1. Under Art.

246 it has been stated that the Parliament has exclusive power to make laws
concerning any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (Also referred to
as the ‘Union list’). ‘Citizenship, naturalisation and aliens’ has been recorded in Entry 17 of
the Union List in the Seventh Schedule, thus providing the parliamentary sole authority to
legislate on the matter. Other entries of List I are; Railways, Currency, coinage and legal
tender, Audit of the accounts of the Union and of the States, etc.
Art. 11 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to regulate citizenship by law, it
empowers the parliament to make laws regarding any or all matter related to citizenship.
Pursuant to the power provided under the constitutional mandate, after independence, the
parliament enacted the Citizenship Act, 1955. The most recent amendment, the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2019 has stirred up a lot of controversies. Sec. 2 of the Amendment Act
seeks to append a proviso to Sec. 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, effectively altering the
definition of ‘illegal immigrants’ by excluding Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian
community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before
the 31st day of December, 2014, who have been exempted by the govt. under Sec. 3(2)(c) of
the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and on whom the Foreigners Act, 1964 is not
applicable. This particular move has been said to be discriminatory in so far as it, very
conveniently, excludes Muslims from consideration, coupled with the fact that the current
govt. openly fonts a pro-Hindu stance, the BJP govt. has found itself in a pickle with
numerous cases being filed claiming violation of fundamental rights.

(Extracted with edits from http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf,

http://odishapolicecidcb.gov.in/sites/default/files/passport%20%28entry%20into%20india
%29%20act
%2C1920.pdf,https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/4210/1/Citizenship_Act_
1955.pdf and https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-premature-denouncement-of-
the-citizenship-act/article30362045.ece)

1.1. The state of Perala has been one of the best developing states in the country of Dindia.
Recently, however, the state legislature has been faced with a lot of criticism as they
rolled out the Citizenship Prohibition Act, 2019, where under the state could oust any
person, living in the state, who would be granted citizenship under the amended
citizenship act. Some critiques have even remarked that this move was made with the
unscrupulous objective of nullifying the recent amendment made to the Citizenship Act.
Decide if the state legislature of the state has the power to make such a legislation.
a. Yes, the state can make any legislation it wants but it will only be applicable to the
state itself. Moreover, they can make any law they want it is upon the court to
adjudicate its validity on the constitutional touchstone.
b. No, they do not have the right to formulate the above referred to legislation as it is
politically coloured. These days people have forgotten the basic values of humanity,
 they want to throw out people who have taken refuge in the country, such actions
should never be allowed.
c. No, under the provision of the constitution, the matter of citizenship can only be
legislated upon by the parliament, hence state intervention in this regard would be
a violation.
d. None of the above.

Ans: d; Rationale- The laws applicable in Dindia might not be in pari materia to those
applicable in India, the constitutional provisions might be very different thus the correct
choice should be option ‘d’ as it cannot be determined, with conformity.

1.2. Art. 14, states “The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal
protection of the law” the genesis of the conceptualisation of equality can thus be
marked by Art.14. However Art. 14 does allow reasonable classification, the
classification must be founded on intelligible differentia, which distinguishes a group
from others left out of the group. Also, the differentia must have a rational nexus to the
object sought to be achieved by the act (legislation). Decide which among the below
mentioned is a valid case of reasonable classification.
a. The CAA aims to provide citizenship to the illegal immigrants of the Hindu, Sikh,
Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or
Pakistan, excluding other religious persecuted minorities from other neighbouring
countries like Sri Lanka, Myanmar etc.
b. The Contract Act states that minors are not competent to contract and are by law
prohibited from entering into a contractual obligation. Thus, age is a deciding factor
as to the validity of a contract entered into between two parties but either party’s
hair colour is not considered a valid factor while determining validity.
c. People who live in the West Bank of River Ganga in Bihar have to pay more tax than
that of the people who live in the East Bank of the river.
d. A diplomat from Pakistan and a common citizen in India are governed by the same
laws, as Pakistan deserves every bit of our hatred, also most of the diplomats from
Pakistan are spies who try and sabotage our countries operational dynamics they
deserve punishment for the same. But a diplomat from America or Russia cannot be
treated the same way as they are allies to our nation.

Ans: b; Rationale- The only option where the principle of reasonable classification has been
adhered to, the basis of classification being reasonable when contingent on the age factor
and unreasonable when on hair colour is apt because the contract act seeks to enforce
contracts and delves into the nuances of validity and rescission.

1.3. The state of Best Wengal has had a very rich history and culture, the state has given a
great many poets, freedom fighters, scientists, engineers, etc. to this country but in
 recent times under the leadership of Bamata Manerjee the state of affairs have
deteriorated from bad to worse. The CM’s decision on various counts has slumped her
reputation from being a formidable leader to a power-hungry despot, one such instance
was a show of opposition by, passing the Best Wengal Establishment of Railway Coach
Factory Act, 2019. This Act enabled the govt. to provide large-scale employment and
boost the dwindling industry sector in the state, this initiative was taken up after
repeated requests for funds and benefits were made to the centre. The political
polarisation between the state and the central powers led to a showdown, which led
the people of the state to a grim future. This was to be a noble gesture for Bamata
Manerjee to influence the vox populi of citizens of Best Wengal, for the impending
elections. This stunt received public censure and was brandished to be outright
preposterous. Decide if the govt. led by Bamata Manerjee was right in enacting such a
legislation.
a. Yes, it was right for the state to jump into action as the centre never paid heed to
any of the requests made by the state govt. for funds and benefits. This was an easy
way out and the govt. made use of such opportunity, as the financial condition was
the state was in shambles.
b. No, it was not right to overstep, the state govt. should have shown some faith in the
central govt. An amicable solution could have been reached without a power tussle.
c. The act itself would be unconstitutional as Railways is a subject under the Union List
and can only be legislated upon by the parliament.
d. It was not the state’s prerogative legislate on the matter, instead, they should have
waited for the centre to extend help in the first place, thus the legislation, a fruition
of misdirected efforts, will be stale.

Ans: c; Rationale- Only the Parliament has the power to legislate on matters in the Union List
of the Seventh Schedule, Railways being a subject of the entry in the aforementioned list the
state legislature does not have any jurisdiction in the matter.

1.4. Sec. 3(1) of the Passport(Entry into India) Act, 1920 states that the Central govt. has the
power to make rules requiring the person entering India to be in possession of his/her
Passport and goes on to state that the central govt. can make any rule ancillary or
incidental to the same.
Sec. 3(4) further states that all rules made are to be published in the Official Gazette
and shall there upon have effect as if enacted by the Act.
A rule was made only for the people travelling from Demark that they need to have a
doctor’s certificate, certifying his/her good health condition, this rule was formulated
on 28th December and published in the Official Gazette on 29 th December, 8.00 a.m. A
entered India on 29th December at around 2.45 a.m., from Denmark, if he does not have
the proper certification will it count as a violation? Decide.
 a. Yes, it will count as a violation as the rule needs to be followed by all of the people
who travel from Denmark to India.
b. Yes, it will count as a violation as irrespective of the time, the rule was published on
the same date as A’s entry into the country.
c. No, it should not be counted as a violation as the rule will only have effect as if it
were enacted by the Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920, upon publication in the
Official Gazette.
d. None of the above.

Ans: c; Rationale- At the time of entry the rule did not have the effect as if it were enacted
by the Act, hence the present instance cannot be said to be that of a violation.

1.5. Which of the following is attributable to the principle laid out in the premise?
a. Country A has the same constitution as that of India, by law the country has a
currency denomination of 2000, 500, 200, 100, 50, 10, 5. It has been inconvenient
for the people of country A because of the missing 1000 denomination. State B
wanted to do away with the suffering of its citizens so it introduced the 1000
denomination. This act is constitutionally valid.
b. Country A has the same constitution as that of India, by law the country has a
currency denomination of 2000, 500, 200, 100, 50, 10, 5. It has been inconvenient
for the people of country A because of the missing 1000 denomination. State B
wanted to do away with the suffering of its citizens so it introduced the 1000
denomination. This act not valid.
c. Country A has the same constitution as that of India, by law the country has a
currency denomination of 2000, 500, 200, 100, 50, 10, 5. It has been inconvenient
for the people of country A because of the missing 1000 denomination. State B
wanted to do away with the suffering of its citizens so it introduced the 1000
denomination. This act is not valid constitutionally as such a matter can be only
legislated upon by the Parliament of country A.
d. Country A has the same constitution as that of India, by law the country has a
currency denomination of 2000, 500, 200, 100, 50, 10, 5. It has been inconvenient
for the people of country A because of the missing 1000 denomination. State B
wanted to do away with the suffering of its citizens so it introduced the 1000
denomination. This is a valid step in the right direction, as it will mitigate the
anguish and suffering of the people. The centre should do the same.

Ans: c; Rationale- Self-Explanatory.

2. Article 25-28 embedded in the constitution deal with the freedom of religion. Article 25 of
the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all persons in India. It provides that all
persons in India, subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions: 
  Are equally entitled to freedom of conscience, and 
 Have the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion.
It further provides that this article shall not affect any existing law and shall not prevent the
state from making any law relating to:
 Regulation or restriction of any economic, financial, political, or any secular activity
associated with religious practice.
 Providing social welfare and reform.
 Opening of Hindu religious institutions of public character for all the classes and
sections of the Hindus. 
Article 26 (subject to public order, morality, and health) confers a right on every religious
denomination or any section of such religious denomination of:
 Establishing and maintaining institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
 Managing its affair with regard to religion;
 Owing and acquiring property (movable and immovable);
 Administering the property in accordance with the law.

(Extracted with edits from https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-freedom-of-religion-articles-25-

28/, https://www.india.gov.in/sites/upload_files/npi/files/coi_part_full.pdf)

2.1. The N.D.F.G School has become the largest school network in India, it is the preferred
choice for more than half of the student population in India, with the help of
governmental aid N.D.F.G School has been imparting quality education for almost 4
decades now. N.D.F.G School had a branch in the state of Bangasthan, among the
student admissions there were three children from the Jehovah’s witness sect, who
worshipped only Jehovah (the creator) and refused to sing the national anthem “Jana
Gana Mana”. According to them singing ‘Jana Gana Mana’ was against the tenets of
their religious faith, which did not allow them to sing the national anthem. These
children stood up respectfully in silence daily for the national anthem but refused to
sing because of their honest belief. The School authorities, however, took notice of the
same and forced the students to sing the national anthem, they did not give in to such
coercion so they were in turn expelled. They were dumbstruck at such drastic action on
the part of the school authorities; they could not contemplate such a blot in their
careers as all of them wished to land governmental jobs. Having nothing more to lose
the students approached the state HC claiming violation of Art. 25(1). Decide, if the
claim is a valid one.
a. Yes, the claim is a valid one as, in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala,
with identical set of facts, it was decided that there existed a violation of Art. 25(1).
b. Yes, the claim is a valid one as coercing the students to sing the national anthem
against their religious faith will be a violation of freedom of religion under Art. 25.
 c. No, this is not a valid claim as fundamental rights cannot be enforced against the
school authorities. Also, they are bound to have their internal rules which cannot
be questioned.
d. No, they should have just sung the national anthem because they have no right to
disrespect our great nation.

Ans: b; Rationale- The students stood respectfully when the national anthem was played
however, it was in their religious belief that they could only worship Jehovah. If they were
coerced because they refused to sing the national anthem then that would be a violation of
fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 25, which can be enforced against the school, as
it was aided by the govt.

2.2. A daily soap by the name of ‘Tamas’ was being telecast, based upon a book that already
screened four episodes. It portrayed the communal violence between Hindu-Muslim
and Sikh-Muslim and the tension, featuring scenes of looting and brutal killings. Ms.
Mina Devi a Hindu woman was very disturbed by this telecast as it portrayed Hindus as
the weaker sect., and wanted the regular telecast to be discontinued. It is in
furtherance of this objective that she filed a writ petition claiming violation of
fundamental rights enshrined in Art. 25 of the constitution. Decide if the claim is a valid
one.
a. Yes, the claim is a valid one as the fundamental rights of Hindus were violated
when they were depicted to be weak.
b. Yes, the staunch Hindu woman was hurt but such depiction and she will have to
relive this picture of Hindus being weak for the rest of her life, which might end up
affecting her wish to visit temples or any religious congregation thus violating her
fundamental right under Art. 25.
c. No, there was no violation of fundamental rights as the depiction could not have
affected the right enshrined in Art. 25 of the constitution as it steered clear of her
right to freely profess and practice her religion more so, her freedom of conscience
has not be challenged by such a depiction.
d. None of the above.

Ans: c; Rationale- The soap was a true depiction, on which a book already existed it could
not have violated her fundamental right enshrined in Art. 25 because it did not arrogate her
freedom of conscience and her right to practice and profess her religion.

2.3. A Thangakaji Temple is one of the most ancient temples in Lindia. Located in the state
of Tatil Kadu it had been built by the then Emperor of Tatil Kadu, Tamudrapupta. The
tenets followed in the temple have aligned to that of Hindus but the Vaishya sect. has
never been allowed inside the temple premises. It is rumoured that Tamudrapupta
never liked the Vaishyas’ so he prohibited them from entering the temple premises. In
 the present day tourists from foreign countries, flock to visit the temple, however
people belonging to the Vaishya sect. of the Hindus religion are still not allowed inside
the temple premises. To do away with such a dated practice the state govt.
implemented a legislation, which allowed all people who by faith are Hindu, to enter
the temple premises. Three days later a PIL was filed before the SC of Lindia claiming
violation of fundamental right under Art. 25 against such a despotic law. Decide if the
claim is valid.
a. The claim is a valid one, if Vaishyas’ are allowed to enter the temple premises it will
violate the fundamental rights of the appellants under Art. 25.
b. The claim is not a valid one, as not letting the Vaishyas’ enter the temple premises
is a discriminatory practice prohibited under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
c. The claim is a valid one, Vaishyas’ cannot be allowed to enter, as it will trigger
outrage in the society and they might be subject to more discrimination.
d. The claim is not a valid one as the right under Art. 25 carries an exception, which
states that the right shall not restrict the state from making any law regarding,
Opening of Hindu religious institutions of public character for all the classes and
sections of the Hindus.

Ans: d; Rationale- Self-explanatory.

2.4. Baba Adityanath was one of the chief proponents of the Madekeri religion. He regularly
took part in interviews and had been widely acclaimed for speaking his mind, his honest
opinion with his charismatic aura had pleased and inspired millions of followers all over
India. However, even his closest apprentices were oblivious about his personal life or
past. In an endeavour to procure places of worship, which would augment and spread
his teachings of Madekerism he bought a new property at 11, Mangoe Lane, Punjab,
Amritsar-143001. The locals in the region saw many people come and go during the
daytime, which was normal for the religious folk. However, they started to notice that
even during the nights, robed men visited the property and throughout the night-time,
the lights used to be switched on. The locals who were opposed to Madekeri religion
filed a suit for evicting the Baba on the ground of nuisance and ill influence. This came
as a shock to him but he responded claiming that it was his fundamental right under
Art. 26 to own and acquire property, more so he claimed that in their religion sadhus
can only travel during the night- time and that their apparel of choice is a white robe.
Decide if Baba Adityanath’s claim is a valid one.
a. Yes, his claim is a valid one, as under Art. 26, Madekeri being a religious
denomination Baba Adityanath has the right to own and acquire property, unless
their activities conform to the limitations provided under the article itself, his
fundamental right cannot be violated.
b. Yes, his claim is a valid one, as the people visiting the property dressed in
accordance to the practices of the Madekeri religion.
 c. No, his claim is not a valid one, as, although Art. 26 states that a religious
denomination can own an acquire property he does not represent the religious
denomination. He being an individual won’t be able to exercise such a right.
d. There is no question of violation at all, this is an orchestrated event to revamp the
popularity of the Madekeri Religion, by making headline news.

Ans: a; Rationale- Under Art. 26 anyone of the Madekeri Religion will be able to exercise the
right of owning and acquiring property, furthering a religious cause.

2.5. Which among the following is attributable to the premise stated hereinabove?
a. It goes without saying that Art. 25 and Art.26 have no exceptions and cannot be
overruled by any law in force. The govt. cannot bring any law in force which could
abrogate the right enshrined under the articles as aforementioned.
b. The govt. can enact the Uniform Civil Code even if it abrogates the right to freedom
of religion, one the ground that when compared with Art. 14, the conceptualisation
of equality has a better footing to that of freedom of religion under Art. 25.
c. Prohibiting the use of microphone for Azan is a violation of rights enshrined under
Art. 25.
d. Freedom of religion will not restrict the govt. from enacting the Uniform Civil Code
under Art. 25 as, the other facet of the article empowers the govt. to make laws for
social welfare and reform.

Ans: d; Rationale- The option is easily attributable to the premise and is relevant to the text
of Art. 25. Although option ‘b’ might seem to be a better answer it will not directly
attributable to the premise thus ‘d’ would be the most cogent choice.

2.6. Baba Amarpuri of Amritsar, the founder of the Bupi religion has been arrested and
convicted on rape charges, it has come as a shock for the follower of the Bupi religion.
The teachings of the Bupi religion mandate copulation between the ‘guru’ and the
‘sishya’ provided, they are of opposite genders. The own institution which propagates
the religion is owned by the Baba, and in order to spread the teachings of the all
mighty, the baba wanted to acquire more property to accommodate more ‘sevayats’.
The govt. however did not allow the said acquisition, citing public order. This was a
blatant violation according to one of the followers, who advised approaching the state
HC claiming violation of Fundamental rights under Art. 26 as a result a writ was filed.
Decide if the right under Art. 26 can be exercised or not.
a. Yes, the right under Art. 26 is a fundamental right and violation of the same can be
claimed. In the present case, the right under Art. 26 can be exercised.
b. Yes, since owning an acquiring property is an enlisted right under Art. 26 the
followers of the Bupi religion can acquire property, as they comply with the
requirements of the definition of religious denomination.
 c. No, under the garb of religion, the followers indulge in detestable practices which
can harm societal stability and order so the right under Art. 26 cannot be exercised.
d. No, the right under Art. 26 cannot be exercised as the rights enshrined therein are
subject to morality and public order.

Ans: d; Rationale- The right enshrined under Art. 26 is subject to public order and morality,
the practices of the Bupi religion being immoral, the right to own and acquire property
cannot be exercised by them. Thus, ‘d’ would be the best answer among the four.

3. Covid-19 has been declared a ‘notified disaster’ under the Disaster Management Act, 2005,
which has enabled the govt. to implement lockdowns and keep the virus from spreading.
Entry 23, of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule, delves into “Social security and
social insurance” which has been the basis of enactment of the DMA, 2005. However, the
Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 has also been resorted to, along with the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 to keep the bulk of our population fed and out of harm’s way.
However, the DMA, 2005 seems to be the primary legislation, which equips the govt. to take
such steps in the name of social security. U/s 71 of the DMA, 2005, it has been outlined that
no court, except for the Supreme Court and the High Court shall have the jurisdiction to
entertain any suit against any action taken by the Central govt., State govt. or any other
body deriving authority from the act itself. The DMA, 2005 also has an overriding effect over
any other laws or instrument having the force of law, which might be inconsistent to the
provisions of the Act. U/s 72 it has been outlined that no suit or prosecution shall lie against
any action taken by an officer or authority working on behalf of the govt. provided such act
is done or intended to be done in good faith under the provisions of the DMA, 2005. Thus,
the DMA, 2005 although grants immediate measures of assistance, still lacks bite. Punitive
action has been listed as an inherent feature in various provisions of the act itself under
Chapter X, however, separate IPC provisions like that of Sec. 271 has laid out punishment to
the tune of six months or fine or both in if the quarantine rule is not complied with, in case
of an outbreak of an infectious disease. Other generic provisions of public nuisance have
also been put to use with a view of enforcing such drastic measures.

(Extracted with edits from https://www.ndmindia.nic.in/images/The%20Disaster

%20Management%20Act,%202005.pdf)

3.1. By order of the state govt., under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, in a bid to
control the coronavirus pandemic, all jute mills and other factories and establishments
that do not belong to the essential commodities category have been shut. This
particular order has caused great loss to Mr. Kamariya who happens to be the owner of
a cotton mill employing 200 workers. Apart from being a rich businessman he aspires to
be a philanthropist, taking a cue from the character Tony Stark who was a ‘genius,
billionaire, playboy philanthropist’, in the movie Iron Man. To achieve the goal of being
 a philanthropist he strongly objected to such an order saying that they were taking all
necessary precaution and his workers needed the money to sustain their life. He filed a
suit objecting to the lockdown order before the District Magistrate. Decide the validity
of such a claim.
a. Yes, the claim is a valid one as taking away the livelihood from people will be a
violation of Art. 21 and the govt. cannot proceed to take action, which might
derogate such right.
b. No, the claim is not a valid one, the man thinks all of this to be big a joke and is
making a mockery of the justice system thus this case should be thrown out at the
earliest.
c. The claim might or might not be valid but the claim cannot be entertained due to
lack of jurisdiction.
d. The claim might or might not be valid but the claim cannot be entertained due to
lack of jurisdiction, enshrined under sec. 71 of the DMA, 2005.

Ans: d; Rationale- U/s 71 of the DMA, 2005 it has been explicitly stated that no other court
except for the SC and the HC, have jurisdiction to entertain any suit against an action taken
under the provisions of the act.

3.2. On the eve of 30th March when the country slept, the state of Baryana witnessed a
barbarous act, which led to the perpetrators being branded as unconscionable and
inhumane. As the country reeling from an unprecedented lockdown due to the SARS-
CoV-2 different states saw migrant labourers pouring in, Baryana was no exception. The
authorities were struggling to flatten the curve, so that night a team of 7 sanitisation
workers took it upon themselves to embark on a mission for halting the spread under
govt. orders and stopping the spread by spraying disinfectants on the migrant labourers
who came in that night via the NH13 highway. A checkpoint was established and
systematically, people were rounded up and sprayed with disinfectants to rid them of
the virus reducing chances of infection. The visuals form the incident however fuelled
an outrage throughout the country against the officials engaged in the operation and
started a gale storm, human rights activists and national media ridiculed the men
involved while the populous demanded swift action against them for violating human
rights. Decide if the officials can be prosecuted for their actions.
a. Yes, they should be prosecuted as they violated Human Rights when they rounded
up the migrant labourers and spayed them with disinfectants, the labourers were
treated like animals and this should not go unpunished.
b. No, this act should be not punished. If the frontline workers are not given free rein
to do what is needed how can they control the outbreak? It is only logical to let
them do what they are doing; such kind of persecution will only abrade their
morale.
 c. Yes, they need to be prosecuted as they have violated the fundamental right to life,
of the migrant labours enshrined in Art. 21 of the constitution.
d. No, the action was taken or at least was intended to be taken in good faith, under
govt. orders to flatten the curve under governmental orders, and the officials are
protected by sec. 72 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

Ans: d; Rationale- U/s 72 it has been outlined that no suit or prosecution shall lie against any
action taken by an officer or authority working on behalf of the govt. provided such act is
done or intended to be done in good faith under the provisions of the DMA, 2005.

3.3. Which of the following is attributable to the premise?

a. The state legislature of Madhya Prakesh intends to enact a new legislation to deal
with the coronavirus pandemic, but the state govt. has a ‘Zero Tolerance for
Corruption’ policy which has prompted the legislature to enact its own counter part
of the DMA, 2005. The legislation has been named M.P. Disaster Management Act,
2020, in which under sec. 72 it has been categorically stated that if any official is
found guilty his/her quantum of punishment will be more than that of any other
ordinary man, under the same circumstances. The govt. states that this measure has
been adapted to ensure that the employees work with utmost diligence and to
maintain 100% transparency. Since, provisions of both legislations are in apparent
conflict with each other a harmonisation approach shall be taken by the courts and
both legislations shall be implemented.
b. The state legislature of Madhya Prakesh intends to enact a new legislation to deal
with the coronavirus pandemic, but the state govt. has a ‘Zero Tolerance for
Corruption’ policy which has prompted the legislature to enact its own counter part
of the DMA, 2005. The legislation has been named M.P. Disaster Management Act,
2020, in which under sec. 72 it has been categorically stated that if any official is
found guilty his/her quantum of punishment will be more than that of any other
ordinary man, under the same circumstances. The govt. states that this measure has
been adapted to ensure that the employees work with utmost diligence and to
maintain 100% transparency. Since the DMA, 2005 and the MPDMA, 2020 are in
contradiction the former shall prevail over the latter.
c. The state legislature of Madhya Prakesh intends to enact a new legislation to deal
with the coronavirus pandemic, but the state govt. has a ‘Zero Tolerance for
Corruption’ policy which has prompted the legislature to enact its own counter part
of the DMA, 2005. The legislation has been named M.P. Disaster Management Act,
2020, in which under sec. 72 it has been categorically stated that if any official is
found guilty his/her quantum of punishment will be more than that of any other
ordinary man, under the same circumstances. The govt. states that this measure has
been adapted to ensure that the employees work with utmost diligence and to
maintain 100% transparency. Since the DMA, 2005 and the MPDMA, 2020 are in
 contradiction the former shall prevail over the latter and the MPDMA, 2020 will be
rendered repugnant.
d. The state legislature of Madhya Prakesh intends to enact a new legislation to deal
with the coronavirus pandemic, but the state govt. has a ‘Zero Tolerance for
Corruption’ policy which has prompted the legislature to enact its own counter part
of the DMA, 2005. The legislation has been named M.P. Disaster Management Act,
2020, in which under sec. 72 it has been categorically stated that if any official is
found guilty his/her quantum of punishment will be more than that of any other
ordinary man, under the same circumstances. The govt. states that this measure has
been adapted to ensure that the employees work with utmost diligence and to
maintain 100% transparency. Since the DMA, 2005 and the MPDMA, 2020 are in
contradiction the latter shall prevail over the former, as the state can also legislate
in a matter of the concurrent list.

Ans: c; Rationale- The state legislature and the parliament both can make laws in the
matters enlisted in the concurrent list however by the rule of generality if both legislations
(Central and State) on the same subject matter have conflicting views the central legislation
shall prevail. Thus, ‘c’ will be the apt choice.

3.4. During the covid-19 lockdown, curfew was imposed on intrastate travel from 7 pm. at
night until 6.00 in the morning, this information was available on public domain for
Arunabha living in Hyderabad, working from home the world made no sense and he
was happily oblivious of all news. One evening he decided that he had had enough and
took off on his Suzuki Gixxer 150 to see a friend who lived 10 km away. On the paved
Hyderabadi road he was flying at 100 kmph, enjoying the fresh air after what felt like
ages. At his friend’s place he indulged in some mild intoxication and wanted to head
back home at 6.30. p.m., because he could not miss work. His friend tried to warn him
that it was past the curfew time and he might get in trouble but he embarked on the
journey anyway. On the way, at around 6.45 p.m., he was stopped by three cops and
questioned, all while he was about 20 mins away from his home. Thereafter he was
charged with several offences- driving under the influence, public nuisance and Sec.
271. It was argued by the defence counsel in the trial court that the charge of public
nuisance was baseless and as such was levied to harass Arunabha as he was from a
different state. Decide if the charge can be justified or not.
a. No, the charge of public nuisance was baseless and so was the charge under sec.
271, they had no right to apprehend Arunabha as the curfew started from 7.00 p.m.
There was a 15 min window, in which he could have reached his place of residence.
b. Yes, the police have every right to stop and inspect any person based on suspicion.
c. No, the charges are all bogus as Arunabha did not have enough alcohol, which could
have been detected by the breathalyser so this was a ploy to harass him as he was
from a different state.
 d. No, the charge of public nuisance cannot be justified on its own just by attributing it
to the curfew time as he had 15 mins left on the clock to make it home, till the
curfew started.

Ans: d; Rationale- It is easy to get perplexed with the complexity of the options but the
question lucidly enquires as to the validity of the Public nuisance charge. This can be
attributed to his drunken state as well but insofar as the curfew time is concerned the
charge cannot be justified, hence choosing option ‘d’ would be kosher.

3.5. Entry 29, of the Concurrent List deal with “Prevention of the extension from one State to
another of infectious or contagious diseases or pests affecting men, animals or plants,”
it is under this context that the state legislature of Bukrat enacted a legislation by the
name of Pandemic Control Act. This Act prevented entry of human beings from
different states in the wake of any pandemic and/or outbreak of any severely infectious
disease. Ms. Diya was travelling from her college in Bipar to Bukrat, but was not allowed
to enter, citing the Pandemic Control Act, the officials had full authority to restrict
movement. Ms. Diya claimed this to be a blatant violation of her fundamental rights, to
this effect she filed a writ claiming breach of freedom guaranteed under Art. 19 and for
declaring the Pandemic Control Act unconstitutional. Decide upon the validity of such a
claim.
a. Yes, the claim is a valid one, as her fundamental right enshrined in Art. 19 has been
breached and the act effectuating such breach is obviously unconstitutional.
b. No, the claim is not a valid one. The act is valid as it has been enacted with regards
to Entry 29 of the concurrent list and restricts the rights enshrined in the Art. 19 in
accordance with the restrictions under Art. 19(2).
c. Yes, the claim is a valid one, as the subject could not be legislated upon by the state
legislature thus making the whole exercise futile. Also, Ms. Diya’s fundamental right
has been breached with no viable cause.
d. None of the above.

Ans: b; Rationale- Self-Explanatory.

4. Principle of Natural Justice is derived from the word ‘Jus Natural’ of the Roman law and it is
closely related to Common law and moral principles but is not codified. Natural justice
simply means to make a sensible and reasonable decision making procedure on a particular
issue. Sometimes, it doesn’t matter what is the reasonable decision but in the end, what
matters is the procedure and who all are engaged in taking the reasonable decision. It is not
restricted within the concept of ‘fairness’ it has different colours and shades which vary
from the context. According to traditional English law natural justice classified into two
principles i.e
a) Nemo judex in causa sua (rule against bias)
 b) Audi alteram partem (rule of fair hearing)
Nemo judex causa in sua means rule against bias. It is the first principles of natural justice
which says no man shall be the judge in his own cause in other words, a deciding authority
must be impartial and neutral while deciding any case. Thus the principle signifies that in
circumstances where a judge or deciding authority is suspected to be biased and partial
then he/she shall be disqualified from determining any case before them. It formulates that
justice should not only be done but seem to be done.
Audi alteram partem means hear the other side or let the other side be heard. This is the
second most fundamental rule of natural justice that says no one should be condemned
unheard. Where a person against whom any action is sought to be taken, his right or
interest is being affected, s/he shall be given an equal opportunity of being heard and
defend himself/herself. It outlines the right of a party to a dispute to respond to the
evidence presented against them and to choose legal representative of their own choice. It
is the duty of every person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions to act in
good faith and to fairly met out justice to both the sides by adhering to the principles of
natural justice.

(Extracted with edits from http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1549-concept-of-

natural-justice.html)

4.1. Magan Bihari was a common farmer from the town of Arrah, who received a lawyer’s
notice by Mr. Akhil Paswan for not having repaid the amount that he took as debt from
Mr. Paswan. Magan Bihari being an illiterate person did not have any idea as to what
might happen if he did not reply to the notice. Thereafter in a span of 1 week, a case
was filed in the Bhojpur District Court Arrah, a notice for the scheduled hearing was
sent and Magan Bihari was made aware of the fact that a case has been instituted
against him. However, he did not mark hi presence, three dates were provided one
after the other for him to appear but he did not. The court later passed an adverse
order against Magan Bihari, slapping exemplary damages. In the meantime, while
Magan Bihari’s son had returned to their ancestral home to take a break from his job in
Patna, he learnt about the suit and damages that his father had to pay. He wanted to
take up the matter and hired a good advocate for the task, the case was appealed
before the Patna HC, the plaintiff demanded that the hearings at the Bhojpur District
Court Arrah were conducted in blatant violation of the principles of Audi Alteram
Partem. Decide the validity of such an argument.
a. Yes, the argument is valid as the court passed a decree without hearing Magan
Bihari’s plight.
b. No, the argument is not valid as no matter what hardships Magan Bihari faced it was
his duty to execute his part of the contract. the consequences of his default
followed him and the court cannot do anything more now.
 c. Yes, the argument is valid as Magan Bihari was innocent and did not deserve an
adverse order to be passed against him, in doing so the principle of natural justice
has been violated.
d. No, the argument is not valid as Magan Bihari was given three chances to represent
his case but he chose to ignore the same, the ensuing consequences should not
come as a surprise.

Ans: d; Rationale- The principle of Audi Alteram Partem has not been violated as Magan
Bihari was given ample opportunities to present his case or just mark his presence but he
did not do so on his own will. The adverse court order and exemplary damages does not
relate to his right being violated.

4.2. The CNLU Act, 2006 has established the Chanakya National Law University. The
university is one among the second tier NLUs’ in India but is arguably the most
developed (Infrastructure wise) university in the state of Bihar second to IIT, Bihta.
Students in the university are blessed with good teachers, with regular classes being
held the university carries an academic aura. However, student A from the university
got into a fight with student B, under the university protocol a committee was formed
for evaluating and adjudicating on the matter while deliberating upon the mode and
quantum of punishment. The committee called student A and heard his side of the story
in length, later student B was called and he was asked to write an apology for his
conduct. Later, taking into account all witnesses and testimonies, student B was found
to be guilty. The student then filed a suit in the Patna HC claiming violation of the
principle of natural justice. Decide if the claim is a valid one.
a. Yes, the claim is valid because although B was summoned to make his case, he was
not heard at length, in fact he was not heard at all he was advised to accept guilt to
make the process run smoother.
b. Yes, the claim is valid because B was not the only one guilty, all the internal
committees are a sham and reflect bias.
c. No, the claim is not valid because no suit can be filed against CNLU in the Patna HC.
d. No, the claim is not valid, B was at fault from the beginning itself and wanted to ruin
the universities reputation as well. This is just a frivolous attempt to get back at the
university administration.

Ans: a; Rationale- Audi Alteram Partem implies that the other side be heard, the opportunity
should be viable and the alleged accused should be allowed a reasonable opportunity to
present his case. In the present case, B did not have enough opportunity to present his case
thus ‘a’ would be the most compelling choice.
4.3. If the case filed by student B, against CNLU was to be taken up the Chief Justice of
Patna HC, who happens to be the Chancellor of the University, would it be violative of
the principles of natural justice for B? Decide.
a. Yes, B will not get justice as Hon’ble Chief Justice will be protecting the university
interest being the chancellor of the university.
b. No, there would be no violation of the principles of natural justice, in fact B’s chance
of getting justice is increased as the Chief Justice himself is hearing the case.
c. Yes, the principle of Nemo judex causa in sua will not be adhered to as the
university against which disputes lies is being judged by the Chancellor of that very
university thus there will be inherent bias.
d. None of the above.

Ans: c; Rationale- Self- Explanatory.

4.4. Art. 14 embodies the principles of natural justice, in so far as it ensures equality before
the law and equal protection of the law.
It has been alleged that A has committed rape of a journalist B, during the ongoing
trial the media has already declared A, a criminal. A was later proved guilty by the state
HC in a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court he stated that the media has already
declared him a criminal without hearing his side of the story, thus violating the
principles of natural justice. Decide the validity of the argument.
a. Yes, the argument is a valid one as the media did not care what he had to say and
judged him thereafter branding him as a criminal.
b. No, the argument is not a valid one as the principle only finds application in judicial
and quasi-judicial proceedings, media houses declaring A, a criminal does not count
as an applicable decision-making process.
c. No, he deserved the title and as such because it was he who committed the crime in
the first place.
d. Yes, the argument is a valid one as every human deserves a chance and it is only fair
to hear him out before he is convicted.

Ans: b; Rationale- Self- Explanatory.