Q.1, Q.2 AND Q.

3 HAVE COMMON SETS OF PRINCIPLE AND FACTS:

PRINCIPLE 1: the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the ground of religion
only and that state shall have no religion of its own and all persons shall be equally entitled to
the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess and the right to freely profess,
practice and propagate religion.
PRINCIPLE 2: the fundamental right to freedom of association includes the right to form an
association as well as not join an association. The fundamental right to freedom of
association also includes the freedom to decide with whom to associate.
PRINCIPLE 3: fundamental rights are applicable only to laws made by or administrative
actions of the state and do not apply to actions of private persons.
PRINCIPLE 4: any law in contravention of fundamental rights is unconstitutional and
therefore cannot blind any person.

FACTS: SUMIT chemicals a private company is run by SUMIT in the city of jaisalmer.
SUMIT is a Hindu by religion and believes in propagating his religion within his company
and outside. SUMIT offers an employment contract of three years to Rashid. One of the
clauses in the employment contract provided that Rushed must join HINDU PARISHAD
UNION, one of the trade unions active in SUMIT CHEMICALS, which helps in propagating
religion in the company.
Q.1 decides whether rashid can deny joining the HINDU PARISHAD UNION:
(A) The condition requiring rashid to join HINDU PARISHAD UNION cannot bind him as it
impinges on his freedom not to join any association especially a union which doesn’t profess
religion.
(B) rashid cannot claim a FR to freedom of association against sumit chemicals and therefore
the contract would bind him even though his freedom of association is restricted.
(c) The employment contract infringes Rashid’s freedom to decide with whom to associate
and therefore is legally not enforceable.
(d) None of the above.
SOLUTION: B
EXPLANATION: FR is enforceable only against entities of state. Since SUMIT
CHEMICALS is a private company, rashid cannot enforce his rights against the company.

Q.2 the state of Assam passed a regulation which mandates that every employee in a
company would be required to join a trade union of their choice:
(a) The regulation applies to personal choices of employees and hence it doesn’t apply to FR
rights of citizens.
(B) Such a law would not curtail any individual’s right to freedom of association as an
employee can freely decide with whom to associate.
(c) Neither the employment contract nor the law of parliament would be enforceable as they
would curtail the freedom of association.
(d) None of the above.
SOLUTION: C
EXPLANATION: according to principle 2 FR includes not to join an association also.

Q.3 SUMIT CHEMICALS entered into an agreement with Hindu parishad union whereby the
company would hold a session every Monday for an hour to profess Hindu religion. In such a
case:
(a) The agreement would he illegal as it would curtail the right of the employees to practice
their own religion.
(b) The agreement is illegal as it provides sumit an opportunity to propagate his religion in
his company.
(c) The violation of FR to practice one’s religion cannot be enforced against SUMIT
CHEMICALS as it is a private company.
(d) None of the above
SOLUTION: C
EXPLANATION: the agreement was made between two parties it was not law and thus
employees could not file a writ against the same.
Q.4 PRINCIPLE 1: no person shall be deprived of his life a liberty except by procedure
established by law.
PRINCIPLE 2: right to life includes right to clean and pollution free air.
FACTS: the municipal authority of Kerala gave permission to cement industry to startup a
plant right at the centre of the city which has a high density of human population. It is an
established scientific fact that a cement plant causes irretrievable damage to the quality of air
and an area falling within radius of 4 km of such cement plant becomes unfit for human
habitation. Ali, a resident of one of the localities of central Kerala, is aspiring for CLAT.
Having studied about FR, he along with his friend ram files public interest litigation in the
high court of Kerala under section 226 of the constitution. Decide:
(a) His writ petition will fail as municipal authority is not government.
(b) His writ petition will succeed because right to clean air is implicit under article 21.
(c) Ali should file a writ petition under article 32 of the constitution in the supreme court
of India.
(d) None of the above.
SOLUTION: B
EXPLANATION: article 21 also covers right to clean air which is a right of every individual.
Here by installing a cement industry in the centre of city which violates the right to clean air?
So, the writ petition will succeed.

Q.5 PRINCIPLE 1: all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.
PRINCIPLE 2: reasonable restrictions on the exercise of such right can be imposed in the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations
with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence.
FACTS: Mr. Ali is a learned professor in a university in Mathura. He teaches sociology. Of
late he had he had been greatly influenced by “jihad as god’s commands to human beings. He
believes that if one follows ‘jihad” one would go to heaven where he will get seven virgin
brides and lots of food and drinks and will be created like a king. He starts a freinds book
page titled “welcome to jihad”. He targets young teens that have no education and are in
urgent need of money. He starts recruiting interested people promising them a recruiting
interested people promising them a permanent house, a car, and bank balance worth lakhs. A
sfew youngsters seeing the perks join it. Aditi, a teenager notices this page on friendsbook
while randomly browsing fb. Being a prudent and intelligent girl she copies the link of the
page and calls 100 to immediately inform her parents. The police arrest Mr. Ali and aditi is
appreciated for her perspicacious action. Decide:
(a) Mr. ali is not liable as he has freedom of speech and expression.
(b) Mr. ali is liable as his freedom of speech and expression is subject to certain
limitations.
(c) Mr. ali is not liable as aditi informed the police and not police suo moto take the
action against mr. ali.
(d) None of the above.
SOLUTION: B
EXPLANATION: here mr. Ali has crossed the limits of freedom of speech and expression by
creating such a page which influenced the teenagers . so mr. ali is liable for his act.