14 February 2024

Daily practice questions for CLAT - (14 February 2024)



The Delhi High Court said that a citizen’s fundamental right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed through a “lookout circular” (LOC) in every case where there is a failure to pay a loan. Justice Subramanian Prasad of the Delhi High Court was hearing a case that sought to quash an LOC issued by the Bureau of Immigration (BOI), an agency under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) responsible for immigration. LOCs are notices which restrict individuals from leaving India for specified offences. This is similar to the “no-fly list” in the US. The present case relates to a plea by the Bank of Baroda against one Shalini Khanna, who had provided guarantee for a credit facility to one Metaphor Exports Private Limited amounting to Rs 7 crores. Bank of Baroda claimed that almost 5.85 crores of this amounts were misappropriated by the firm’s directors, including Khanna. The bank had initiated proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), too, initiated a case under criminal conspiracy and cheating under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Quashing the LOC, Justice Prasad said that an LOC could not have been issued in this case as the amount of about Rs 7 crore could not be said to be ‘detrimental to India’s economic interests’. This criterion of “detrimental to economic interests” is frequently invoked to issue an LOC against individuals. This is done under the Centre’s office memorandum, which provides guidelines for issuing the circular in specified circumstances. This comes in the wake of repeated orders from across the country with courts frequently quashing such LOCs. The Delhi HC observed that such LOCs are not “feasible” to extract money from defaulters. The HC has also warned that such a circular is a “coercive measure” and must only be used “sparingly”. BharatPe founder Ashneer Grover and wife Madhuri Jain had also been stopped from their travel to New York in November last year based on an LOC issued by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW). The couple had also moved the Delhi HC against the LOC.

Question1:- In which of the following case it has been decided that the right of free movement whether within the country or across its frontiers, either in going out or in coming in, was a personal liberty?
  • A. Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka
  • B. Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam
  • C. K.S Puttaswamy vs. Union of India
  • D. None of the above
Answer is B is correct. Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam, Assistant ... on 10 April, 1967. Raman Nayar, J., held that the right of free movement whether within the country or across its frontiers, either in going out or in coming in, was a personal liberty within the meaning of Art. 21. Hence, B is the correct option.
Question2:- Which of the following Article of Indian Constitution is associated with the protection of right to life and personal liberty?
  • A. Article 19
  • B. Article 21
  • C. Article 22
  • D. Article 32
Answer is B is correct. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to life and personal liberty. It states that no person can be deprived of their life or personal liberty except through a procedure established by law. This fundamental right applies to all people, including citizens and foreigners. Hence, B is the correct option.
Question3:- In which of the following case law it was held that the right of an accused to travel abroad is part of the right to dignity. The right to dignity cannot be superseded by imposing disproportionate restraints on the accused to secure their presence in court?
  • A. Shayara Bano vs. Union of India
  • B. Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra
  • C. Kent vs. Dulles
  • D. Samir khan vs. state of Karnataka
Answer is B is correct. In Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla10, the right of an accused to travel abroad can be read within the Right to Dignity, under Article 21, which cannot be superseded by the imposition of disproportionate restrains on the accused in order to secure their presence in the court. Even if an FIR has been registered in the name of the accused, it does not unequivocally curtail their right to move abroad freely. Hence, B is the correct option.
Question4:- Which section of Indian Penal Code deals with Criminal Conspiracy?
  • A. Section 120
  • B. Section 120A
  • C. Section 299
  • D. Section 420
Answer is B is correct. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines criminal conspiracy in Section 120A. This section states that criminal conspiracy is an agreement between at least two people to commit an illegal act. It also states that agreeing to commit an illegal act is itself illegal. Hence, B is the correct option. Hence, B is the correct option.