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

The excerpt provided discusses the balance between the right to peaceful protest and the usage of public spaces. The Supreme Court of India clarified that while individuals have the right to protest against legislation, such protests must occur in designated areas and should not obstruct public ways. The case stressed the importance of maintaining public order alongside allowing democratic dissent.

From the options available, this legal judgment pertains to the case of Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 439. In this case, the Supreme Court dealt with protests resulting in the blockade of public spaces, emphasizing the need to ensure that public areas remain accessible and not indefinitely occupied for demonstrations.

Answer 2

The passage describes a case about protesters blocking a public road indefinitely, and the question asks which reported judgment this language is drawn from. The quickest way to be sure is to rule out the other three cases by what they were actually about.

1. Option A, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 648: the M.C. Mehta line of cases is associated with environmental law and pollution control, not with protests blocking public roads, so its subject matter does not match the excerpt.
2. Option B, Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 266: this case concerns electoral transparency and disclosure of candidates' criminal antecedents, an entirely different area of law from road-blockade protests.
3. Option C, Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637: this judgment deals with internet shutdowns and restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir, and although it does discuss free speech, its facts revolve around communication restrictions, not a physical blockade of a public road by demonstrators.
4. Option D, Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 439: this is the Shaheen Bagh case, where the Supreme Court was directly confronted with a prolonged protest that blocked a public road for months. The Court's language about designated places for protest and the rejection of indefinite occupation of public ways is drawn precisely from this decision.

Since the fact pattern of a sustained road blockade by protesters matches only one of the four cases, the excerpt must be from this judgment.

Therefore, the correct answer is Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 439.

Answer 3

To determine which judgment is not related to the right to assemble as enshrined under the Constitution of India, we must understand the context of each case cited in the options. The Constitution of India guarantees the right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b). Relevant judgments often discuss the balance between this right and reasonable restrictions, such as maintaining public order and safety.

Let's analyze each option:

• Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324: This case involved the right to protest and assembly, dealing with legal restrictions on public gatherings.
• Sampurna Behura v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 433: This judgment primarily addressed child rights and the enforcement of policies related to child welfare, not directly related to the right to assemble.
• Bimal Gurung v. Union of India, (2018) 15 SCC 480: This case pertained to the right to peaceful protest concerning political dissent and assembly.
• Anita Thakur v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2016) 15 SCC 525: This judgment involved the rights of individuals protesting against government actions, discussing the extent of police responses to such gatherings.

From this analysis, Sampurna Behura v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 433 is the case that does not relate to the right to assemble since it focuses on child welfare rather than assembly rights.

Answer 4

This question is best solved by sorting the four cases into two buckets: those that deal with the right to assemble and public protest, and those that deal with something else entirely.

1. Option A, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India: this case directly concerns restrictions placed on protests and assemblies at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, so it belongs squarely in the assembly-rights bucket.
2. Option B, Sampurna Behura v. Union of India: this case arose out of continuing mandamus proceedings on the implementation of child protection laws and juvenile justice mechanisms across the country. Its subject matter is child welfare and institutional compliance, not the right to assemble under Article 19(1)(b), so it does not belong with the other three.
3. Option C, Bimal Gurung v. Union of India: this case dealt with the Gorkhaland agitation and questions around the right to protest and civil unrest, placing it within the assembly-rights bucket.
4. Option D, Anita Thakur v. State of Jammu and Kashmir: this case examined the treatment of protesters by police during a demonstration, again falling within the ambit of assembly and protest rights.

Three of the four cases share a common thread of protest, demonstration, or assembly rights, while one stands apart because its facts concern child welfare rather than any gathering or protest.

Therefore, the correct answer is Sampurna Behura v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 433.

Answer 5

In the case of In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident, (2012) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court of India dealt with issues related to the use of public spaces for protests. The court emphasized the importance of democracy and dissent but also highlighted that such expressions should not cause inconvenience to the public or occur in undesignated areas. Among the statements provided:

• An individual's entitlement to sleep comfortably and freely was recognized.
• The necessity of sleep as a fundamental requirement for life was acknowledged.
• The state's compelling interest in regulation of subject matter was discussed.
• However, stating that the "right to sleep is not a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India" is incorrect. Article 21 does protect the right to life and personal liberty, which encompasses the right to sleep.

Thus, the incorrect statement is: "Right to sleep is not a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India." This interpretation affirms that the right to sleep is indeed part of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21.

Answer 6

In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident, the Supreme Court examined a midnight police crackdown on sleeping protesters and used the occasion to say a great deal about sleep as a facet of the right to life. Each option can be checked against what the Court actually said.

1. Option A, right to sleep is not a part of Article 21: this is the opposite of what the Court held. The judgment expressly recognised sleep as an integral part of a dignified life and therefore as falling within Article 21. Because this statement contradicts the ruling, it is the incorrect one.
2. Option B, an individual is entitled to sleep as comfortably and as freely as he breathes: the Court used almost this exact formulation, treating sleep as being as essential to survival as breathing. This statement is correct.
3. Option C, sleep is a fundamental and basic requirement without which the existence of life would be in peril: this too reflects the Court's own language describing sleep as indispensable to human existence. This statement is correct.
4. Option D, state's compelling interest in regulation of subject was discussed in this case: the judgment did engage with the extent to which the state can regulate assemblies and use force, weighing the state's interest in public order against individual rights. This statement is correct.

Since three of the four statements accurately reflect the Court's reasoning and only one directly reverses its holding on sleep and Article 21, the statement that is not correct is the one denying that link.

Therefore, the correct answer is right to sleep is not a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Answer 7

Article 19 of the Constitution of India provides certain fundamental rights to citizens, including the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. The restrictions on this right are specified within the same constitutional framework.

Explanation of Options:

• The assembly should be peaceful.
  This is a correct statement. The right to assemble is subject to the condition that the assembly must be peaceful. Any assembly that turns violent or disrupts public peace loses constitutional protection.
• Reasonable restrictions stated under Article 19 for right to assemble are sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, morality.
  This statement is not correct. Article 19(3) specifically allows the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to assemble in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, and morality. However, morality is not explicitly mentioned for the right to assemble, rather it pertains to freedom of speech and expression.
• The assembly should be without arms.
  This is a correct statement. The constitutional provision clearly states that the assembly must be without arms, implying that gathering with weapons is not protected.
• Reasonable restrictions on right to assemble are provided in Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India.
  This statement is correct, although it overlooks the precise wording and scope as described in other parts of the article. It generally identifies the provision that imposes restrictions on the right to assemble.

Therefore, the incorrect statement concerning the right to assemble under the Constitution of India is: Reasonable restrictions stated under Article 19 for right to assemble are sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, morality.

Answer 8

Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, and Article 19(3) allows the state to place reasonable restrictions on that specific right. The question is best answered by checking each option against the exact wording of Article 19(3), rather than against the restrictions permitted on other freedoms like speech.

1. Option A, the assembly should be peaceful: this is built directly into the text of Article 19(1)(b) itself, so the statement is correct.
2. Option B, reasonable restrictions for right to assemble are sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, morality: Article 19(3) permits restrictions only in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, it does not list morality as a ground for restricting the right to assemble. Morality appears as a restriction on other freedoms, such as speech and expression under Article 19(2), not on assembly. By adding a ground that does not exist in Article 19(3), this statement is incorrect.
3. Option C, the assembly should be without arms: this condition is also written directly into Article 19(1)(b), so the statement is correct.
4. Option D, reasonable restrictions on right to assemble are provided in Article 19(3): this simply identifies the correct clause of the Constitution and is accurate.

Comparing each option to the actual text of Article 19(3) shows that only one option smuggles in a ground of restriction that does not apply to the right to assemble.

Therefore, the correct answer is reasonable restrictions stated under Article 19 for right to assemble are sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, morality.

Answer 9

In the case of Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the rule prohibiting demonstrations by government servants. The Court examined the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and assessed its reasonable restrictions as outlined in Article 19(2). The Court acknowledged the right to peaceful protest but emphasized that demonstrations by government employees should not disrupt public ways or spaces, reflecting the balance between public order and democratic expression. This judgment clarified the limits for government servants regarding participation in demonstrations, highlighting the need for such activities to occur in designated areas to prevent public inconvenience, as discussed in the comprehension excerpt. Thus, the case sets a precedent for understanding the balance between individual rights and public order in the context of demonstrations by government employees.

Answer 10

The question asks which case specifically dealt with a rule barring government servants from taking part in demonstrations. Testing the other three options against their actual subject matter narrows this down quickly.

1. Option A, Union of India v. Naveen Jindal, (2004) 2 SCC 510: this case is about the right of private citizens to fly the national flag, a matter of free expression unconnected to service rules for government employees.
2. Option B, Ram Bahadur Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1975 SC 223: this case does not concern conduct rules restricting demonstrations by civil servants, it belongs to a different area of constitutional adjudication.
3. Option C, Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166: here the Supreme Court examined a Bihar conduct rule that barred government servants from participating in any form of demonstration, and struck down the part of the rule that banned even peaceful, orderly demonstrations as an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). This is precisely the subject the question is asking about.
4. Option D, Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106: this case concerns newsprint control and press freedom for newspaper publishers, a completely different context from government servants and demonstrations.

Only one of the four cases actually deals with a conduct rule restricting demonstrations by government employees.

Therefore, the correct answer is Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166.

Answer 11

The question asks which judges were part of the Supreme Court Bench for a specific judgment. Analyzing the given options and the correct answer, we identify that the following judges were included in the Bench:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Aniruddha Bose

Krishna Murari

Based on the comprehension, the Supreme Court observed principles regarding protests, emphasizing that public ways should not be occupied indefinitely. This judgment involves the examination of peaceful protests and the necessity to keep public areas unobstructed. The correct choice, representing this Bench, is:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Answer 12

This question tests recall of the exact three-judge bench that decided the Shaheen Bagh case, Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police. Since all four options recombine the same handful of names, the safest approach is to check each option for whether it lists the right three judges together, no more and no fewer.

1. Option A, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Indira Banerjee, JJ.: this substitutes Indira Banerjee for Krishna Murari. Justice Indira Banerjee was not part of this particular bench, so this combination is incorrect.
2. Option B, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ.: this lists only two of the three judges and omits Sanjay Kishan Kaul entirely, so it is incomplete and incorrect.
3. Option C, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ.: this lists exactly the three judges who sat on the bench, matching the reported citation of the case.
4. Option D, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Krishna Murari, JJ.: this drops Aniruddha Bose from the bench, again leaving out one of the three judges, so it is incomplete.

Only one option lists all three judges correctly and none extra.

Therefore, the correct answer is Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ.