arrest a foreign vessel beyond its territorial sea if that vessel has violated the State’s laws or regulations within internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea, or contiguous zone.
Step 2: Conditions for hot pursuit.
- Pursuit must begin when the vessel is within the internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea, or contiguous zone of the pursuing State.
- The pursuit must be continuous and uninterrupted.
- It ends when the pursued vessel enters the territorial waters of its own State or a third State.
Step 3: Applying to options.
(A) Matches Article 111 — violation within the coastal State’s waters allows pursuit onto the high seas.
(B) Incorrect — references UNCLOS provisions in general, not the specific law violation requirement.
(C) Incorrect — pursuit cannot continue into another State’s sovereign waters.
(D) Incorrect — Article 111 does not permit pursuit into a third State’s waters.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
Article 111 UNCLOS codifies the right of “hot pursuit” — it allows a coastal State to pursue and arrest a foreign vessel beyond its territorial sea if that vessel has violated the State’s laws or regulations within internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea, or contiguous zone.
Step 2: Conditions for hot pursuit.
- Pursuit must begin when the vessel is within the internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea, or contiguous zone of the pursuing State.
- The pursuit must be continuous and uninterrupted.
- It ends when the pursued vessel enters the territorial waters of its own State or a third State.
Step 3: Applying to options.
(A) Matches Article 111 — violation within the coastal State’s waters allows pursuit onto the high seas.
(B) Incorrect — references UNCLOS provisions in general, not the specific law violation requirement.
(C) Incorrect — pursuit cannot continue into another State’s sovereign waters.
(D) Incorrect — Article 111 does not permit pursuit into a third State’s waters.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 6
In which of the following judgments, the Supreme Court of India has opined that “sovereignty is not ‘given’, but it is only asserted”?
In which of the following judgments, the Supreme Court of India has opined that “sovereignty is not ‘given’, but it is only asserted”?
Show Hint
The Enrica Lexie case is key to understanding India’s jurisdictional reach in maritime zones under UNCLOS.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- State of Tamil Nadu v. Mariya Anton Vijay, (2015) 9 SCC 294.
- Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 3 SCC 354.
- Republic of Italy through Ambassador v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 721.
- Sabeeha Faikage v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 262.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Context of the case.
This landmark case arose from the Enrica Lexie incident (2012), where two Indian fishermen were killed by Italian marines off the coast of Kerala. The jurisdictional dispute centred on whether India could try the marines under its laws, given the incident took place in the contiguous zone.
Step 2: The Supreme Court’s observation.
In its judgment, the Court stated: “Sovereignty is not ‘given’, it is asserted”, underscoring that India’s assertion of jurisdiction over the contiguous zone and EEZ stems from international law rights (UNCLOS) and domestic legislation (Maritime Zones Act).
Step 3: Eliminating other options.
(A) Mariya Anton Vijay — deals with arrest warrants in foreign waters.
(B) Great Eastern Shipping — deals with tax and maritime trade jurisdiction.
(D) Sabeeha Faikage — concerns passport and citizenship issues.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]
This landmark case arose from the Enrica Lexie incident (2012), where two Indian fishermen were killed by Italian marines off the coast of Kerala. The jurisdictional dispute centred on whether India could try the marines under its laws, given the incident took place in the contiguous zone.
Step 2: The Supreme Court’s observation.
In its judgment, the Court stated: “Sovereignty is not ‘given’, it is asserted”, underscoring that India’s assertion of jurisdiction over the contiguous zone and EEZ stems from international law rights (UNCLOS) and domestic legislation (Maritime Zones Act).
Step 3: Eliminating other options.
(A) Mariya Anton Vijay — deals with arrest warrants in foreign waters.
(B) Great Eastern Shipping — deals with tax and maritime trade jurisdiction.
(D) Sabeeha Faikage — concerns passport and citizenship issues.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on International Law
- The countries of Novara and Elderia are in a dispute over the construction of a dam on the river Nelara – with Elderia bringing the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Novara argues that past ICJ rulings in similar cases should guide the decision, while Elderia insists on a fresh interpretation of the law. Analyze how Articles 59, 38 and 38(1) of the Statute of ICJ would influence the court’s decision-making in this case.
- CBSE CLASS XII - 2025
- Legal Studies
- International Law
- A nation engages in human rights violations within its own borders, including acts of genocide against a specific ethnic group. Under erga omnes obligations, what are the legal responsibilities of the international community, even if there is no direct threat to neighbouring states?
- CBSE CLASS XII - 2025
- Legal Studies
- International Law
- Statement 1: Opinio juris prevents unwanted general practice from becoming customary law.
Statement 2: Opinio juris is the belief that an action was carried out as a legal obligation.
Choose the correct option:
- CBSE CLASS XII - 2025
- Legal Studies
- International Law
- In a landmark case, the Supreme Court was handling a highly technical environmental dispute involving multiple stakeholders and scientific complexities. Given the intricate details of environmental policies and scientific evidence, the Court appointed an amicus curiae, an expert in environmental law and science, to assist by providing impartial information and insights on the matter. The amicus curiae made recommendations based on international standards, which helped the Court in reaching its final decision.
Based on the concept of amicus curiae, which of the following statements is correct?
- CBSE CLASS XII - 2025
- Legal Studies
- International Law
- Which of the following principles confers nationality on the basis of blood/lineage?
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- International Law
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