AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) Legal-Aptitude: Questions 235 - 236 of 254

Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 254 questions. Access all new questions- tracking exam pattern and syllabus. View the complete topic-wise distribution of questions. Unlimited Access, Unlimited Time, on Unlimited Devices!

View Sample Explanation or View Features.

Rs. 200.00 -OR-

How to register? Already Subscribed?

Question 235

Appeared in Year: 2018

Question

MCQ▾

Recently, the Supreme Court allowed ________ euthanasia and right to give advance medical directives ________, stating that human beings have the right to die with dignity as part of fundamental right to life.

Choices

Choice (4)Response

a.

passive, drying will

b.

active, dying will

c.

active, living will

d.

passive, living will

Question 236

Appeared in Year: 2018

Question

MCQ▾

Directions: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.

Legal Principles:

(1) Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.

(2) The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima face answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.

(3) A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to Insure his neighbour.

(4) The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.

Legal Principle:

(1) Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person՚s reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

(2) The statement must tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.

(3) A mere vulgar abuse is not defamation.

(4) Sometimes a statement may not be defamatory on the face of it but contain an innuendo, which has a defamatory meaning.

(5) Defamation encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.

Factual Situation: In May 2017, a memorial commemorating the women of World War II was vandalized during an anti-government demonstration following the General Election. An offensive political slogan was spray painted across the plinth of the memorial. This act caused public outrage and widespread condemnation.

On Twitter, a political writer, Asha Mehta said that she did not have a problem with the vandalism of the memorial building. Chandna reacted to this negatively, suggesting that Asha should be sent to join Terrorist Organization. Asha՚s comments and Chandna՚s reactions both received national media coverage.

A few days later, Chandna published a tweet asking the question “Scrawled on any war memorials recently? to Anshika Chauhan, another political activist. Anshika Chauhan responded stating that they had never vandalised any memorial building, and moreover had family members serving in the armed forces. Chandna followed with a second tweet, in which she asked If someone could explain the difference between Mehta (an irritant” ) and Anshika Chauhan (whom she described as “social anthrax” ) .

Anshika Chauhan asked for a retraction via Twitter and was promptly blocked by Chandna. Anshika Chauhan asked Chandna to make a public apology and claimed compensation for libel alleging that the First Tweet suggested that she had either vandalised a war memorial, which was a criminal act; and the Second Tweet suggested that she approved or condoned that vandalisation. What is the meaning of the Tweets and whether those meanings had defamatory tendency?

Choices

Choice (4)Response

a.

Second tweet was not defamatory as it was not referring directly to Anshika Chauhan. So, she cannot claim compensation.

b.

First tweet was not defamatory because the natural and ordinary meaning of the statement which is conveyed to a hypothetical ordinary reader is not defamatory.

c.

Both the tweets were defamatory to Anshika Chauhan as the hypothetical ordinary reader can be expected to understand defamatory tendency of the tweet in the context of the situation.

d.

Natural and ordinary meaning of the tweets are not defamatory. So, she cannot claim compensation.

Developed by: