16 February 2024

Daily practice questions for CLAT - (16 February 2024)

The population of a state is divided into two categories: citizens and non-citizens. A citizen of a state enjoys all civil and political rights. A non-citizen, on the other hand, doesn’t enjoy all these rights. Under the Indian Constitution, certain fundamental rights are available only to citizens, namely: Right against discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth (Article 15); right in matters of public employment (Article 16); freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence and profession (Article 19); cultural and educational rights (Articles 29 and become members of the union and state legislatures. Several offices can also be occupied exclusively by citizens: president (Article 58(1) (a)), vice-president (Article 66(2)), judges of the Supreme Court (Article 124(3)) and high courts (Article 217(2)), go 157), attorney general (Article 76(1)) and advocate general (Article 165). Equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India (Article 14) and protection of life or personal liberty (Article 21) apply to non-citizens as well. The Indian Constitution does not prescribe a permanent provision relating to citizenship in India. It simply describes categories of persons who are deemed to be citizens of India on the day they were promulgated on January 26, 1950, and leaves citizenship to be regulated by law made by Parliament. Article 11 of the Constitution confers power on Parliament to make laws regarding citizenship. 1955 was enacted in the exercise of this provision. By the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003, Section 3 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 was amended to provide that persons born after December 3, 2004, would be deemed to be citizens of India Indian citizens, or one of their parents is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant, at the time of the person’s birth. Illegal migrant under the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 means a foreigner who has entered India: without a valid passport or travel documents; or with a valid passport or travel documents but remains the permitted period. If the Central Government believes that an applicant is a person who has rendered distinguished service to the cause of science, philosophy, art, literature, world peace, or human progress Section 6, waive all or any conditions specified to attain Indian citizenship.

Question1:- The state passes a new law that prohibits foreigners visiting India from posting on their social media accounts for the duration of their stay in India. Alex, a foreigner visiting India, challenges this as it violates the fundamental rights of foreigners in India. Will Alex’s challenge succeed?
  • A. No, since prohibiting persons from posting on their social media accounts is not a violation of the freedom of speech and expression.
  • B. Yes, since prohibiting persons from posting on their social media accounts is a violation of the freedom of speech and expression.
  • C. No, since the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is only available to citizens, and foreigners staying in India temporarily are not citizens.
  • D. Yes, since all foreigners have the right to post on their social media accounts, the government cannot restrict this right.
Answer is C is correct. The passage mentions that fundamental rights are available to only citizens of the nation and Alex being a foreigner cannot avail those rights and his challenge is bound to fail. Hence, C is the correct option.
Question2:- Alex was born in Germany in 2005; her mother is an Indian citizen who normally resides in New Delhi. Her father is a German citizen who had visited India often before Alex’s birth. Occasionally her application for Indian citizenship is rejected because she does not qualify as a citizen under Section 3 of the Indian Citizenship Act. If Alex challenges this decision, based only on the information given in the passage and this question, will she succeed?
  • A. No, since she was born in Germany, and not in India.
  • B. Yes, since her mother was an Indian citizen, and her father was not an illegal migrant at the time of her birth.
  • C. Yes, since her mother was an Indian citizen at the time of her birth, and her father had applied for Indian citizenship.
  • D. No, since her father had visited India without a visa on occasion, and had been an illegal migrant in the past.
Answer is B is correct. Alex’s mother is an Indian citizen and her father is not an illegal immigrant and hence she fulfills the criteria for citizenship, making her eligible for having Indian citizenship, and hence Alex’s challenge would succeed. Hence, B is the correct option.
Question3:- A historical monument situated in India is maintained by the Government. The monument is also a place of worship for X religion and is visited by several thousand worshippers of X religion every day. The Government passes a rule making it compulsory for all visitors who are not Indian citizens to pay a fee of Rs. 500/- for each visit to the monument. A foreign citizen who also belongs to X religion who visits the monument regularly challenges this rule because it is violative of their right under Article 15. Will this challenge succeed?
  • A. Yes since it discriminates unfairly based on a person’s place of birth.
  • B. No, since the right under Article 15 is only available to citizens.
  • C. Yes since the rule discriminates based on religion.
  • D. No, since the rule applies to all foreigners, regardless of whether they are Hindu or not.
Answer is B is correct. Fundamental rights are available only to Indian citizens and hence foreigners cannot challenge the decision. Hence, B is the correct option.
Question4:- Sheila is an English citizen, who has made remarkable discoveries in the field of robotics. Sheila’s both parents’ were English citizens throughout their life. Sheila now wishes to apply for Indian citizenship. Which of the following would most likely help her application succeed?
  • A. Since Sheila’s parents were both citizens throughout their life, and were not illegal migrants at any time, she should be given Indian citizenship.
  • B. While Sheila may be an English citizen, she is of Indian ethnicity, and so, should be allowed to become a citizen of India.
  • C. Since Sheila is keen to acquire Indian citizenship despite being a citizen of a first-world country, the Government should allow her to become an Indian citizen as this will increase India’s international.
  • D. Since Sheila has made significant contributions to science, the Government should use its powers under Section 6 when considering her application.
Answer is D is correct. Since Sheila is a distinguished personality, the Central government has the power under Section 6 of the act, even when her parents are both non-Indians. Hence, D is the correct option.
Question5:- Sahil was born in Tanzania to parents who are both Tanzanian citizens. He studied law in India between 2002 and 2007 and later he appeared as a lawyer in the trial courts. He also obtained citizenship while studying law in India, and has now been nominated as a judge of a High Court. Which of the following, if true, would weaken Sahil’s right to be appointed as a judge of the high court?
  • A. Article 217(2) is amended to provide that only persons born in India may be appointed judges of high courts.
  • B. The Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 is amended to provide that after December 31, 2019, a person who is born outside India cannot become a citizen of India.
  • C. The Constitution is amended, and all fundamental rights are extended to all persons, regardless of whether they are citizens or not.
  • D. Article 124(3) is amended to provide that only persons born in India may be appointed judges of the Supreme Court.
Answer is A is correct. Option A truly attacks the essence of the argument. If the option is correct, the whole argument is rendered invalid as only Indian-born citizens can become judges who Sahil is not as he has acquired Indian citizenship. Hence, A is the correct option.