Question

Which of the following judgments relating to right to peaceful protest has the above excerpt been taken from?

• A. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 648.
• B. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 266.
• C. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637.
• D. Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 439.
• A. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324.
• B. Sampurna Behura v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 433.
• C. Bimal Gurung v. Union of India, (2018) 15 SCC 480.
• D. Anita Thakur v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2016) 15 SCC 525.
• A. Right to sleep is not a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• B. An individual is entitled to sleep as comfortably and as freely as he breathes.
• C. Sleep, is a fundamental and basic requirement without which the existence of life would be in peril.
• D. State’s compelling interest in regulation of subject was discussed in this case.
• A. The assembly should be peaceful.
• B. Reasonable restrictions stated under Article 19 for right to assemble are sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, morality.
• C. The assembly should be without arms.
• D. Reasonable restrictions on right to assemble are provided in Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India.
• A. Union of India v. Naveen Jindal, (2004) 2 SCC 510.
• B. Ram Bahadur Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1975 SC 223.
• C. Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166.
• D. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106.
• A. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Indira Banerjee, JJ.
• B. Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ.
• C. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ.
• D. Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the excerpt.
The excerpt discusses the right to peaceful protest but with restrictions — protests cannot indefinitely occupy public ways or cause prolonged inconvenience to the public.
Step 2: Link to the judgment.
This reasoning comes from the Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh) judgment, where the Supreme Court held that while peaceful protest is constitutional, it must be in designated places and cannot block public roads indefinitely.
Step 3: Eliminating other options.
- (A) M.C. Mehta: Environmental law.
- (B) ADR: Electoral reforms.
- (C) Anuradha Bhasin: Internet shutdown and press freedom in J&K.
\[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]

Answer 2

The excerpt speaks of the right to peaceful protest being subject to a location restriction, criticises indefinite occupation of a public way, and rejects the idea that an unlimited number of protestors may gather wherever they wish. The task is to match this language with the case it comes from.

1. Option A: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India is a long-running line of environmental litigation dealing with pollution control and public health, and has no connection with protest or public-way blockage.
2. Option B: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India concerns electoral transparency, disclosure of candidates' criminal antecedents and assets, and reform of the election process, which is a completely different subject from street protest.
3. Option C: Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India dealt with internet shutdowns and restrictions on movement and press freedom in Jammu and Kashmir, and while it does touch on Article 19, its factual context is internet suspension, not occupation of a public road by protestors.
4. Option D: Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police is the Shaheen Bagh case, where the Supreme Court was directly confronted with an indefinite sit-in blocking a public road and held that protest, however legitimate, must occur at designated places and cannot indefinitely obstruct public movement. The wording of the excerpt tracks this holding almost verbatim.

Since only the Amit Sahni judgment deals with an indefinite blockage of a public way caused by a protest, it is the clear source of the passage.

Hence, the correct answer is Option D: Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 439.

Answer 3

Step 1: Identifying the subject matter.
The right to assemble peacefully is under Article 19(1)(b). Cases (A), (C), and (D) deal with protest rights and state restrictions on assembly.
Step 2: Why (B) is unrelated.
Sampurna Behura relates to juvenile justice and child protection mechanisms, not the right to assembly.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]

Answer 4

The question asks which of the four listed judgments does NOT deal with the right to assemble under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.

1. Option A: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India concerned restrictions on holding demonstrations at Jantar Mantar in Delhi and directly examined the citizen's right to peaceful assembly and protest, so it is very much about the right to assemble.
2. Option B: Sampurna Behura v. Union of India is a public-interest matter about the implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act and the functioning of child-care institutions, an entirely separate field concerned with children's welfare rather than assembly rights.
3. Option C: Bimal Gurung v. Union of India arose from agitation and unrest in Darjeeling and examined issues of protest, law and order, and the right to assemble in that context, again squarely within the same subject.
4. Option D: Anita Thakur v. State of Jammu and Kashmir dealt with police excesses against demonstrators exercising their right to peaceful protest, placing it too within the right to assemble line of cases.

Three of the four options are protest or assembly cases, while Sampurna Behura is a juvenile-justice matter with no bearing on assembly rights, making it the odd one out.

Hence, the correct answer is Option B: Sampurna Behura v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 433.

Answer 5

Step 1: Core holding of the case.
The Supreme Court in In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident held that the right to sleep is a part of the right to life under Article 21.
Step 2: Why (A) is incorrect.
Contrary to option (A), the Court recognised that sleep is essential for human existence and dignity, and therefore constitutionally protected.
Step 3: Validity of other options.
- (B) and (C) restate the Court’s findings.
- (D) is correct — the Court discussed state interest in regulating assemblies while balancing rights.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]

Answer 6

The question asks which statement about In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident is NOT correct, so each option has to be checked against what the Supreme Court actually held about the right to sleep and the police action at Ramlila Maidan.

1. Option A: This claims sleep falls outside Article 21. The Supreme Court held precisely the opposite, treating sleep as an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty, so this statement misstates the judgment and is the incorrect one.
2. Option B: The Court used language very close to this, describing sleep as something a person is entitled to as freely and comfortably as breathing, so this statement accurately reflects the judgment.
3. Option C: The Court characterised sleep as a basic biological necessity without which life itself would be endangered, so this too is an accurate reflection of the reasoning.
4. Option D: The judgment did engage with the State's power to regulate assemblies and public order, balancing that compelling interest against individual rights, so this statement is also accurate.

Since B, C and D all track the Court's actual findings and only A inverts the holding, A is the false statement.

Hence, the correct answer is Option A: Right to sleep is not a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Answer 7

Step 1: Recall the constitutional text.
Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Article 19(3) permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order. ⇒ No reference to “morality” in Article 19(3).
Step 2: Test each option.
(A) Matches the phrase “peaceably” in Article 19(1)(b) ⇒ correct.
(B) Adds “morality” as a restriction ground. “Decency or morality” appears in Article 19(2) (speech), not in 19(3) ⇒ incorrect.
(C) Matches the phrase “without arms” in Article 19(1)(b) ⇒ correct.
(D) Correctly identifies Article 19(3) as the restriction clause ⇒ correct.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]

Answer 8

The question tests precise knowledge of the wording of Article 19(1)(b) and Article 19(3) of the Constitution, and asks which statement is NOT correct.

1. Option A: Article 19(1)(b) guarantees citizens the right to assemble peaceably, so requiring the assembly to be peaceful is an accurate statement of the constitutional text.
2. Option B: This option adds "morality" to the grounds on which assembly can be restricted. The actual grounds under Article 19(3) are sovereignty and integrity of India and public order, and morality is not one of them; morality appears instead among the grounds for restricting free speech under Article 19(2). This makes the statement inaccurate.
3. Option C: Article 19(1)(b) also requires the assembly to be without arms, so this statement correctly reproduces the constitutional language.
4. Option D: The reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble are indeed housed in Article 19(3), so this statement is correct.

Since A, C and D correctly track the constitutional text while B smuggles in a ground that does not exist for this particular right, B is the incorrect statement.

Hence, the correct answer is Option B: Reasonable restrictions stated under Article 19 for right to assemble are sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, morality.

Answer 9

Step 1: Identify the case and issue.
Kameshwar Prasad examined Rule 4-A of the Bihar Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956, which absolutely prohibited “any form of demonstration” by government servants.
Step 2: Holding in brief.
The Supreme Court held an absolute ban on peaceful demonstrations violates Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) (speech and assembly). The Court distinguished peaceful demonstrations from strikes and clarified that there is no fundamental right to strike for government servants, but peaceful demonstrations cannot be totally banned.
Step 3: Eliminate distractors.
(A) concerns the right to fly the national flag; (B) is a later Bihar case; (D) concerns press freedom and newsprint control—none address the specific government servants’ demonstrations rule like Kameshwar Prasad.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 10

The question asks which judgment discussed the rule prohibiting demonstrations by government servants, so each option needs to be checked against its actual subject matter.

1. Option A: Union of India v. Naveen Jindal concerned the right of a private citizen to fly the national flag, a question about the scope of Article 19(1)(a) in the context of national symbols rather than government servants' conduct.
2. Option B: Ram Bahadur Rai v. State of Bihar is a later Bihar-related decision but it is not the case that examined the conduct-rule ban on demonstrations by government employees.
3. Option C: Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar directly challenged Rule 4-A of the Bihar Government Servants' Conduct Rules, which imposed a blanket ban on any form of demonstration by government servants, and the Supreme Court held that such an absolute prohibition violated Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), though it clarified that there is no fundamental right to strike.
4. Option D: Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India dealt with newsprint control and press freedom, a media-regulation dispute unconnected with government servants' demonstrations.

Only Kameshwar Prasad squarely concerns a rule barring demonstrations by government employees, so it is the judgment the question is pointing to.

Hence, the correct answer is Option C: Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166.

Answer 11

Step 1: Identify the case from the excerpt.
The passage (designated places for protests; blocking public way is impermissible) is from \textbf{Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (Shaheen Bagh), (2020) 10 SCC 439}.
Step 2: Bench composition.
The case was decided by a three-judge bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (author), Justice Aniruddha Bose, and Justice Krishna Murari.
Step 3: Eliminate distractors.
(A) wrongly includes Justice Indira Banerjee; (B) omits Justice Kaul; (D) omits Justice Bose. Only (C) matches the actual bench.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 12

This question requires identifying the exact composition of the bench that decided the Shaheen Bagh case, since the earlier excerpt about designated places for protest comes from Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police.

1. Option A: lists Justice Indira Banerjee as part of the bench. She was not on this particular three-judge bench, so this option is inaccurate.
2. Option B: lists only two judges, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, and leaves out Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, who in fact authored the judgment, so this option is incomplete and wrong.
3. Option C: lists Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Krishna Murari together, which matches the actual three-judge bench that heard and decided the case, with Justice Kaul writing the opinion.
4. Option D: lists only Kaul and Krishna Murari, omitting Justice Bose, so it is also incomplete.

Since the case was decided by a three-judge bench and only option C names all three judges correctly, it is the right answer.

Hence, the correct answer is Option C: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ.