Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
The question consists of two statements, one labelled as principle and other as Fact. You are to exa.mine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
Principle: injuria sine damnum i.e. injury without damage.
Fact: Sonu, who was a returning officer at a polling booth, wrongly refused to register a duly tendered vote of MONU, though he was a quahAed voter. The candidate, whom MONU sought to vote, was declared elected
विकल्प
Monu can sue sonu on the ground that he was denied to cast vote, which is a fundamental right.
Monu can sue sonu on the ground that he was denied to cast vote, which is a legal right
Monu cannot sue sonu because there is no injury or damage caused to monu.
Monu cannot sue sonu because to whom he sought to vote was declared elected.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Monu can sue sonu on the ground that he was denied to cast vote, which is a legal right
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rules A: The State shall not discriminate, either directly or indirectly, on the grounds of sex, race, religion, caste, creed, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, pregnancy, place of birth, gender orientation or any other status.
Rule B: Direct discrimination occurs when for a reason related to one or more prohibited grounds a person or group of persons is treated less favourably than another person or another group of persons in a comparable situation.
Rule C: Indirect discrimination occurs when a provision, criterion or practice which is neutral on the face of it would have the effect of putting persons having a status or a characteristic associated with one or more prohibited grounds at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons.
Rule D: Discrimination shall be justified when such discrimination is absolutely necessary in order to promote the well-being of disadvantaged groups, such as women, Dalits, religious minorities, sexual minorities or disabled persons.
Rule E: 'A discriminatory act shall be justified if its effect is to promote the wellbeing of disadvantaged groups, such as women, dalits, religious minorities, sexual minorities or disabled persons.'
Facts: On 2nd October 2010, the Governor of the state of Bihar ordered the release of all women prisoners who were serving sentence of less than one-year imprisonment to mark the occasion of Mahatma Gandhi's birthday. Would the first Order of release of all women prisoners be justified under Rule E?
For how long can the President's rule in a State-imposed initially?
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.
Consists of legal proposition(s)/ principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question.
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of the law.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: A violation of a legal right of someone, whether results in a legal injury or not, gives rise to an action in tort for compensation. At the same time, action by someone, which results in some loss or damage to somebody else is not actionable, if there is no violation of a right of that somebody.
Facts: AB Coaching Centre was a popular CLAT coaching academy with several good trainers. A lot of aspirants used to attend its coaching classes from all over and was making a good profit. This was going on for the past several years. During a session, T, one of the very good and popular trainers of ABCC, had some difference of opinion with the owner of ABCC and left the coaching centre. In August 2016, T started another Entrance Coaching Centre closer to ABCC which resulted in a substantial drop in its students and huge financial loss. The owner of ABCC wants to file a case against T for the loss sustained by ABCC. What do you think is the right legal position?
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.
Suppose the Bill provides a test of proportionality in respect of privacy, which is: “the act which infringes privacy must have a legitimate aim and must be the least restrictive way of achieving that aim”. If a journalist is known for her reporting on corruption in Government agencies and the Government chooses to engage a surveillance company to collect messages exchanged by her on WhatsApp, in order to intimidate her, does it meet the test of proportionality?
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.
The author is concerned about the constitution of the DPA under the Bill because:
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?
Year of Digital Millenium Copyright Act
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.
