Question

Principle: Willful rash driving is an offense.

Facts: Mr. Tiwari was driving his car after drinking alcohol. Police books him for willful negligent driving. Is the act of the police lawful?

• A. No, because Mr. Tiwari was not driving rashly; he was drunk while driving.
• B. No, this is not a negligent act.
• C. Yes, because Mr. Tiwari was driving rashly.
• D. Yes, because the police has the power to arrest a person driving rashly.

Hint:

The Principle punishes only willful rash driving. Check whether the facts show rashness at all, and whether the charge the police framed matches the offence the Principle creates.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The Principle makes exactly one thing an offence, willful rash driving. Mr. Tiwari drove after drinking. The police booked him for willful negligent driving. We are asked whether that booking is lawful.

Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
In a principle question, the Principle is the whole of the law. Anything it does not make an offence is not an offence, however bad it may look in real life. So read the Principle word by word and see what it covers.
It covers driving that is willful and rash. It says nothing about drunken driving. It says nothing about negligent driving either, and rash is not the same as negligent. Rash means taking a risk while knowing the risk. Negligent means failing to take the care a reasonable driver would take.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Now read the facts. They tell us one thing only, that Mr. Tiwari was driving his car after drinking alcohol. They do not say he was speeding, weaving, jumping signals, or doing anything else risky. So on the material given, there is no willful rash driving.
Next read the charge. The police booked him for willful negligent driving. That charge does not exist under the Principle, because the Principle only makes willful rash driving an offence.
So the police have booked a man for conduct the Principle does not describe, on facts that do not show rashness. The booking is therefore not lawful.
The temptation here is to reason that drunk driving is obviously an offence in real life. That is true outside the question, but the instruction is to follow the Principle strictly, and this Principle never mentions alcohol.

Step 4: Checking the wrong options:
Option (B) says the act is not negligent. This misses the point, because negligence is not the test the Principle sets. The Principle asks about rashness, not negligence, so answering the negligence question does not answer the Principle's question.
Option (C) says he was driving rashly. The facts never say that. It is an assumption added from outside the given material.
Option (D) talks about the police power to arrest a person driving rashly. It has the same defect as (C), it assumes rashness, and it also drifts into the topic of arrest powers, which the Principle does not touch.

Step 5: Final Answer:
The police action is not lawful, because on the facts Tiwari was drunk while driving and there is nothing to show rash driving. That is option (A).