Question:

Principle: Anyone who induces or attempts to induce a voter to vote in a particular manner on the ground that the voter will face divine displeasure, shall be guilty of offence of interfering with free exercise of right to vote.
Facts: During election campaign period one candidate X told the voters that if they do not vote for her, voters will be cursed because the election candidate is the God‘s own child and those who do not vote for her, they will not be liked by God.
This question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle‘) and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your ability in legal aptitude, study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the ’most reasonable conclusion‘ arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.

Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
  • X has committed an offence
  • X has not committed an offence because she only narrated what she felt
  • X has not committed an offence because she has freedom of speech and expression
  • X has not committed an offence because she did not compel anyone to vote for her
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Approach Solution - 1

The correct option is (A):X has committed an offence.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -2

The principle makes it an offence to induce or attempt to induce a voter to vote a certain way by invoking divine displeasure. Candidate X told voters that failing to vote for her would bring a curse, framing herself as God's own child and warning that non voters would not be liked by God.

  1. X has committed an offence: X's statement is a direct attempt to induce voters through the threat of divine displeasure, which is exactly the conduct the principle criminalises, so this matches the rule precisely.
  2. X has not committed an offence because she only narrated what she felt: Framing the threat as a personal belief does not change its function, it was still delivered to voters as a reason to vote for her, which is an attempt to induce their vote through the fear of a curse.
  3. X has not committed an offence because she has freedom of speech and expression: General free speech does not override a specific rule that singles out inducement of voters through divine displeasure as an offence, otherwise the principle would have no force at all in election speeches.
  4. X has not committed an offence because she did not compel anyone to vote for her: The principle covers inducing or attempting to induce, it does not require outright compulsion. A threat of being cursed by God for not voting a certain way is itself an attempt to induce, even without physically forcing anyone.

Because X's statement was aimed at influencing votes through the fear of divine displeasure, it falls exactly within the conduct the principle targets, regardless of how X framed her words or whether she used outright compulsion.

Therefore, the correct answer is X has committed an offence.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -3

The fact that decides this question is what X's statement actually does, regardless of how it is framed, it invokes divine displeasure to influence votes. Since the principle targets that specific method, each option can be tested against whether it changes what the statement functionally accomplishes.

  1. X has committed an offence: Testing the substance of the statement against the principle's wording, a warning that voters will be cursed and disliked by God for not choosing X is a direct attempt to induce votes through divine displeasure.
  2. X has not committed an offence because she only narrated what she felt: Framing the statement as personal belief does not change what it does to the voters, it was still delivered to them as a reason to vote for X, which is what the principle targets.
  3. X has not committed an offence because she has freedom of speech and expression: A general right to speak does not neutralise a specific rule aimed at this exact method of influencing votes, otherwise the principle would never apply to any campaign statement.
  4. X has not committed an offence because she did not compel anyone to vote for her: The principle covers inducing or attempting to induce, not just outright compulsion, so the absence of physical compulsion does not remove what the statement already accomplishes.

Since the statement's actual function, using fear of divine displeasure to sway votes, does not change under any of the three alternative framings, only the option finding an offence survives.

Therefore, the correct answer is X has committed an offence.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CLAT Legal Studies Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Fundamental Rights and Duties Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Questions

View More Questions