Legal Reasoning Question SET 1 31st August 2023

Legal Reasoning (CLAT) Question
- Samarth Udasin
Passage 1
Holding a person in custody for further inquiry and investigation is governed by Section 167
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 167[1] provides that a person may be kept in
police custody to the extent of 15 days at the order of the Magistrate. Inthe case of an
Executive Magistrate, the Executive Magistrate may grant custody of police to the extent of
seven days. A Judicial Magistrate has the power to grant police the custody of a person for 15
days. Police custody can only extend up to the period of 15 days. Beyond this, even if the
custody of the person is required, it has to be judicial custody.
A judicial custody may extend up to the period of 90 days if the person is arrested in
connection to a crime which is punishable by an imprisonment of 10 years or more, life
imprisonment, and capital sentence. In any other case, the judicial custody of such person
may extend up to the period of 60 days.[2] After the period of 60 or 90 days, the person is
entitled to bail, till the time police have not filed the charge sheet. Once the police files the
charge sheet, the person cannot claim bail as a matter of right.
As already stated above, the Magistrate may grant police or judicial custody of the person.
The detaining authority may be changed during the pendency of the detention, subject to the
fact that the period of detention has not crossed the 15 days mark. If in between police
custody, the person is shifted to judicial custody, the number of days served in police custody
is deducted from the number of days of judicial custody.
The difference between police custody and judicial custody, first of all, relates to the
authority. Also, in a case of police custody, a person can be interrogated, but in judicial
custody, a person cannot be interrogated except in exceptional circumstances. Police custody
starts as soon as a person is arrested, but judicial custody starts when the Magistrate orders it.
Rights of a person start as soon as the person is arrested. Under Article 22[3] of the Indian
Constitution provides for protection of the arrested person. He has to be informed about the
reason for his arrest. Article 22 (1) states that the person should be allowed to consult a
lawyer of his own choice. Section 50[4] of the CRPC is a supplementary to Article 22 (1) and
(5) which states that the person should be given the reason for his arrest and has the right to
bail.
A deep reading of Section 167 (1) states that the officer in charge of a police station or the
investigation officer dealing with the case can only ask for police custody only when there are
reasonable grounds, and there is no chance that the investigation can be finished within 24
hours as mentioned under Section 57 of the CRPC. Hence, the power to grant police custody
is not mechanically give to the magistrate. He should ensure that there is sufficient cause to
grant police custody. This was also stated in the case of Raj Pal Singh v the State of UP.
Q1. Ravi was arrested by the police on 1st January 2023 for allegedly murdering his
wife. He was produced before a Judicial Magistrate who remanded him to police
custody for 10 days. On 11th January, the police sought further custody of Ravi for
another 5 days, which was granted by the Magistrate. On 16th January, the police again
requested for an extension of police custody for 3 more days, citing some new leads in
the case. The Magistrate, however, refused to grant any further police custody and
ordered Ravi to be sent to judicial custody. Was the Magistrate correct in refusing to
grant further police custody of Ravi?
A) Yes, because the period of police custody cannot exceed 15 days in any case.
B) No, because the period of police custody can be extended up to 90 days if the person is
arrested for a crime punishable by capital sentence.
C) No, because the period of police custody can be changed during the pendency of the
detention, subject to the fact that the period of detention has not crossed the 15 days mark.
D) Yes, because the period of police custody can only be granted when there are reasonable
grounds, and there is no chance that the investigation can be finished within 24 hours.
Reference line: “A person may be kept in police custody for up to 15 days at the order of the
Magistrate, and beyond that, it has to be judicial custody.”
The correct answer is:
Let's break down each option and explain the reasoning behind the correct answer:
- This option accurately reflects the information provided in the passage. According to the
passage, a person may be kept in police custody for a maximum of 15 days at the order of the
Magistrate. Beyond this period, the person must be shifted to judicial custody. As of 16th
January, the police custody period for Ravi had already reached 18 days (10 days + 5 days +
3 days), which exceeds the 15-day limit. Therefore, the Magistrate was correct in refusing
further police custody for Ravi.
B) No, because the period of police custody can be extended up to 90 days if the person is
arrested for a crime punishable by capital sentence.
- This option is not entirely accurate. While it's true that a person arrested in connection to a
crime punishable by capital sentence (such as a crime that might lead to the death penalty)
could be held in judicial custody for up to 90 days, this does not apply to police custody. The
passage clearly states that police custody can only extend up to 15 days, regardless of the
nature of the crime.
C) No, because the period of police custody can be changed during the pendency of the
- This option is not entirely accurate either. The passage mentions that the detaining
authority may be changed during the pendency of the detention, but this refers to transferring
a person from police custody to judicial custody or vice versa. It does not indicate that the
period of police custody can be extended beyond 15 days based on changing the detaining
authority.
D) Yes, because the period of police custody can only be granted when there are reasonable
grounds, and there is no chance that the investigation can be finished within 24 hours.
- This option accurately describes one of the conditions for granting police custody
mentioned in the passage. Police custody can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds
to believe that the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. However, this option
doesn't fully address the question at hand, which is whether the Magistrate was correct in
refusing further police custody after the initial 15 days have already passed.
In conclusion, option A is the correct answer because it aligns with the information provided
in the passage. The period of police custody for Ravi had exceeded the maximum limit of 15
days, and therefore, the Magistrate was correct in refusing further police custody.
Q2. Priya was arrested by the police on 15th February 2023 for allegedly being involved
in a bank robbery. She was produced before an Executive Magistrate who remanded
her to police custody for 7 days. On 22nd February, she was shifted to judicial custody
by the same Magistrate. On 25th February, the police filed an application before a
Judicial Magistrate seeking police custody of Priya for another 5 days, claiming that
they had found some crucial evidence against her. The Judicial Magistrate allowed the
application and granted police custody of Priya. Was the Judicial Magistrate justified in
granting police custody of Priya?
A) Yes, because the period of police custody can be changed during the pendency of the
B) No, because the period of police custody cannot exceed 7 days in case of an Executive
Magistrate.
C) No, because the period of police custody cannot be granted after the person is shifted to
judicial custody.
D) Yes, because the period of police custody can be extended up to 15 days by a Judicial
Magistrate.
Reference line: “The detaining authority may be changed during the pendency of the
detention, subject to the fact that the period of detention has not crossed the 15 days mark.”
Let's explain each option and why the correct answer is justified:
- This option is accurate and aligned with the information provided in the passage. The
passage mentions that the detaining authority (from police custody to judicial custody and
vice versa) can be changed during the pendency of detention, as long as the total period of
detention has not exceeded 15 days. Since Priya was initially in police custody for 7 days,
there was still room for additional police custody before the 15-day limit. Therefore, the
Judicial Magistrate was justified in granting the police custody of Priya for another 5 days.
B) No, because the period of police custody cannot exceed 7 days in case of an Executive
Magistrate.
- This option is not relevant to the situation described in the question. The case involves a
shift from Executive Magistrate's police custody to Judicial Magistrate's police custody, and
the duration of the initial police custody (7 days) is not relevant to this specific scenario.
judicial custody.
- This option is not accurate. The passage doesn't explicitly state that police custody cannot
be granted after a person is shifted to judicial custody. Instead, it emphasizes that the
detaining authority can be changed during the pendency of detention, as long as the total
period of detention does not exceed 15 days.
D) Yes, because the period of police custody can be extended up to 15 days by a Judicial
Magistrate.
- This option is not entirely accurate. While the Judicial Magistrate does have the authority
to grant police custody, the passage does not explicitly state that a Judicial Magistrate can
extend police custody up to 15 days. The key factor is that the total period of detention should
not exceed 15 days, regardless of whether it is in police custody or judicial custody.
In conclusion, option A is the correct answer because it accurately reflects the flexibility
allowed in changing the detaining authority during the initial 15-day period of detention.
Since Priya had only been in police custody for 7 days initially, the Judicial Magistrate's
decision to grant additional police custody was justified.
Q3. Raju was arrested by the police on 1st March 2023 for allegedly kidnapping and
raping a minor girl. He was produced before a Judicial Magistrate who remanded him
to judicial custody for 90 days. On 30th May, the police filed a charge sheet against Raju
in the court. Raju applied for bail on the same day, claiming that he had completed his
period of judicial custody and was entitled to bail as a matter of right. The court
rejected his bail application on the ground that he was accused of a heinous crime and
there was strong evidence against him. Was the court correct in rejecting Raju’s bail
application?
A) Yes, because Raju was accused of a crime punishable by life imprisonment and he could
not claim bail as a matter of right.
B) No, because Raju had completed his period of judicial custody and he was entitled to bail
as a matter of right till the time police had not filed the charge sheet.
C) No, because Raju had completed his period of judicial custody and he was entitled to bail
as a matter of right irrespective of whether the police had filed the charge sheet or not.
D) Yes, because Raju had completed his period of judicial custody but he was not entitled to
bail as a matter of right after the police had filed the charge sheet.
Reference line: “The person is entitled to bail after the period of 60 or 90 days, till the time
police have not filed the charge sheet.”
- This option is not entirely accurate. While it's true that being accused of a heinous crime
might be a factor considered when granting bail, the passage explicitly states that a person is
entitled to bail after the period of judicial custody (60 or 90 days), regardless of the nature of
the crime. The key determinant is whether the police have filed the charge sheet or not.
- This option is not correct. The passage clearly states that the entitlement to bail as a matter
of right after the period of judicial custody applies only until the time the police have not
filed the charge sheet. Once the charge sheet is filed, the person's entitlement to bail as a
matter of right ends.
- This option is not correct. The passage emphasizes that the entitlement to bail as a matter
of right ends once the police have filed the charge sheet. The completion of the period of
judicial custody alone does not guarantee an unconditional right to bail.
passage clearly states that after the period of judicial custody (60 or 90 days), a person is
entitled to bail as long as the police have not filed the charge sheet. Once the charge sheet is
filed, the person's entitlement to bail as a matter of right ceases, and the court has the
discretion to consider factors such as the seriousness of the offense and the strength of the
evidence against the accused before deciding on bail.
In conclusion, option D is the correct answer because it correctly reflects the condition under
which Raju's entitlement to bail as a matter of right ended after the charge sheet was filed by
the police.
Q4. Rani was arrested by the police on 10th April 2023 for allegedly cheating and
defrauding several people by posing as a travel agent. She was produced before a
Judicial Magistrate who remanded her to police custody for 5 days. On 15th April, she
was shifted to judicial custody by the same Magistrate. On 20th April, the police filed an
application before another Judicial Magistrate seeking police custody of Rani for
another 10 days, claiming that they had to recover some documents and money from
her. The second Judicial Magistrate allowed the application and granted police custody
of Rani. Was the second Judicial Magistrate correct in granting police custody of Rani?
A) Yes, because the period of police custody can be extended up to 15 days by any Judicial
Magistrate.
B) No, because the period of police custody cannot be granted by a different Judicial
Magistrate than the one who first remanded the person.
judicial custody.
D) Yes, because the period of police custody can be changed during the pendency of the
Reference line: “If in between police custody, the person is shifted to judicial custody, the
number of days served in police custody is deducted from the number of days of judicial
custody.”
- This option is not entirely accurate. While it's true that being accused of a heinous crime
might be a factor considered when granting bail, the passage explicitly states that a person is
entitled to bail after the period of judicial custody (60 or 90 days), regardless of the nature of
the crime. The key determinant is whether the police have filed the charge sheet or not.
of right after the period of judicial custody applies only until the time the police have not
filed the charge sheet. Once the charge sheet is filed, the person's entitlement to bail as a
matter of right ends.
- This option is not correct. The passage emphasizes that the entitlement to bail as a matter
of right ends once the police have filed the charge sheet. The completion of the period of
judicial custody alone does not guarantee an unconditional right to bail.
passage clearly states that after the period of judicial custody (60 or 90 days), a person is
entitled to bail as long as the police have not filed the charge sheet. Once the charge sheet is
filed, the person's entitlement to bail as a matter of right ceases, and the court has the
discretion to consider factors such as the seriousness of the offense and the strength of the
evidence against the accused before deciding on bail.
In conclusion, option D is the correct answer because it correctly reflects the condition under
which Raju's entitlement to bail as a matter of right ended after the charge sheet was filed by
the police.
Q5. Rohit was arrested by the police on 1st May 2023 for allegedly being involved in a
terrorist attack. He was produced before a Judicial Magistrate who remanded him to
judicial custody for 90 days. On 30th July, the police filed a charge sheet against Rohit
in the court. Rohit applied for bail on the same day, claiming that he had completed his
period of judicial custody and was entitled to bail as a matter of right. The court
rejected his bail application on the ground that he was accused of a serious offence and
there was a possibility of him fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence. Was the
court justified in rejecting Rohit’s bail application?
A) Yes, because Rohit was accused of a serious offence and he could not claim bail as a
matter of right.
B) No, because Rohit had completed his period of judicial custody and he was entitled to bail
C) No, because Rohit had completed his period of judicial custody and he was entitled to bail
D) Yes, because Rohit had completed his period of judicial custody but he was not entitled to
Reference line: “The person is entitled to bail after the period of 60 or 90 days, till the time
police have not filed the charge sheet.”
A) Yes, because Rohit was accused of a serious offence and he could not claim bail as a
matter of right.
- This option is partially correct. While the seriousness of the offence might be a
consideration in granting bail, the passage specifies that the entitlement to bail as a matter of
right continues until the charge sheet is filed by the police. Once the charge sheet is filed, the
person's entitlement to bail as a matter of right ends, and other factors come into play.
B) No, because Rohit had completed his period of judicial custody and he was entitled to bail
of right continues only until the charge sheet is filed by the police. Once the charge sheet is
filed, the person's entitlement to bail as a matter of right ceases.
C) No, because Rohit had completed his period of judicial custody and he was entitled to bail
- This option is not correct. The passage explicitly states that the entitlement to bail as a
matter of right ceases once the charge sheet is filed by the police.
passage clarifies that a person's entitlement to bail as a matter of right continues only until the
police file the charge sheet. Once the charge sheet is filed, the court can consider other factors
such as the nature of the offence and the possibility of the accused fleeing or tampering with
evidence before deciding on bail.
In conclusion, option D is the correct answer because it accurately reflects the condition
under which Rohit's entitlement to bail as a matter of right ended after the charge sheet was
filed by the police. The court was justified in rejecting Rohit's bail application based on these
circumstances.
Passage 2
Under the IPC, Section 499 and 500 lay down the offence of defamation.
Section 499: “Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by
visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending
to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the
reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that
person.” The definition in this section is subject to four explanations and ten exceptions
which shall be discussed further.
Section 500 lays down the punishment to the person who commits the offence of defamation.
It reads, “Punishment for defamation.—Whoever defames another shall be punished with
simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
Hence, as per Section 499, there are certain elements of the offence of defamation. All of
these must be fulfilled for an accused to be charged and convicted of this offence.
The statement made must be defamatory in nature
It is necessary that the statement that is made by the accused must be of a defamatory nature.
This essentially means that it must lead to a lower reputation of the person about whom the
statement refers to. Whether a statement lowers the reputation of a person or not will be
dependant on how right-thinking members of society perceive the person post them coming
in contact with such defamatory material.
Further, it is not a valid defence that there was no intention on the part of the person making
the statement. For example, in the famous case of American actress Katie Holmes, a
magazine published that she was a drug addict. Subsequently, she filed a defamation suit as it
was contrary to her reputation and was also a false claim.
Recently, a suit for criminal defamation was filed against Javed Akhtar for allegedly making
defamatory statements against BJP candidate from Bhopal Lok Sabha seat Pragya Singh
Thakur at a press conference. The petition spelt out the complaint that Akhtar had
intentionally made references against Thakur to provoke voters against her.
It is to be noted here that mere insult or statements that hurt the feelings of the person to
whom they are addressed would not constitute defamation. Thus, if a teacher calls a student
lazy or an employer admonishes an employee for coming late, the same would not fall under
the offence as envisaged under Section 499.
Q1. Amit, a famous actor, gave an interview to a magazine in which he claimed that he
had an affair with Ria, another famous actress, and that she was pregnant with his
child. Ria denied these allegations and filed a criminal defamation case against Amit.
Amit defended himself by saying that he had no intention to harm Ria’s reputation and
that he was only expressing his love for her. Will Ria succeed in her case against Amit?
A) Yes, because Amit made a defamatory statement concerning Ria by words intended to be
read, which lowered her reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
B) No, because Amit made a statement based on truth and public good, which are valid
exceptions under Section 499.
C) No, because Amit made a statement without any intention to harm Ria’s reputation and
with her consent, which are valid defences under Section 499.
D) Yes, because Amit made a statement with the intention to harm Ria’s reputation or
knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm her reputation, which is
an essential element of defamation.
Reference line: “The statement made must be defamatory in nature, which means that it must
lower the reputation of the person about whom the statement refers to.”
- This option is accurate and aligned with the information provided in the passage. Amit's
statement that he had an affair with Ria and that she was pregnant with his child is
defamatory in nature because it can harm Ria's reputation. The passage clearly states that for
a statement to be defamatory, it must lead to a lower reputation of the person about whom the
statement refers to. Whether there was an intention to harm or not is not a valid defense if the
statement itself is defamatory.
B) No, because Amit made a statement based on truth and public good, which are valid
- This option is not correct. While truth is a valid defense against a defamation claim, the
passage does not mention that Amit's statement was based on truth. Additionally, the passage
doesn't provide any context that the statement was made for the public good, which is an
exception to defamation.
C) No, because Amit made a statement without any intention to harm Ria’s reputation and
with her consent, which are valid defenses under Section 499.
- This option is not entirely correct. Even if Amit made the statement without intention to
harm or with consent, the statement itself appears to be defamatory as it involves claims
about an alleged affair and pregnancy. The passage states that intention might not be a valid
defense if the statement is defamatory.
D) Yes, because Amit made a statement with the intention to harm Ria’s reputation or
- This option partially addresses the essential element of intention, but it doesn't fully
address the defamatory nature of the statement itself. The passage highlights that the
statement must be defamatory to begin with, which means that it lowers the reputation of the
person it refers to. In this case, the statement made by Amit is defamatory in nature, and
intention or belief comes into play after establishing that defamatory nature.
In conclusion, option A is the correct answer because it accurately reflects the nature of
Amit's statement and its potential to lower Ria's reputation, in accordance with the definition
of defamation provided in the passage.
Q2. Bala, a political leader, made a speech at a public rally in which he accused
Chandra, his rival candidate, of being involved in a corruption scandal and having links
with terrorists. Chandra filed a criminal defamation case against Bala. Bala defended
himself by saying that he had made the speech in good faith and for the public good,
and that he had sufficient evidence to prove his allegations. Will Chandra succeed in his
case against Bala?
A) Yes, because Bala made a defamatory statement concerning Chandra by words spoken,
which lowered his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
B) No, because Bala made a statement based on truth and public good, which are valid
C) No, because Bala made a statement with the intention to harm Chandra’s reputation or
knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm his reputation, which is
D) Yes, because Bala made a statement without any justification or defence under Section
499.
Reference line: “The statement must not fall under any of the ten exceptions provided in
Section 499, which are based on the grounds of truth, public good, fair comment, consent,
etc., which means that the person making the statement must not have any valid justification
or defence for doing so.”
A) Yes, because Bala made a defamatory statement concerning Chandra by words spoken,
which lowered his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
- This option is not accurate. While the passage does state that a defamatory statement must
lower the reputation of the person it refers to, it's important to consider the exceptions and
defenses to defamation. In this case, Bala claims to have made the statement in good faith and
for the public good, which are valid exceptions.
passage mentions that the statement must not fall under any of the ten exceptions provided in
Section 499, which includes valid defenses like truth and public good. If Bala can provide
sufficient evidence to prove the truth of his allegations and that he made the statement for the
public good, Chandra might not succeed in his defamation case.
C) No, because Bala made a statement with the intention to harm Chandra’s reputation or
- This option doesn't fully consider the exceptions and defenses to defamation. While
intention to harm or belief that the imputation will harm reputation is important, if Bala can
prove that his statement falls under valid exceptions like truth and public good, Chandra's
case might not succeed.
D) Yes, because Bala made a statement without any justification or defence under Section
499.
- This option is not correct. Bala claims to have justification in the form of evidence and
valid defenses like truth and public good. The passage highlights that if the person making
the statement has valid justifications or defenses, the statement might not constitute
defamation.
In conclusion, option B is the correct answer because it considers the valid exceptions and
defenses to defamation that Bala claims to have used in his defense. If he can prove the truth
of his allegations and that his statement was made for the public good, Chandra's case might
not succeed.
Q3. Dina, a journalist, wrote an article in a newspaper in which she exposed the illegal
activities of Esha, a powerful businesswoman. Esha filed a criminal defamation case against
Dina. Dina defended herself by saying that she had written the article with the consent of
Esha, who had agreed to cooperate with her investigation. However, Esha denied giving any
such consent and claimed that Dina had fabricated the evidence against her. Will Esha
succeed in her case against Dina?
A) Yes, because Dina made a defamatory statement concerning Esha by words intended to be
B) No, because Dina made a statement with the consent of Esha, which is a valid exception
under Section 499.
C) No, because Dina made a statement based on truth and public good, which are valid
D) Yes, because Dina made a statement without the consent of Esha, which is an essential
element of defamation.
A) Yes, because Dina made a defamatory statement concerning Esha by words intended to be
- This option does not fully address the situation where Dina claims to have written the
article with Esha's consent. Defamation involves lowering the reputation of a person, but
consent can sometimes be a valid defense. However, the accuracy of Dina's claim about
Esha's consent is disputed in this case.
B) No, because Dina made a statement with the consent of Esha, which is a valid exception
under Section 499.
- This option is not fully accurate. While consent can indeed be a valid defense, the passage
highlights that the statement must not only fall under valid exceptions but also not be
fabricated or unjustified. In this case, Esha denies giving consent, which disputes Dina's
claim.
C) No, because Dina made a statement based on truth and public good, which are valid
- This option does not directly address the issue of consent, which is the main point of
dispute in this case. Even if Dina's statement was based on truth and for the public good, if
she did not have Esha's consent to publish the information, it could still be problematic.
- This option is accurate and aligned with the information provided in the passage. One of
the essential elements of defamation is that the statement should be made without the consent
of the person it refers to. If Esha did not give her consent for the article and claims that Dina
fabricated evidence, Dina's defense of consent could be disputed, potentially making her
statement defamatory.
In conclusion, option D is the correct answer because it takes into account the essential
element of consent in the context of defamation. If Dina made the statement without Esha's
consent, her claim of consent could be challenged, potentially leading to the possibility of
defamation.
Q4. Farhan, a comedian, made a video in which he mocked Gauri, a famous singer, for her
poor performance and appearance. He uploaded the video on his social media account and it
went viral. Gauri filed a criminal defamation case against Farhan. Farhan defended himself
by saying that he had made the video as a fair comment and for entertainment purposes only.
He also said that he had no intention to harm Gauri’s reputation and that he was only
exercising his freedom of speech and expression. Will Gauri succeed in her case against
Farhan?
A) Yes, because Farhan made a defamatory statement concerning Gauri by visible
representations, which lowered her reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of
society.
B) No, because Farhan made a statement as a fair comment and for entertainment purposes
only, which are valid exceptions under Section 499.
C) No, because Farhan made a statement without any intention to harm Gauri’s reputation or
knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm her reputation, which are
valid defences under Section 499.
D) Yes, because Farhan made a statement with the intention to harm Gauri’s reputation or
Reference line: “The statement must be made with the intention to harm, or knowing or
having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, which
means that there must be a malicious motive or a reckless disregard for the truth behind the
defamatory statement.”
A) Yes, because Farhan made a defamatory statement concerning Gauri by visible
representations, which lowered her reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of
society.
- This option does not fully consider Farhan's defense of making a fair comment and for
entertainment purposes. While the statement might indeed be defamatory, it's important to
evaluate whether Farhan's defense is valid in this case.
B) No, because Farhan made a statement as a fair comment and for entertainment purposes
only, which are valid exceptions under Section 499.
- This option partially addresses Farhan's defense, but it doesn't fully consider the context
of the situation. While fair comment and entertainment purposes might be valid defenses,
they do not apply if the statement was made with a malicious intent or reckless disregard for
the truth.
C) No, because Farhan made a statement without any intention to harm Gauri’s reputation or
knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm her reputation, which are
valid defences under Section 499.
- This option is not entirely accurate. The passage highlights that even if there's no intention
to harm, a statement could still be defamatory if it's made with the knowledge or reasonable
belief that it could harm the reputation of the person. Farhan's defense could be challenged if
his statement was indeed made with knowledge or reason to believe that it could harm Gauri's
reputation.
- This option is accurate and aligned with the information provided in the passage.
Defamation requires the intention to harm or knowledge/reason to believe that the statement
could harm the reputation of the person. Even if Farhan claims fair comment and
entertainment purposes, if he made the statement with a malicious intent or reckless disregard
for the truth, it could still be defamatory.
In conclusion, option D is the correct answer because it accurately addresses the essential
element of intention or knowledge/reason to believe behind the defamatory statement. If
Farhan's statement was made with the intention to harm Gauri's reputation or with
knowledge/reason to believe that it could harm her reputation, then Gauri's case against him
might succeed.
Q5. Harish, a lawyer, filed a criminal defamation case against Ishaan, his former client,
who had accused him of cheating and fraud in a social media post. Ishaan defended
himself by saying that he had made the post as a complaint against Harish’s
professional misconduct and that he had evidence to prove his allegations. He also said
that he had filed a complaint with the Bar Council against Harish. Harish claimed that
Ishaan had made the post to malign his reputation and to avoid paying his fees. Will
Harish succeed in his case against Ishaan?
A) Yes, because Ishaan made a defamatory statement concerning Harish by words intended to
be read, which lowered his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
B) No, because Ishaan made a statement based on truth and public good, which are valid
C) No, because Ishaan made a statement as an imputation on the character of Harish in good
faith for protection of his own interests or any other person’s interests or for public good,
which is another valid exception under Section 499. [Correct answer]
D) Yes, because Ishaan made a statement with the intention to harm Harish’s reputation or
which is another valid exception under Section 499.
A) Yes, because Ishaan made a defamatory statement concerning Harish by words intended to
be read, which lowered his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
- This option does not consider the exceptions provided in Section 499. While the statement
might be defamatory, it's important to evaluate whether Ishaan's defense based on valid
exceptions applies in this case.
B) No, because Ishaan made a statement based on truth and public good, which are valid
- This option does not fully consider the specific exception mentioned in the passage. While
truth and public good are valid exceptions, the passage mentions another exception related to
imputation on the character of a person made in good faith for protection of interests or
public good.
which is another valid exception under Section 499.
passage mentions this specific exception, which states that making an imputation on the
character of a person in good faith for protection of interests or public good is a valid
exception. Ishaan claims to have made the statement as a complaint against professional
misconduct and also filed a complaint with the Bar Council, which could fall under this
exception.
D) Yes, because Ishaan made a statement with the intention to harm Harish’s reputation or
- This option does not fully consider Ishaan's defense based on valid exceptions. Even if
Ishaan's statement was made without intention to harm, if it falls under valid exceptions like
the one mentioned in option C, it might not constitute defamation.
In conclusion, option C is the correct answer because it accurately considers the specific
exception mentioned in the passage that relates to imputations made in good faith for
protection of interests or public good. If Ishaan's statement falls under this exception, Harish's
case against him might not succeed.

Legal Reasoning Question SET 1 31st August 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Reasoning Question SET 1 31st August 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Reasoning (CLAT) Question

You might also like