Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: Nothing is an ‘offence’ if committed by a child below seven years of age. Fact Situation: Adil, aged six years, is a student of class one. He placed his sharpened pencil on the bench with its pointed end up when his classmate Ajay stood up to answer a question from the teacher. Ajay gets hurt when he sits on the pencil and Adil and his friends have a good laugh. Ajay’s father, on seeing his son injured when he returns home, wants action against Adil.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
विकल्प
Adil has committed an ‘offence’.
Adil has not committed any ‘offence’.
Childish pranks cannot be investigated by the police.
The class teacher must be arrested.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Adil has not committed any ‘offence’.
Explanation:
According to section 82 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Thus, anything done by Adil, who is 6 yrs old, cannot be termed as offence hence option (a) can be eliminated easily and "Adil has not committed any ‘offence’" seems to be most appropriate in relation to the given principle.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Who presides over the joint session of Parliament?
The purpose of the Ilbert Bill was
Choose the most appropriate option:
Which Indian State has prescribed minimum educational qualification for candidates contesting panchayat polls?
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: According to the law of trade unions in India, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any civil court against any registered trade union or any officer or member thereof in respect of any act done in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute.
Facts: Soloman, the Secretary of a registered Trade Union took a loan from a bank for the higher education of his daughter. Soon after completing the course she was married to an NRI Engineer. Solomon did not repay the loan. The Bank demanded the payments from Soloma n and warned him that the Bank will take suitable legal action against him. Identify the legal position in this regard.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: According to Sec. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ‘Industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person’.
Facts: Sunder agreed to take Bhola’s penthouse on rent for three years at the rate of rupees 12, 00, 000/ per annum provided the house was put to thorough repairs and the living rooms were decorated according to contemporary style.
India’s Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (‘Bill’) starts encouragingly, seeking to protect “the privacy of individuals relating to their personal data”. But by the end, it is clear it is not designed to deliver on the promise. For, even as it rightly requires handlers of data to abide by globally-accepted rules — about getting an individual’s consent first — it disappointingly gives wide powers to the Government to dilute any of these provisions for its agencies.
Recently, messaging platform WhatsApp said that some Indian journalists and rights activists were among those spied on using technology made by an Israeli company, which by its own admission only works for government agencies across the world.
Importantly, one of the first to raise a red flag about Bill’s problematic clauses was Justice B.N. Srikrishna, whose committee’s report forms the basis of the Bill. He has used words such as “Orwellian” and “Big Brother” in reaction to the removal of safeguards against actions of Government agencies. In its report last July, the committee noted that the dangers to privacy originate from state and non-state actors. It, therefore, called for exemptions to be “watertight”, “narrow”, and available for use in “limited circumstances”. It had also recommended that the Government bring in a law for the oversight of intelligence-gathering activities, the means by which non-consensual processing of data takes place. A related concern about the Bill is regarding the constitution of the Data Protection Authority of India (‘DPA’), which is to monitor and enforce the provisions of the Act. It will be headed by a chairperson and have not more than six whole-time members, all of whom are to be selected by a panel filled with Government nominees. This completely disregards the fact that Government agencies are also regulated under the Bill; they are major collectors and processors of data themselves. The sweeping powers the Bill gives to the Government render meaningless the gains from the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case, which culminated in the recognition that privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty, and therefore a basic right. That idea of privacy is certainly not reflected in the Bill in its current form.
According to the passage, the committee headed by Justice B. N. Srikrishna called for:
Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported.
This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of-pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies.
Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point.
Based on the author’s arguments in the passage above, which of the following would be most correct:
Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported.
This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of-pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies.
Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point.
An essential medicine, ‘Formula A’, is used to treat cancer, and there is only one company engaged in its manufacture. If this is true, then, based on the author’s reasoning in the passage above:
Mark the best option:
Principle: No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
Facts: The District Magistrate of Dastar district issued an order transferring all privately owned property within the two-kilometer range of the Kashti river in the district in the name of the state government for the purpose of converting the said area into an environmental green belt. The owners of the land filed a petition for quashing of the order under the principle. Will the petition succeed?
Read both the statements carefully and answer.
Assertion (A): No action lies for mere damage caused by some act which does not violate a legal right.
Reason (R): An action lies for interference with another's legal right even where it causes no actual damage.
