CLATutor Legal Reasoning 1


INDEX

Part: 1

1. Set 1 4 - 8

2. Set 2 9 - 12

3. Set 3 13 - 18

4. Set 4 19 - 23

5. Set 5 24 - 28

6. Set 6 29 - 32

Part II

7. Torts I 33 - 38

8. Torts II 39 - 44

9. Criminal Law I 45 - 49

10. Criminal Law II 50 - 54

11. Contract I 55 - 58

12. Contract II 59 - 62

13. Constitutional I 63 - 69

14. Constitutional II 70 - 73


Set 1

1. Chidambaram’s tryst with the Enforcement Directorate The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted regular bail to former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, who is facing money laundering charges levelled against him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the INX Media case, thus paving the way for his release from jail after a period of 106 days. A Bench of Justices R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy reminded the ED that though economic offences are grave, bail is still the rule and jail the exception. “Basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial,” Justice Bopanna, for the Bench, observed in his judgment.

The court’s bail conditions include the furnishing of bail bonds of ₹2 lakh with two sureties subject to satisfaction of the special judge hearing the case. Mr. Chidambaram’s passport would remain confiscated and he would not be able to leave the country without permission. He would make himself available for interrogation. He would not give any press interviews or make public statements on the case. Further, he would not intimidate any case witnesses. “Even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provide so,” Justice Bopanna held that “each case for bail has to be weighed according to its individual circumstances, the court said. Courts cannot blindly follow any uniform precedent while dealing with bail applications in economic offence cases.”

Justice Bopanna pointed out that Mr. Chidambaram was in custody of the ED for over 45 days and he was available for questioning. The ED had objected to the bail, arguing that they still wanted him for extensive questioning in connection with money laundering. The court rejected the ED claim that Mr. Chidamabram would tamper with evidence and intimidate witnesses. The judgment reasoned that Mr. Chidambaram neither enjoys political power nor holds any government post. It said Mr. Chidambaram cannot be blamed if a witness had refused to cooperate as there was no evidence of coercion. [Extracted from: Krishnadas Rajagopal, “Supreme Court grants bail to Chidambaram in INX Media money laundering case”,

1. In July, 2019, Vishwanath was named as the new Chief

Secretary of the Government of Karnataka. Unfortunately for Vishwanath, the Enforcement Directorate registered a complaint and arrested him in a disproportionate assets case 2 months after his appointment. Indeed Vishwanath had disproportionate assets. The reason for the same however was a secret investment in Panchkukla Thermal Power Production Pvt. Ltd. that only Vishwanath knew

about. The documents certifying such investment were kept in a locker buried deep inside in his ancestral land in Salakhedi, Madhya Pradesh and only Vishwanath could go and take them out. Vishwanath’s counsel appeared before the trial court praying for him to be granted bail.

(a) Vishwanath should not be granted bail for he has

committed a grave offence that deeply affects the roots of the society.

(b) Vishwanath should be granted bail for his opportunity to a fair trial would otherwise be affected.

(c) Vishwanath should not be granted bail for the courts granted Chidambaram bail only after 106 days in a case containing similar facts.

(d) Vishwanath should be granted bail for bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

2. Please refer to the conditions put forth by the court to grant

bail to Mr. Chidambaram. Which of the following options most closely reflects the objective behind putting such bail conditions?

(a) Allowing Mr. Chidambaram to stay out of jail and manage his personal affairs

(b) Preventing spreading of misinformation about a case which has made news headlines.

(c) Ensuring smooth flow of police investigation and trial in the matter.

(d) There is no specific purpose. Whatever satisfies the judge is put forth as a condition.

3. A bail application was filed before the Karnataka High

Court seeking bail of a corporator accused of murder. He was alleged to have threatened witnesses prior to his arrest. The judge however, granted him bail on the ground that he is showing remorse. Assuming the bail application is being reheard before you, what would your decision be:

(a) Grant bail to the corporator for bail is the rule and jail is

the exception. (b) Refuse to grant bail to the corporator for he has

committed a grave offence of murder. (c) Grant bail to the corporator for he is showing remorse and

punishing would be unjust. (d) Refuse to grant bail to the corporator for he enjoys much

political clout in Bangalore. 4. In the situation mentioned above, which of the following

factors would affect the manner in which you would arrive at a decision?

(a) A precedent laid down by the Delhi High Court which granted bail to a person placed in a similar situation.

(b) The Granting of Bails Act, 2018 enacted by the Parliament of India last year.

(c) Both A and B


(d) I would grant bail in all cases applying appropriate conditions.

5. Please read the following scenarios carefully. Which of the

individuals is most likely to be granted bail? Please assume that the rules for granting bail in economic offences apply to the following cases as well.

(a) Umesh Reddy, accused of 13 murders who belongs to a minority community in Andhra Pradesh. Reddy is not mentally keeping well and has developed psychosis from the brutal torture committed on him by the police in his past 100 days of custody which is the main ground for his counsel seeking bail.

(b) Ayushmann Khurana, a resident of Sadashivnagar, Bangalore and a member of the Bharatiya Rashtriya Dal (the current ruling party in BBMP) who has been accused of brutally beating up a man of the rival political party in a drunken brawl at The Humming Tree, Indiranagar.

(c) Walter Brown, a lower level employee at IBM who resides in Vijaynagar with his wife and a son. Brown has been accused of hacking into a bank’s server and stealing information. Post arrest, Brown is scared and has withdrawn himself from public life.

(d) All of them are equally likely to be granted bail. 2. The Ever Puzzling Adjournment In an interesting order, Justice Rajiv Narain Raina of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court adjourned a Civil Revision on Petitioner's counsel's pleading that the court was in a bad mood and he would like to argue the case on some other day. The order dated February 4 discloses that Justice Raina dismissed four urgent cases listed before him that day, one after the other. This led to the Petitioner's counsel, Advocate KS Sidhu, assuming that the court was not in the right mood to allow his case.

"Counsel assuming that mood of the Court is bad this morning dismissing the first four urgent cases one after the other with orders dictated in Court, prays that time may be granted to him to argue the case on some other day. I grant permission for an adjournment but not without saying that those cases were not worth admission," the order read.

The rules for adjournments are listed under Order XVII of the CPC. Rule 1 thereunder clearly stipulates that the Court may grant an adjournment to a party if "sufficient cause" is shown; provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 1 further stipulates that adjournments are to be granted only if the circumstances are "beyond the control" of the party who seeks it. However, these rules may be

applicable only in cases of civil courts and not any other authorities.

6. Anahad Narain was arguing before the NCDRC defending Piramal Healthcare Limited in a tough case. As the judge started grilling him on the nitty-gritties of the matter,

Narain started to find it uncomfortable as there were too many things he did not have answers to. Narain feigned unconsciousness. As he pretended to regain his consciousness, he sought an adjournment citing ill-health from the Chairman of the Commission. To his utter shock, the chairman denied such adjournment. Narain argued that adjournment must be granted for the circumstances were beyond his control. Is the chairman cound by Narain’s argument?

(a) Narain may be granted adjournment for he is not well in the mind of the judge.

(b) Narain may not be granted adjournment for he has feigned unconsciousness.

(c) Narain may be granted adjournment for the case is a tough one and he needs to prepare.

(d) Narain may not be granted adjournment for the CPC does not apply to Commissions and thus they are not bound by the rule of circumstances being “beyond his control”.

7. Please refer to the same facts as above. Assume that the

above-mentioned case was being argued before the Calcutta High Court. Since Narain is now very experienced at falling unconscious and seeking adjournments, he keeps doing it whenever he finds a case difficult to deal with. As expected, this time too, the judge believes him to be genuinely unwell.

(a) Narain may be granted adjournment for he is not well. (b) Narain may not be granted adjournment for he has

feigned unconsciousness. (c) Narain may be granted adjournment for the case is a tough

one and he needs to prepare. (d) Narain may not be granted adjournment for such acts are

against the interest of justice. 8. Please refer to the same facts as in 2.2. Narain is lazy and

keeps procrastinating since the feigning adjournment business has been working for him quite well now. Before the same judge he has taken adjournments on 23/05/2016 and on 5/08/2016. The lawyer for the other side, learning from Narain’s tactics also performs similar courtroom drama in the form of extreme headache and the judge grants him adjournments on 29/08/2016 and 11/09/2016. Narain is again found to be in a tough spot during the final arguments on 30/09/2016 and yet again seeks for adjournment. This time however, Narain is genuinely feeling unwell because of too much partying last night.

(a) Narain may not be granted an adjournment for he’s the reason for such immense delay.

(b) Narain may be granted an adjournment for the circumstances are beyond his control.

(c) Narain may not be granted an adjournment for the matter has been adjourned for more than three times now.

(d) Narain may be granted an adjournment in the interest of justice.


9. Which of the following scenarios would be the most likely to be granted an adjournment by the court?

(a) Devgan was arguing before Justice Amish of the Trivandrum Civil Court. He sought an adjournment on the ground that his junior was sick and there was no one to take care of the junior. Such circumstances were beyond his control and thus fell under the relevant rule.

(b) On 29/04/2019, having argued for almost 2 hours, Goswami stated that his medical condition did not allow him to argue for more than 2 hours before the court and thus sought for an adjournment. He has already sought adjournments on 23/01/2019, 24/02/2019 and 15/03/2019.

(c) Rabish submitted before the court that he wanted to pick his daughter up from school and was thus constrained to seek an adjournment before the court.

(d) None of these would be eligible for an adjournment. 3. Capital Punishment: The just approach? The Indian Penal Code which was in force in many states at

the time when the Constitution was made contained more than one offence punishable with death penalty. Some articles were formulated by the Constitution makers by reference to the death penalty. Article 72 allowed President and Governor to show clemency to convicts sentenced to death penalty. Article 134 provided for appeal to Supreme Court if High Court awarded a convict death penalty after reversing a trial court judgement. But we shall not overlook the reality that the constitution makers could not be expected to go into the various aspects of each punishment provided in the penal statutes which were then in force. When they shaped Article 13 of the Constitution it declared that any law in force at the time when Constitution came into effect which was violative of any of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution is void.

During the first five years after the Constitution was made, death penalty remained as the normal punishment for murder. If a session’s judge was to depart from it, he was bound to set out reasons for not awarding it to a convict for murder. Cr. P.C. was amended in 1973 by which Parliament directed that special reasons shall be shown if the Sessions Judge imposed death penalty on the convicted person. This change was made evidently to give the message that the normal punishment for murder was life and death penalty was only an exception.

The situation was again changed subsequently. This time it was not because of any legislative exercise, but by the pronouncement of the majority judgment by the Supreme Court of India in the Bachan Singh case in the year 1979. There a majority of judges declared that death penalty could be imposed only in “rarest of rare cases in which the alternative sentence of life is unquestionably foreclosed”. Thereafter, that became the law as binding on all courts in India because of Article 141. However, this drastic curtailment of power to impose capital punishment

remained only in paper. The Supreme Court itself began to dilute the rigor of the condition imposed in Bachan Singh case. What is meant by the words “rarest of rare etc. etc.” The judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court used to employ semantics whenever and wherever they wanted to impose death penalty. All that they required to do was to use some superlative degree words such as “brutal, atrocious, etc.” and then say that “I / we hold that this is one of the rarest of rare cases”. It became a matter of luck of an accused, depending vastly on the mind set or philosophy entertained by the individual judges.

10. The constitutionality of death penalty has recently been

challenged by Advocate Wills Matthew before the Supreme Court of India. Mr. Harshil Mehta, Solicitor General of India argues before a 5 judge bench that the death penalty is constitutional for the constitution itself makes reference to the form of punishment. You are the judge.

(a) I would accept the argument for the intention of the makers of the constitution is well reflected in the references to the death penalty in the constitution itself.

(b) I would not accept the argument for constitutionality of death penalty has to be tested only for violation of fundamental rights under Article 13.

(c) I would accept the argument for the death penalty must be constitutional for it serves justice to the perpetrators of brutal crimes.

(d) I would not accept the argument for the death penalty is against public policy.

11. It is the year 1951 and Arjun Reddy has been convicted of murder of Kabir Singh, a farmer who had his agricultural land adjacent to Reddy’s. It is found that Reddy and the deceased got into a dispute regarding the deceased farmer’s encroachment of Reddy’s land. A disagreement turned into a quarrel and enraged Reddy hit Singh on his head with an iron rod. Reddy’s lawyer pleaded provocation and prayed before the judge to reduce Reddy’s sentence.

(a) The judge should sentence Reddy to life imprisonment which is the ordinarily given punishment for murder.

(b) The judge should sentence Reddy to death which is the ordinarily awarded punishment for murder.

(c) The judge should consider provocation as a special reason to not award Reddy, the death sentence.

(d) The judge should consider provocation as a special reason and sentence Reddy to death.

12. Please refer to the facts abovementioned (3.2). In 1977,

Kabir Singh’s son Mussaddilal in order to take revenge for his father’s death killed Arjun Reddy’s son Prabhas. There are no circumstances that may warrant for special reasons to be assigned by the judge.

(a) The judge should award the death penalty to Mussaddilal. There is no requirement of assigning special reasons for the same.


(b) The judge should award life sentence to Mussaddilal. There is no requirement of assigning special reasons for the same.

(c) The judge should award the death penalty to Mussaddilal. He should not have carried out such cold blooded murder.

(d) The judge should award life sentence to Mussaddilal for he was enraged by his father’s murder.

13. Please refer to the facts in 3.2 and 3.3. When Mussaddilal jumped to hit Prabhas on his head with an iron rod, the nimble Prabhas (who happened to be a Naruto fan and always wanted to train to be a ninja) dodged and threw a sickle that he was carrying and Mussaddilal died. Prabhas is now convicted for murder. His counsel pleads that Prabhas acted in self defence which is accepted by the judge as a special reason to reduce his sentence.

(a) Prabhas should be sentenced to death which is the ordinarily given punishment.

(b) Prabhas should be given a reduced sentence of 7 years for he acted in right of self defence.

(c) Prabhas should be sentenced to death on account of existence of special reasons.

(d) None of the above.

14. Which of the following best describes the evolution of the law on death penalty?

(a) The law on death penalty has evolved gradually avoiding arbitrary application.

(b) The law on death penalty has evolved gradually inclining towards making death penalty the rule.

(c) The law on death penalty has evolved gradually inclining towards making death penalty the exception.

(d) None of the above

15. It is the year 1984 and Indira Gandhi, the erstwhile Prime Minister of India has been killed by her Sikh bodyguards Satwant Singh and Beant Singh by shooting bullets in her abdomen. Which of the following is the strongest defence against awarding the death penalty to the convicts?

(a) The convicts were enraged at the Prime Minister for having carried out Operation Blue Star and firing at the Golden Temple in Amritsar.

(b) There are no special reasons for the convicts to be given death penalty for this is an ordinary murder and the profile of the deceased does not matter.

(c) This case is not the rarest of the rare cases and the sentence of life imprisonment is not unquestionably foreclosed.

(d) None of the above. 4. The Busting of the Fatka Theft Racket The Thane Government Railway Police (GRP) arrested four

people on Monday for allegedly running a fatka racket in Thane and are believed to be involved in five incidents in January this year. Of the four who were arrested Hussain

Shah (24) and Danish Sheikh (25) stole mobile phones from train commuters by slapping and distracting them, while Bilal Khan (25) and Mohammad Sayyed (32) sold them, the police said. “Shah and Sheikh had a previous record of committing fatka crimes in the region. We checked our records and located their current whereabouts,” said Smita Dhakne, senior police inspector, Thane GRP station. They have been charged under Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to committing theft by acts that may have resulted in death. Ms. Dhakne said the two are under police custody and being interrogated. Theft under the Indian Penal Code is said to occur whenever any person dishonestly takes any movable property out of the possession of any other person without his consent. Such taking away may not be actual in nature but can also be constructive i.e. taking away from the mental possession of someone. The presence of a dishonest intention however is a very important element that needs to be proved under every circumstance. In the event that such an act of theft leads to death of any individual, the act in addition to being punishable under Section 382, is also punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code that penalizes individuals for murder caused due to negligence.

16. Abhinav Gangotri is a leading businessman. He is the CEO of Gangotri Enterprises which is a leading publishing house. Gangotri is an ardent reader himself and often visits informal discussion groups with his friends wherein his friends discuss the books they have recently read. Gangotri comes to see a friend Yamuna Menon one day. He has always been fascinated by Menon’s love for books. Generally looking through her book shelf, Gangotri finds a book titled “The life of Rohit Patni” and is very fascinated about it. He keeps the book with him for 15 days, reads it and returns the same to Menon; all without her knowing anything about it.

(a) Gangotri must be punished under Section 382 of IPC for the book was taken away without Menon’s consent.

(b) Gangotri must be punished under Section 382 of IPC for a moveable property was taken away.

(c) Gangotri always intended to return the book. He cannot be punished under Section 382 for there is no dishonest intention.

(d) Gangotri must not be punished under Section 382 of the IPC for the book was never moved out of the constructive possession of Menon.

17. Please refer to the fact situation mentioned above. After Gangotri took the book out of Menon’s cabinet without her consent, he accidentally dropped the book on the main road right outside Menon’s bunglaw. Aakriti found the book lying on the road. Being very interested in the life of Rohit Patni, Aakriti took the book to keep it with her.


(a) Aakriti has committed an offence within Section 382 of IPC for she failed to return the book to the local police station.

(b) Aakriti must be punished under Section 382 of IPC for the book never belonged to her in the first place.

(c) Aakriti must not be punished under Section 382 of IPC for it would be against public policy to deny her, the right to education.

(d) Aakriti must not be punished under Section 382 of IPC for she did not take it out of anyone’s possession.

18. Please refer to the fact situation in 4.1. Gangotri kept the book in his pocket with the intent of taking it and making it a part of his own collection.

(a) Gangotri commits an offence under 382, IPC the moment he picked up the book and intended to dishonestly keep it.

(b) Gangotri commits an offence under Section 382 because he has moved the book from Menon’s table without her consent.

(c) Gangotri does not commit an offence under Section 382 because Menon is careless about her valuables.

(d) Gangotri did not commit an offence under Section 382 because he has still not left Menon’s house.

19. Please refer to the fact situation in 4.1. Gangotri with the

intention of taking the book away without Menon’s consent hid it somewhere in her garden. He decided to come later and pick the book up so that he could make it a part of his own collection as it was a very valuable book.

(a) Gangotri is guilty under Section 382 of the IPC as he took away the book from Menon’s possession dishonestly.

(b) Gangotri is not guilty under Section 382 of the IPC as the book was never taken away from Menon’s possession. It was still lying in her garden.

(c) Gangotri is guilty under Section 382 of IPC as he did not inform Menon about the whereabouts of the book.

(d) None of the above

[Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

Set 2 1. The Supreme Court and Citizenship

Questions about a person’s place and date of birth, his parents’ names and their place of birth are meant to ascertain citizenship, the Supreme Court has held. The court, in a 2005 judgment has clearly held that these personal questions are directly associated with “establishing citizenship”. “In order to establish one’s citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth (ii) place of birth (iii) name of his parents (iv) their place of birth and citizenship,”. Moreover, the court explained that these facts figured specially in the context of establishing citizenship because they “would necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not of the authorities of the State”. In case of doubts about a person’s citizenship, the burden of proving that these facts were true was on the person concerned. The government has so far denied any link between the National Population Register (NPR), which is to establish usual residency, and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), meant to establish citizenship. In fact, the NPR takes into account foreign citizens too. However, if the NPR form of 2020 carries these personal questions highlighted in the judgment, apprehensions raised in the public mind that the NPR is a stepping stone for a nationwide NRC become justified. The 2005 judgment came just over a year after the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules of 2003 was notified in December 2003. The Rules clearly linked the NPR and the NRC. Rule 4(3) of the Citizenship Rules states that personal details collected for the ‘Population Register’ would be used in the preparation of the National Register of Indian Citizens. The Citizenship Rules define ‘Population Register’ as a “register containing details of persons usually residing in a village or rural area or town or ward or demarcated within a ward in a town or urban area”.

1. Does the author agree with government’s point that NPR and NRC are not linked. a) Yes, The author believes that government is right when the say that there is no connection between NPR and NRC. b) Yes, author agrees with the government’s point as arguments given by author are contradictory. c) No, the author through judgement and rule is drawing a connection between NPR and NRC. Thus the author does not

agree with government’s opinion. d) Yes because author links NPR and NRC on the basis of forms which are yet to come to create a relation.

2. Due to so much concern about citizenship, NPR and NRC when Rahul went to meet his friend Amit’s house he took all

his documents with him. Siddhu stole all the documents because he wanted to blackmail Rahul. Keeping in mind as per courts judgement, which of the following would be most correct:

(a) Siddhu has the burden of proof to prove that she is not anti-national. (b) Rahul has the burden of proof to prove his citizenship. (c) Rahul need not prove his citizenship because he is born in India, lived in India and will die in India. (d) Amit should prove Rahul’s citizenship because he supports government’s rule for citizenship.

3. Based on the author’s arguments in the passage above, which of the following would be most correct: a) Questions about a person’s place and date of birth, his parents’ names and their place of birth are meant to ascertain

citizenship, the Supreme Court has held. The Rules also clearly linked the NPR and the NRC. b) NPR is the last step towards conducting a nationwide NRC is mentioned in the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and

Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 under the Citizenship Act 1955. c) "some" data collected for the National Population Register (NPR) " may not be used" for the implementation of a nationwide

National Register of Citizens (NRC). d) Author is not concerned about the chronology of events regarding NPR and NRC.

4. As per the Courts judgement for the purpose of citizenship which of the following are possible evidences: a) His date of birth b) Place of birth c) Name of his parents and their place of birth and citizenship d) All of the above

5. Based on the author’s arguments in the passage above, which of the following would be most correct: a) National Population Register (NPR), which is to establish citizenship, and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), meant

to establish usual residency. b) National Population Register (NPR), which is to establish usual residency, and the National Register of Citizens (NRC),

meant to establish citizenship.


c) NPR and NRC both are meant to divide India. d) All the previous governments as well as the present one are twisted for keeping India limited to Indian citizens only.

6. Based on the author’s arguments in the passage above, which of the following would be the most correct to justify the

public apprehensions: a) If the NPR form of 2020 carries the personal questions highlighted in the judgment b) If the NPR form of 2020 does not carries the personal questions highlighted in the judgment c) If the government announces there is no link between the NPR NRC d) In reality public is only concerned about basic amenities rather than NPR/NRC

2. Public Morality or Constitutional Morality? The demand for speedy retributive justice in the recent heinous crime done against a veterinarian has brought into light the question of extra-constitutional killings. The public sentiments, political demand of public lynching of rapists inter-alia have raised the debate whether a democratic country should follow the constitutional norms and adhere to the due process of law or shall it adopt the measures of retributive justice to bring instant and speedy justice to the victim. Retributive justice is a system of criminal justice based on the punishment of offenders rather than on rehabilitation where as in REFORMATIVE THEORY the object of punishment should be the reform of the criminal, through the method of individualization. It is based on the humanistic principle that even if an offender commits a crime, he does not cease to be a human being. From protests on the ground, to the commentary on social media, to MPs in Parliament, the demand for the instant killing of the accused from all corners created the public opinion for the abandonment of the rule of law that appears to have led to the incident. Justice in any civilised society is not just about retribution, but also about deterrence, and in less serious crimes, rehabilitation of the offenders. There is a procedure prescribed by the law for criminal investigation which is embedded in constitutional principles. Article 21 of the Constitution (which is fundamental and non-derogable) states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Also in the Salwa Judum case in 2011 a core constitutional precept was set out that in modern constitutionalism no wielder of power can be allowed to claim the right to perpetrate state’s violence against anyone. This is also the touchstone of the constitutionally prescribed rule of law (Article 14). Hence, it is the responsibility of the police, being the officers of government, to follow the Constitutional principles and uphold the Right to Life of every individual whether an innocent one or a criminal. According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the pathways of justice are not linear nor without obstacles. But we have, as a people, chosen the route of democracy and the Constitution, so we really have no option but to school ourselves in constitutional morality that with time must replace public morality. 7. What does the author mean by Retributive Justice? a) It is a theory of punishment that when an offender breaks the law, justice requires that he or she must suffer equally or

more in return. b) It requires that the response to a crime must be proportionally less to the committed offence. c) There is a need to keep in sight of the rule of law and constitutional tenets. d) None of the above

8. As per author what is reformative theory? a) This theory believes a criminal will always remain a criminal. Thus, society should reform itself for dealing with this

criminal. b) The object of punishment should not be to bring about the moral reform of the offender. As existing laws on sexual crimes

and punishment need a better application, a recourse to brutal retribution as suggested wisely by many is solution. c) Offender must not be educated and taught some art or industry during the period of his imprisonment so that he may be

able to start his life again after his release from jail. d) An effort should be made to reform offender during the period of his incarceration.

9. As per author retributive justice could be done in following circumstances: a) When police is dealing with gruesome offender of cannibalism The political sanction of “encounter killings” to deliver

swift retribution would only be a incentive for the police to follow due process and may even motivate them from pursuing the course of justice.


b) when a minor child is brutally raped. There is no doubt that the anguish or outrage of people in the aftermath of such horrific crimes would be satisfied by encounter killing.

c) when there is possibility of extreme delay in delivery of justice, bending the law in such cases would only increase people’s faith in the criminal justice system.

d) none of the above

10. As per author the extrajudicial killing of those 4 convicts was a form of a) Retributive Justice b) Reformative Justice

c) Democratic Justice d) No Justice 11. Which of the following views can be correctly attributed to the author of the above passage? a) The political sanction of “encounter killings” to deliver swift retribution would only be a disincentive for the police to

follow due process and may even deter them from pursuing the course of justice. Far from ensuring justice to the victims, bending the law in such cases would only increase people’s faith in the criminal justice system.

b) The ends of justice are not served by wanton killing and retributive measures. Justice lies in supporting them in their moment of grief and pain and insisting on due process that brings suspects and accused to trial through a robust, stringent and competent criminal investigation.

c) For several affected families, death is the only answer to rape. The rule of law is not giving women the due justice, and that at the very least, laws need to be amended to create a stronger deterrent and provide quicker closure to victims of crimes of sexual violence.

d) Retributive justice is the way to go in a democratic country as legal institutions are ill-equipped to deal with such crimes and to bring the perpetrators to justice.

3. The Right to be Forgotten One of the consequences of living in a digital era is that a court ruling in one part of the world may trigger a reaction elsewhere. Following the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union against the search engine Google in the “Right to be Forgotten” case, there has been a spike in takedown requests. I have been receiving mails from readers, PR agencies, corporates and litigants seeking the removal of a story from The Hindu archives. First, let’s look at the background to the European Union’s Court ruling. A Spanish citizen, Costeja González, was in financial trouble way back in 1998, and his home loan foreclosure notices appeared in a Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia. But because the original purpose of the notice to attract a potential buyer had lapsed, he wanted the newspaper to remove them. He lodged a complaint with the Spanish Data Protection Agency, the AEPD against the newspaper and against Google. The AEPD rejected the complaint against La Vanguardia, taking the view that the information in question had been lawfully published by it. On the other hand, the complaint was upheld as regards Google Spain and Google Inc, and the two companies were requested “to withdraw the data from their index and to render access to the data impossible in the future.” The case was escalated to the Spanish National Court, and later referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Although, this right is in sync with right to privacy, the primary arguments made against the ‘right to be forgotten’ were from its conflict with the right to freedom of speech. The court ruled that even if the physical server of a company processing data is located outside Europe, EU data protection law applies and so does the right to be forgotten. Thus, individuals do have the right under certain conditions to ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them. However, it maintained that the right to be forgotten is not absolute and it always needs to be balanced with other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of expression and of the media. The governing policy is to neither withdraw nor alter the content when the reporting itself was not in error or vitiated by any other factors. As the issue here is one of Internet search engines bringing up the material from a link, it essentially needs to be addressed to the search engines, and not the publisher of the material. 12. As per the rationale of rulings of the EU court the author could be required to remove which of the following news: a) News about companies who lost out following the de-allocation of coal blocks by the Supreme Court. b) News about a builder wanting to remove the name of the building in which a fatal accident happened. c) Another writer wanted to take down a report of a court proceeding, as the case was later resolved through an out-of-court

settlement. d) None of the above


13. Suppose the Right to be forgotten refers to the ability of an individual to limit, delink, delete, or correct the disclosure of the personal information on the internet anywhere that is misleading, embarrassing, or irrelevant. A politician promised certain projects to its constituency and thus is not able to fulfil them after years of struggle want to get all those promises erased as he was not able to fulfil them due to unavoidable circumstances. Can he claim right to be forgotten?

a) Yes, the politician wanting to change his promises as per practical purposes should be allowed to do so. b) Yes, the non fulfilment of promises and their reminder will cause continuous humiliation to him. c) No, the freedom to criticise the public personalities for their public policies based on their past statements and activities

will be in jeopardy d) No, This is a relevant information concerning public interest. Thus, right to be forgotten would not apply.

14. Right to be forgotten is going to be in direct restriction of the following right: a) Right to Knowledge b) Right to Remember c) Right to Privacy d) Right to Speech

15. Suppose the Right to be forgotten refers to the ability of an individual to limit, delink, delete, or correct the disclosure of

the personal information on the internet or anywhere that is misleading, embarrassing, or irrelevant. Can a criminal claim that she has the right to insist that his conviction should not be referred to by the media?

a) Yes, this is embarrassing, or irrelevant information which can create problems for the convict in her future. Thus, she has right to be forgotten.

b) Yes, in sensitive cases involving women in general convict could claim right to be forgotten as it would result into future unnecessary humiliation to her.

c) No, this is not misleading, embarrassing, unnecessary or irrelevant information rather the conviction of a criminal is a matter of fact here which would be required to be published in public interest

d) No

16. Suppose the Right to be forgotten refers to the ability of an individual to limit, delink, delete, or correct the disclosure of the personal information on internet or anywhere that is misleading, embarrassing, unnecessary or irrelevant. In that case would a rape victim name be removed from the case files?

a) Yes, in sensitive cases involving women in general and highly sensitive cases involving rape or affecting the modesty and reputation of the person concerned the rape victim could claim right to be forgotten as it would result into future unnecessary humiliation to her

b) Yes, this is a matter of her right to privacy. c) No, whether the data online has to be retained (right to information) or erased (right to be forgotten) from the web, the

decision has to be taken by some Authority. d) No, other citizens right to information will be violated.

17. Which of the following views can be correctly attributed to the author of the above passage? a) The newspaper, must consider follow-up reporting if any subsequent developments warrant one for a report published

earlier. b) Reports that have been published are not necessarily factual accounts of events and thus they should be removed. c) The archives section of the newspaper’s website is a not a repository of reportage and articles published at different points

of time. d) The right to be forgotten empowers individuals to ask organisations to delete their personal data from search engines

but the newspaper doing their job of reporting are not bound by it until and unless there is fundamental fault in the reporting

4. CAPFs and Discrimination The age of superannuation in the CAPFs has been a bone of contention for many years. Among the CAPFs a differential treatment was given to those belonging to the AR and the CISF, where all members in all ranks retire at the age of 60. But, in the BSF, CRPF and ITBP two classes have been created where officers above the rank of Commandant retire at 60 and all other ranks retire at 57. Following the High Court’s decision, the Centre issued a notification in August fixing the retirement age for all CAPF personnel at 60.


Observing that discrimination in the age of retirement among members of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) would hit morale, the court in January directed the Centre to fix a uniform age of retirement for all personnel and officers of the CAPFs. 18. If the government still carries on with the different age of retirement for personnel based on the passage above, which of

the following would be most correct? a) Government would be following the courts order as Court understands the reason for different age of retirement for

different personnel. b) Government knows better about the work conditions of its personnel not the court. c) Government would be going against the court continuing with the discrimination which would further hit the morale of

such personnel. d) This would make the army personnel understand that there is no point of fighting and dying for country which is not

even concerned about discrimination its army personnel are facing.

19. Following the High Court’s decision, the Centre issued a notification in August fixing the retirement age for all CAPF personnel at 57. Based on the court’s verdict in the passage above, which of the following would be most correct:

a) Government would be following the courts order as Court as this would mean all the personnel have common age of retirement.

b) This would make the army personnel understand that there is no point of fighting and dying for country which is not even concerned about discrimination its army personnel are facing.

c) Government would be going against the court continuing with the discrimination which would further hit the morale of such personnel.

d) Government knows better about the work conditions of the its personnel not the court.

20. If the government still carries on with the different age of retirement for personnel based on the passage above, which of the following would be most correct?

a) Government would be following the courts order as Court understands the reason for different age of retirement for different personnel.

b) Government knows better about the work conditions of its personnel not the court. c) Government would be going against the court continuing with the discrimination which would further hit the morale of

such personnel. d) This would make the army personnel understand that there is no point of fighting and dying for country which is not

even concerned about discrimination its army personnel are facing.

CLATutor Legal Reasoning 1

Documents

Transcript of CLATutor Legal Reasoning 1