LEGAL PASSAGE
The Supreme Court of India has directed the Sambhal Trial Court to refrain from proceeding with the case involving the Shahi Jama Masjid in Chandausi until the Allahabad High Court lists the petition filed by the Masjid Committee. The committee is challenging a trial court’s November 19 order that called for a survey of the mosque amid claims that it was built after demolishing a temple.
The Supreme Court has also ordered the report of the Advocate Commissioner, who conducted the mosque survey, to be kept in a sealed cover and not to be opened during this period. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar emphasized the importance of maintaining peace in the Sambhal District. Addressing the Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, representing the Uttar Pradesh administration, the Chief Justice remarked, “Peace and harmony have to be maintained. We must ensure neutrality and prevent any wrongdoing.”
1.A trial court in another state orders a similar survey of a disputed religious site without considering communal harmony. Which action aligns with the principle highlighted by the Supreme Court?
a) Proceeding with the survey immediately.
b) Allowing a higher court to review the matter first.
c) Conducting the survey but keeping the report public.
d) Ignoring objections from the affected parties.
2. Which of the following would most strengthen the Masjid Committee’s argument against the survey order?
a) Evidence that the mosque has historical preservation status.
b) A claim that no religious sites were damaged during construction.
c) Testimonies asserting that the survey was impartial.
d) Reports suggesting similar surveys occurred elsewhere peacefully.
3. Why might the Supreme Court order the survey report to be sealed?
a) To ensure transparency in legal proceedings.
b) To prevent public unrest due to premature disclosure.
c) To maintain the confidentiality of the survey findings.
d) To allow the trial court to review the report first.
4. In another case, the Supreme Court intervened to prevent an archaeological survey of a disputed site. How does this compare with the current scenario?
a) Both emphasize the importance of preserving cultural heritage.
b) Both aim to ensure communal peace before proceeding.
c) Both involve historical disputes with limited evidence.
d) Both restrict the role of Advocate Commissioners in surveys.
5. What assumption underlies the Chief Justice’s statement about neutrality?
a) Surveys always lead to communal conflict.
b) Legal processes must account for potential societal impacts.
c) Advocate Commissioners cannot conduct unbiased surveys.
d) Disputed sites should not be investigated at all.
A Malayalam actress has moved the Supreme Court against a Kerala High Court directive to register FIRs based on statements she provided to the Justice Hema Committee. The committee, created to examine exploitation of women in Malayalam cinema, was set up via executive notification and not under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
The actress argued that her statements were given voluntarily for academic purposes, not to initiate criminal proceedings. She claimed that some of her statements were hearsay, later retracted by affected individuals. The petitioner contended that the High Court’s directive to register FIRs encroaches on the investigative agency’s domain and that her academic statements should not be treated as actionable information for criminal investigations.
6. If an investigative agency receives an anonymous tip with similar hearsay allegations, which action would be consistent with the actress’s argument?
a) Investigating immediately based on the tip.
b) Confirming the information with affected parties before proceeding.
c) Registering an FIR without further verification.
d) Treating hearsay evidence as sufficient for legal action.
7. Which of the following would weaken the actress’s argument against the FIR?
a) Evidence that the Hema Committee had legal authority to initiate inquiries.
b) Testimonies from other actresses supporting her claims.
c) An official statement from the Hema Committee disclaiming its advisory role.
d) A precedent where academic statements triggered successful investigations.
8. Why might the actress emphasize that the Hema Committee was established via an executive notification?
a) To highlight the Committee’s limited jurisdiction.
b) To argue that her statements are legally binding.
c) To question the Committee’s neutrality in investigations.
d) To suggest that its findings should remain confidential.
9. How does this case differ from instances where FIRs are registered based on victims’ direct complaints?
a) Direct complaints typically lack hearsay evidence.
b) Direct complaints are more likely to involve credible legal authorities.
c) The actress’s statements were provided for non-investigative purposes.
d) FIRs require explicit authorization from a legal body.
10. What assumption is central to the actress’s argument about her statements?
a) Academic purposes cannot lead to legal consequences.
b) The Hema Committee’s role was solely investigative.
c) Courts lack the authority to direct investigations based on committee findings.
d) Statements provided voluntarily cannot be legally actionable.
The Supreme Court recently reiterated the principle that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception. The observation came while hearing a case where a trial court denied bail to an individual accused of financial fraud. The accused had been in custody for over two years, and the trial was yet to begin. The apex court, while granting bail, emphasized that the denial of bail cannot be used as a punitive measure. It observed that prolonged incarceration without trial violates the accused’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that bail decisions must consider the severity of the alleged offense, the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, and their ability to influence witnesses. However, inordinate delays in trials weigh heavily in favor of granting bail.
In this case, the prosecution argued that the accused, being a person of influence, could manipulate witnesses and hamper the investigation. The defense countered by asserting that all evidence had already been collected, making any alleged influence irrelevant. The court warned against a mechanical approach to denying bail based solely on the gravity of the offense. It stressed that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence. The judgment also highlighted the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure that the criminal justice system does not disproportionately harm those awaiting trial.
11. A person accused of a minor theft is denied bail despite no evidence of their tampering with witnesses. Which principle from the passage is violated?
a) Presumption of guilt.
b) Prolonged incarceration.
c) Bail as a rule, jail as an exception.
d) Personal liberty under Article 22.
12. Which fact would strengthen the prosecution’s argument against granting bail?
a) The accused has no prior criminal record.
b) The accused is accused of a minor, non-violent crime.
c) Several witnesses have complained about intimidation by the accused.
d) The trial is set to commence within a week.
13. Why did the court emphasize inordinate delays in trials?
a) To suggest that delays justify harsher penalties.
b) To highlight the need for faster convictions.
c) To underline that delays unfairly penalize the accused.
d) To question the efficiency of investigative agencies.
14. How is this case different from one where bail is denied to a suspect caught committing a crime on camera?
a) Direct evidence significantly reduces the presumption of innocence.
b) The severity of the crime is irrelevant in such cases.
c) Tampering with evidence becomes a non-issue.
d) The role of personal liberty is minimized.
15. What assumption underlies the court’s observation about personal liberty?
a) All accused persons will misuse bail.
b) The right to a speedy trial cannot be compromised.
c) Denial of bail should deter others from committing crimes.
d) Liberty is a privilege granted by courts.
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) recently imposed a fine of ₹50 crore on a private corporation for causing large-scale environmental damage in a coastal area. The penalty followed a PIL filed by an environmental activist alleging violations of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms. The corporation was accused of unauthorized construction and releasing untreated waste into the sea, affecting marine biodiversity and the livelihood of local fishing communities.
During the proceedings, the corporation argued that the construction was essential for industrial development and job creation. However, the NGT rejected this defense, emphasizing that economic growth cannot come at the cost of irreversible environmental harm. It observed that compliance with CRZ norms is non-negotiable and directed the corporation to restore the affected area. The Tribunal also highlighted the importance of PILs in environmental protection. It praised the activist’s role in bringing the issue to light and encouraged citizens to actively monitor ecological violations. However, it cautioned against frivolous PILs that waste judicial resources.
16. A factory polluting a river argues that shutting it down will harm the local economy. Which principle from the passage applies?
a) Economic development justifies environmental harm.
b) Environmental protection takes precedence over economic growth.
c) Only intentional violations should be penalized.
d) PILs are only for large-scale violations.
17. Which fact would weaken the corporation’s defense?
a) The construction created 10,000 jobs.
b) The corporation lacked environmental clearance for its project.
c) The local community supported the corporation’s activities.
d) Similar violations were ignored in neighboring regions.
18. Why did the NGT emphasize restoration of the affected area?
a) To set a precedent for punitive actions against violators.
b) To ensure that local communities benefit economically.
c) To mitigate irreversible environmental damage.
d) To allow the corporation to resume its activities.
19. How is this case different from one where environmental harm occurs due to natural disasters?
a) Liability for damages does not apply to natural disasters.
b) Environmental norms apply only to human activities.
c) Restoration measures are unnecessary in natural disasters.
d) No legal body can penalize natural disasters.
20. What assumption underlies the NGT’s decision to impose a fine?
a) Economic benefits outweigh environmental violations.
b) Fines can deter corporations from repeating violations.
c) Citizens should refrain from filing PILs in minor cases.
d) Activists exaggerate ecological concerns.
The Delhi High Court recently addressed a case involving a public figure accused of delivering a hate speech during a political rally. The petitioner argued that the speech incited communal tensions, leading to violence in the area. The defense countered that the speech was an exercise of their right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The court acknowledged that freedom of speech is a fundamental right but clarified that it is not absolute. Under Article 19(2), reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of public order, morality, or the sovereignty of the nation. The court stressed the distinction between legitimate criticism and speech that incites hatred or violence.
In its ruling, the court held that the content and context of the speech must be examined to determine whether it crossed the boundary of free speech into hate speech. It noted that while public figures have the right to express their opinions, they also bear a higher responsibility to promote harmony. The court directed the police to investigate the matter thoroughly but warned against arbitrary actions that could stifle genuine dissent.
21. A journalist criticizes a government policy, which results in public protests. Can this criticism be restricted under Article 19(2)?
a) Yes, as it caused public protests.
b) No, because it is legitimate dissent.
c) Yes, as public order is affected.
d) No, because freedom of speech is absolute.
22. Which fact would strengthen the petitioner’s claim that the speech incited violence?
a) The speech criticized specific government policies.
b) Violent incidents occurred immediately after the speech.
c) The speaker issued a public apology after the speech.
d) The speech was delivered in a peaceful rally.
23. Why did the court emphasize examining the context of the speech?
a) To ensure that all forms of dissent are criminalized.
b) To differentiate between dissent and incitement to violence.
c) To discourage criticism of public figures.
d) To hold all public speeches to the same standard.
24. How is this case different from one involving defamatory remarks?
a) Hate speech involves incitement to violence, while defamation harms reputation.
b) Both are restricted under the same constitutional provision.
c) Defamation cases are less likely to involve public figures.
d) Hate speech is protected under Article 19(1)(a), while defamation is not.
25. What assumption underlies the court’s decision to investigate the speech?
a) All public figures are responsible for societal conflicts.
b) The context of speech is irrelevant in hate speech cases.
c) Freedom of speech must be balanced with public order.
d) Police investigations always lead to fair outcomes.
The Supreme Court recently reviewed an executive decision to impose a nationwide ban on the sale of a popular firecracker brand, citing environmental concerns and rising pollution levels. The manufacturers challenged the ban, arguing that it violated their fundamental right to trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The court upheld the ban, reasoning that environmental protection is a fundamental duty under Article 48A and a part of the right to life under Article 21. It observed that public health and environmental concerns take precedence over commercial interests. The court also noted that the government had the authority to impose reasonable restrictions on businesses in the interest of the public.
However, the judgment clarified that such restrictions must be proportional and based on credible evidence. It criticized the government for failing to consult stakeholders before implementing the ban but found the measure necessary given the alarming pollution levels. The court directed the government to explore sustainable alternatives and support affected businesses.
26. A city imposes a blanket ban on all fireworks without assessing pollution data. How does this differ from the case in the passage?
a) The city’s ban lacks proportionality and evidence.
b) Environmental protection does not apply at the city level.
c) Article 48A is only enforceable at the national level.
d) Blanket bans are always unconstitutional.
27. Which fact would weaken the manufacturers’ challenge to the ban?
a) The banned firecrackers comply with pollution standards.
b) The ban was imposed during the peak festive season.
c) The firecrackers were found to emit hazardous levels of pollutants.
d) Firecracker sales are a major source of employment.
28. Why did the court direct the government to consult stakeholders?
a) To ensure that all bans are temporary.
b) To balance public interests with business rights.
c) To support manufacturers in evading restrictions.
d) To allow businesses to operate freely.
29. How is this case different from one involving a ban on single-use plastics?
a) Firecracker bans are based on public health, while plastic bans address waste management.
b) Both involve proportional restrictions under Article 19(1)(g).
c) Environmental concerns are less severe in plastic bans.
d) The court cannot uphold bans related to non-renewable resources.
30. What assumption underlies the court’s emphasis on proportional restrictions?
a) All executive actions must be proportional to their objectives.
b) Environmental protection laws are inherently restrictive.
c) Business interests always outweigh public health concerns.
d) Governments must consult courts before imposing restrictions.
Answers and Explanations
- b) Allowing a higher court to review the matter first.
Explanation: The Supreme Court emphasized maintaining peace and neutrality, suggesting that a higher court’s review ensures fairness and prevents unnecessary escalation. - a) Evidence that the mosque has historical preservation status.
Explanation: Historical preservation status could challenge the need for a survey, strengthening the Masjid Committee’s case. - b) To prevent public unrest due to premature disclosure.
Explanation: Sealing the report ensures that sensitive findings do not incite communal tension or unrest. - b) Both aim to ensure communal peace before proceeding.
Explanation: Both cases prioritize maintaining harmony and deferring actions that might escalate conflicts. - b) Legal processes must account for potential societal impacts.
Explanation: The Chief Justice’s emphasis on neutrality and peace implies the need to consider the broader societal consequences of legal actions. - b) Confirming the information with affected parties before proceeding.
Explanation: The actress argued that hearsay should not trigger legal actions without proper verification, aligning with this approach. - a) Evidence that the Hema Committee had legal authority to initiate inquiries.
Explanation: If the committee had legal authority, the actress’s argument about limited jurisdiction would weaken. - a) To highlight the Committee’s limited jurisdiction.
Explanation: The argument focuses on the executive notification being outside the scope of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. - c) The actress’s statements were provided for non-investigative purposes.
Explanation: Unlike direct complaints, her statements were not intended for legal action, making this a key distinction. - a) Academic purposes cannot lead to legal consequences.
Explanation: The actress argues that her voluntary, academic statements should not have legal implications. - c) Bail as a rule, jail as an exception.
Explanation: Denying bail for a minor offense without evidence of tampering violates this principle. - c) Several witnesses have complained about intimidation by the accused.
Explanation: This strengthens the prosecution’s argument by showing potential misuse of bail. - c) To underline that delays unfairly penalize the accused.
Explanation: Prolonged incarceration without trial undermines the accused’s right to personal liberty. - a) Direct evidence significantly reduces the presumption of innocence.
Explanation: In cases with direct evidence, the presumption of innocence is weaker compared to cases relying on circumstantial evidence. - b) The right to a speedy trial cannot be compromised.
Explanation: The court’s emphasis on personal liberty implies the need for timely justice. - b) Environmental protection takes precedence over economic growth.
Explanation: The NGT ruled that economic benefits cannot justify environmental harm, aligning with this principle. - b) The corporation lacked environmental clearance for its project.
Explanation: This directly shows non-compliance with CRZ norms, weakening the corporation’s defense. - c) To mitigate irreversible environmental damage.
Explanation: Restoration aims to repair harm caused by the corporation’s violations. - a) Liability for damages does not apply to natural disasters.
Explanation: Natural disasters are not subject to penalties, unlike human-caused environmental violations. - b) Fines can deter corporations from repeating violations.
Explanation: The fine serves as a deterrent, showing the consequences of non-compliance with environmental laws. - b) No, because it is legitimate dissent.
Explanation: Criticism of government policy is protected as free speech unless it incites violence. - b) Violent incidents occurred immediately after the speech.
Explanation: This establishes a direct link between the speech and communal unrest, strengthening the petitioner’s case. - b) To differentiate between dissent and incitement to violence.
Explanation: The court aims to balance free speech with preventing harmful consequences. - a) Hate speech involves incitement to violence, while defamation harms reputation.
Explanation: Hate speech has broader societal implications, unlike defamation, which focuses on individual reputation. - c) Freedom of speech must be balanced with public order.
Explanation: The court’s decision reflects the need to reconcile individual rights with societal harmony. - a) The city’s ban lacks proportionality and evidence.
Explanation: The lack of evidence undermines the ban’s justification, unlike the proportional approach in the court case. - c) The firecrackers were found to emit hazardous levels of pollutants.
Explanation: This fact supports the argument for banning the firecrackers due to their environmental impact. - b) To balance public interests with business rights.
Explanation: Consulting stakeholders ensures a fair balance between environmental concerns and economic interests. - a) Firecracker bans are based on public health, while plastic bans address waste management.
Explanation: The rationale behind the two bans differs, making this a key distinction. - a) All executive actions must be proportional to their objectives.
Explanation: The court’s emphasis on proportionality ensures that restrictions are justified and evidence-based.
