Status of Minor, unborn, lunatic and dead person for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

Read the following passage and answer the questions 

Law attributes personality to all those entities that are capable of bearing rights or duties, so any entity which is capable of the same is treated as a person or personality under the law whether or not that entity is a human being or not. Such a conception of legal personality has resulted in the inclusion of entities like companies, idols, etc. A mere association of individuals does not form a legal person until the law recognizes, over and above the associated individuals, a fictitious being that represents them but it is not identical with them.

Legal personality is a particular device by which the law creates units to which it ascribes certain powers. One of the essential requirements of a legal personality is that the personality may, possess status.

Professor Keeton observes that the juristic person is the personification of the sum total of legal rules applicable to a plurality of persons. The conception of the juristic personality involves a double fiction, at first by fiction we create a unity, and then by a second fiction we attribute to it the wills of individual men. Salmond defines a juristic person as any subject- matter other than a human being to which the law attributes personality. The dead person is not a legal person as he cannot be a bearer of rights and duties; though the law does prohibit defamation of the dead (Section 499, The Indian Penal Code, 1860) as well as give effect to his will. Everyone is interested in maintaining a reputation even after death. The reputation of a dead person receives some degree of protection from criminal law. A defamation suit can be filed for the loss of reputation of a dead person. If the publication is an attack on the internet of living persons, as a matter of fact, this right is in reality not that of the dead person but of his living descendants.

Question: What is the status of a child in the womb of a mother under the law?

Read the following passage and answer the questions.

The strict principle of law is: sics utere tuo ut alienum non laedas; it means, everyone must so use his own as not to do damage to another. When this maxim is applied to landed property, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show not only that he has sustained damage but also that the defendant has caused it by going beyond what is necessary in order to enable him to have the natural use of his own land.

The owner or occupier of the land may lawfully use it for any purpose for which it might, in the ordinary course of the employment of land, be used. And for such natural uses of land, an owner will not, in the absence of negligence, be liable, though damage results to the neighbor. But, for any non-natural user, such as the introduction to the land of something which, in the natural condition of the

land, is not upon it, he is liable if damage results to his neighbour. A person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there, anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in and at his peril; and if he does so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. This is known as the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (also known as "the wild beast theory”. Indian Law: It has been held in several cases that the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher applies in India.

Question: Amar unleashed its aggressive dog that was on Akbar’s premises and the dog went on to kill Anthony’s chickens, Akbar wired the premises and latched the outer door at all times. Anthony filed suit for damages against Akbar. Who is responsible for the loss of chickens?

Read the following passage and answer the question.

Until the 1960s, abortion was illegal in India and unless the procedure was done in good faith to save the life of the mother, a woman could face three years of imprisonment and/or a fine under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 if she tried to abort her fetus. It was in the mid-1960s that the government set up the Shantilal Shah Committee to enquire whether India needed a law to regulate abortions. Based on the report of this Committee, a medical termination bill was passed by Parliament in August 1971. The title of the law, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971 was strategically chosen to avoid any religious or ethical objections and impart a medical reasoning behind permitting such procedures.

Under MTP Act, every State government or Union Territory, shall by notification in Official Gazette, constitute a board to be called a Medical Board for purposes of the MTP Act, to exercise the powers and functions as may be prescribed under MTP Rules. The court can interpret Rule 3B(c) in such a manner that the change of marital status should be a broad category which would include a married woman who has been abandoned and also an unmarried, who suffered abandonment. Justice Chandrachud said that if the rule is understood as only for married women, then it would perpetuate the stereotype that only married women indulge in sexual activities, which is not constitutionally sustainable. The Court said that the rights of reproductive autonomy give the same rights to married as well as unmarried women.

Thus, the emerging jurisprudence on the right of abortion acknowledges a woman’s sacrosanct right to bodily integrity and includes her reproductive choices as a dimension of her ‘personal liberty’. This has made safer abortions accessible to women without compromising their dignity or confidentiality.

Question :

If there is no fetal disability then the medical board can allow termination of pregnancy within how many weeks?

Read the following passage and answer the question.

Until the 1960s, abortion was illegal in India and unless the procedure was done in good faith to save the life of the mother, a woman could face three years of imprisonment and/or a fine under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 if she tried to abort her fetus. It was in the mid-1960s that the government set up the Shantilal Shah Committee to enquire whether India needed a law to regulate abortions. Based on the report of this Committee, a medical termination bill was passed by Parliament in August 1971. The title of the law, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971 was strategically chosen to avoid any religious or ethical objections and impart a medical reasoning behind permitting such procedures.

Under MTP Act, every State government or Union Territory, shall by notification in Official Gazette, constitute a board to be called a Medical Board for purposes of the MTP Act, to exercise the powers and functions as may be prescribed under MTP Rules. The court can interpret Rule 3B(c) in such a manner that the change of marital status should be a broad category which would include a married woman who has been abandoned and also an unmarried, who suffered abandonment. Justice Chandrachud said that if the rule is understood as only for married women, then it would perpetuate the stereotype that only married women indulge in sexual activities, which is not constitutionally sustainable. The Court said that the rights of reproductive autonomy give the same rights to married as well as unmarried women.

Thus, the emerging jurisprudence on the right of abortion acknowledges a woman’s sacrosanct right to bodily integrity and includes her reproductive choices as a dimension of her ‘personal liberty’. This has made safer abortions accessible to women without compromising their dignity or confidentiality.

Question :

X was admitted to the hospital as she suddenly experienced unbearable pain in her abdomen. Doctors suggest that there is a complication in the pregnancy and X compels doctors to abort her fetus. This was reported to the officer-in-charge of the police station and a case under Section 312 is filed. Whether the prosecution will succeed in the present case.

People who have been labelled "lunatics" by the appropriate authorities are typically seen as being unable to sign contracts in the republic of Sanitas. During sporadic moments of mental infirmity, Mr. Krish, a well-known artist, was labelled a "lunatic" and was later diagnosed with a severe mental condition. In one instance, he offered ArtHouse Galleries a price far below what a valuable painting would have sold for on the open market. Mr. Krish attempted to have the transaction revoked after regaining his sanity by arguing that he was insane at the time the contract was signed. The sale was legal, according to ArtHouse Galleries.

Which of the following concerns the legal conflict between Mr. Krish and ArtHouse Galleries the most?

The Supreme Court of India addressed concerns about the welfare and rights of children born to prostitutes in the Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (1997) case. The main goals were to safeguard these kids' rehabilitation, education, and protection from societal shame. Based on this situation, an Indian state introduced a policy to give such kids free education up to the secondary level. A group, however, claimed that this practise was biassed towards other disadvantaged kids who weren't given the same advantages.

Which of the following concerns the discussion surrounding the state's policy the most?