11 Fundamental Duties for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

Read the following passage carefully and answer the question

The founders of the Indian Constitution were also sensitive to the topic of animal interests and their protection which is evident from Article 51(A) G of the Indian Constitution which reads as:

 It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.

In Concurrent List III, it is given that both the Centre and the State have the force and power to:

 Prevent inhumane attitudes towards animals & ensure the safety of wild animals and birds. The traces of animal rights can also be seen in the Criminal Procedure Code of India as killing, maiming, poisoning, or rendering useless any animal is punishable under Section 428 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

  Under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code any individual scaring someone else and averting him/her, who is the proprietor of a pet, from keeping or dealing with his/her pet can be held at risk.

  The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was enacted to prevent the act of unnecessary agony endured by animals and for that purpose to amend the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals. The Act defines the word animal as any living creature other than a human being. The Animal Welfare Board of India under Section 4 of the Act is set to guard animals from being exposed to excessive torment.

  Section 11 of the Act mentions the condition under which a demonstration is perceived to be brutality against animals. The arrangement expresses that slaughtering any animal in any pointlessly savage way is a culpable offence. The discipline for the said offense, on account of a first offense, is fine which is between ten rupees to fifty rupees, and on account of a second or consequent offense with a fine which is between twenty-five rupees to one hundred rupees and a maximum of three months of imprisonment on repetition of the said acts.

Question

Manohar bought imported saplings of a very rare fruit to grow in his orchids to prevent thieves he bought wild breeds of dogs. To keep the dogs active and used to their habitual nature Manohar occasionally left rabbits for the dogs to hunt. Whether an act of Manohar is a culpable actus reus?

Read the following passage carefully and answer the question

The founders of the Indian Constitution were also sensitive to the topic of animal interests and their protection which is evident from Article 51(A) G of the Indian Constitution which reads as:

 It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.

In Concurrent List III, it is given that both the Centre and the State have the force and power to:

 Prevent inhumane attitudes towards animals & ensure the safety of wild animals and birds. The traces of animal rights can also be seen in the Criminal Procedure Code of India as killing, maiming, poisoning, or rendering useless any animal is punishable under Section 428 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

  Under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code any individual scaring someone else and averting him/her, who is the proprietor of a pet, from keeping or dealing with his/her pet can be held at risk.

  The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was enacted to prevent the act of unnecessary agony endured by animals and for that purpose to amend the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals. The Act defines the word animal as any living creature other than a human being. The Animal Welfare Board of India under Section 4 of the Act is set to guard animals from being exposed to excessive torment.

  Section 11 of the Act mentions the condition under which a demonstration is perceived to be brutality against animals. The arrangement expresses that slaughtering any animal in any pointlessly savage way is a culpable offence. The discipline for the said offense, on account of a first offense, is fine which is between ten rupees to fifty rupees, and on account of a second or consequent offense with a fine which is between twenty-five rupees to one hundred rupees and a maximum of three months of imprisonment on repetition of the said acts.

Question

Recently, Livestock and Livestock Products (Importation and Exportation) Bill, 2023 was under public scrutiny and withdrawn by the government. The new Bill encompasses which of the following new categories of animals?

Read the given passage very carefully and answer the questions.

Justice MM Sundresh of the Supreme Court observed that there is a need to codify the law enabling law enforcement agencies to carry out surveillance while ensuring the fundamental rights, including the right to privacy, are safeguarded. “Any action facilitating State machinery must be backed by the authority of law. For that, there must be a codified law that empowers an investigating agency to undertake an act of surveillance. Needless to state, such a law must be subject to the Constitutional mandate, with specific reference to Part III of the Constitution. This would prevent any arbitrary action while preserving the privacy of the individual,” he said. He emphasized that the need of the hour is to take note of the voice and concerns expressed in the Puttaswamy judgment, which held that privacy is a fundamental right. There is a need to uphold privacy through the doctrine of proportionality, the judge explained. A clear demarcation is needed by drawing a Lakshman Rekha during a criminal investigation

(when surveillance is used),” he said. Speaking on the need for surveillance, Justice Sundresh said, “Surveillance and privacy must live and function together. As long as there is privacy, surveillance will certainly continue. The modern world has indeed become a difficult place to live and to maintain peace. The cost of peace is obviously very high. Any State which lacks expert surveillance would be considered a weak one and susceptible to attack from unknown sources. It may also be required in the larger interest of the public.”

Question: According to Justice MM Sundresh of the Supreme Court, what is the key aspect that needs to be ensured while enabling law enforcement agencies to carry out Surveillance?

The "Uniform Civil Code for the Citizens" is discussed in Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, which is a section of the Directive Principles of State Policy. How does Article 44 relate to or have an effect on Muslim Personal Law in India?

An airline refuses to hire a pilot who does not meet the minimum vision requirements necessary for safe flying. Is this a violation of the right to equality?

Which of the following best exemplifies how personal laws interact with the aforementioned Constitutional Articles in the context of family law?

A group of citizens is organizing a peaceful protest against a government decision they strongly disagree with. They want to exercise their right to freedom of speech and expression. Which Fundamental Duty should they keep in mind while doing so?

A public servant is presented with an opportunity to report corruption within their department, but they fear retaliation. Which Fundamental Duty should guide their decision in this situation?

In the event of a natural disaster, a group of citizens forms a volunteer rescue team to assist in the relief efforts and help affected individuals. Which Fundamental Duty to defend the country is being upheld in this situation?

Read the following passage and answer the question.

In A. K. Gopalan's case (supra), what was at issue was whether the tests was valid procedure for deprivation of personal liberty by preventive detention must be found exclusively in Article 22 of the ConstitutionConstitutions or could we gather from outsideouts de it also elements of any "due process of law" and use them to test the validity of a law dealing with preventive detention. Our Constitution-makers, while accepting a departure, from ordinary norms. by permitting the making of laws for preventive detention without trial for special reasons in exceptional situations also provided quite elaborately, in Article 22 of the Constitution itself,' whatit requirements such law, relating to preventive detention, must satisfy. The procedural requirements of such laws separately formed parts of the guaranteed fundamental rights. Therefore, when this Court was called upon to judge the validity of provisions relating to preventive detention it laid down, in Gopalan's case (supra), that the tests of "due process", with regard to such laws, are to be found in Article 22 of the Constitution, exclusively because this article constitutes a self-contained code for laws of this description. That was, in my view, the real ratio decidendi of Gopalan's case (supra). It appears to me, with great respect, that other observations relating to the separability of the subject matters of Articles 21 and 19 were mere obiter dicta. They may have appeared to the majority of learned Judges in Gopalan's case to be extensions of the logic they adopted with regard to the relationship between Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution. But, the real issue there was whether, in the face of Article 22 of the Constitution, which provides all the tests of procedural validity of a law regulating preventive detention, otherdetention other tests could be im- ported from Article 19 of the Constitution or elsewhere into "procedure established by law". The majority view was that this could not be done. I think, if I may venture to conjecture what opinions learned Judges of this Court would have expressed on that occasion had other types of law or other aspects of personal liberty, such as those which confronted this Court in either Satwant Singh's case (supra) or Kharak Singh's case (supra) were before them, the same approach or the same language would not have been adopted by them. It seems to me that this aspect of Gopalan's case (supra) is important to remember if we are to correctly understand what was laid down in that case. I have already referred to the passages I cited in A. D. M. Jabaipur's case (supra) to show that, even in Gopalan's case (supra), the majority of judges of this Court took the view that (the ambit of personal liberty protected by Article 21 is wide and comprehensive. It embraces both substantive rights to personal liberty and the procedure provided for their deprivation. One can, however, say that no question of "due process-of law" can really arise apart from procedural requirements of preventive detention laid down by Article 22, in a case such as the one this Court considered in Gopalan's case (supra). The clear meaning of Article 22 is that the requirements of "due process of law", in cases of preventive detention, are satisfied by what is, provided by Article 22 of the Constitution itself. This article in- dicates the pattern of "the procedure established by law" for cases of preventive detention.

Question:

In which of the following situations the fundamental right under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution would be violated?

i. A police officer refuses to inform the grounds of arrest during an arrest

ii.A person is not produced before a Magistrate even after 24hours of arrest

iii.A person has been denied to consult a lawyer after his arrest

iv. An enemy alien has been detained under preventive detention law