Insta_Legal 2.

Rankers’ Study Material

Part of the most Comprehensive Classroom Training, Prep Content & Test Series across the Nation.
From the producers of A.I.R. 2, 3 and 5 in CLAT 2019.

MOST IMPORTANT TOPICS FOR LEGAL REASONING AND THEIR LUCID EXPLANATIONS

IMPORTANCE OF INSTA_LEGAL 2.0

 We have prepared a list of around 150 topics (90 of these were shared with you earlier). There is a good possibility
that the passages in the upcoming CLAT will be around these topics. So to boost your preparation, we have
prepared a summary of each topic and will be sharing with you on our telegram channel.

 Insta_Legal 2.0 will contain the summary of not just 90 topics that we have shared earlier but also many new topics
which we have added recently.

 Those of you who have already gone through the Insta_Legal before should not skip Insta_Legal 2.0. owing to the
relevance Insta_Legal 2.0 Holds, reading it multiple times before your exam will help you in understanding the
passage with much more clarity and efficiency.

HAPPY READING 😊

REFUGEE CAMPS – GOVERNMENT’S TRACK RECORD (IN LIGHT OF BRU TRIBE'S PLIGHT)

1. The centre has signed a historic pact for permanent solution of Bru refugees’ issue. The agreement is between Union
Government, Governments of Tripura and Mizoram and Bru-Reang representatives to end the 23-year old Bru-
Reang refugee crisis.
2. Under the agreement, the centre has announced a package of Rs. 600 crores under this agreement. As per the
agreement the Bru tribes would be given land to reside in Tripura.
3. A fixed deposit of Rs. 4 lakhs will be given to each family as an amount of government aid. They will be able to
withdraw this amount after two years.
4. Each of the displaced families will be given 40×30 sq ft residential plots. Apart from them, each family will be given
Rs. 5,000 cash per month for two years. The agreement highlights that each displaced family will also be given free
ration for two years and aid of Rs. 1.5 lakh to build their houses.
5. This agreement will bring a permanent solution for the rehabilitation of thousands of Bru-Reang people in Tripura.
The government believes that this agreement will bring a bright future for them. Bru-Reang people will be able to
enjoy the benefits of all social-welfare schemes of governments.
6. Back in 1997, about 30,000 Bru-Reang tribals fled from Mizoram and took shelter in Tripura’s refugee camps.
7. These refugees were said to have fled from Mizoram due to ethnic tension. Before the agreement, these people were
living in temporary shelters at Kanchanpur, in North Tripura.
8. The Indian Government has been making several efforts for permanent rehabilitation of the Bru-Reang crisis since
2010.
Insta_Legal 2.0

9. Two state governments, Tripura and Mizoram, were in a continuous process for settling them down through a
permanent solution.
10. As per the information provided by Prime Minister Modi’s official website, 1622 Bru-Reang refugee families were
returned to the Mizoram.
11. In 2018, the Government had offered them to peacefully return to the Mizoram. However, only 328 families (1369
individuals) accepted the offer and went back to the Mizoram at the time.

LOSING HOPE IN INDIAN JUDICIARY - IN LIGHTS OF J&K JUDGEMENT (ANURADHA BHASIN

CASE)

1. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India, pronounced on January 10, would find it
paradoxical. The bench of Justices N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy and B.R. Gavai, declared that the freedom of
speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over
the medium of Internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) respectively.
2. While such freedom is not absolute, the restrictions imposed on it should be in consonance with the mandate under
Article 19(2) and Article 19(6) of the Constitution, inclusive of the test of proportionality, the bench ruled.
3. The bench, however, was unable to accept the prayers of the petitioners, Anuradha Bhasin and the Congress leader
Ghulam Nabi Azad, to quash the government orders leading to suspension and shutting down of Internet, mobile and
fixed line telecommunication services because no such orders were placed before it.
4. The petitioners could not get the orders on their own and the government too, for inexplicable reasons, refused to
place them for scrutiny. The bench expressed its dismay over the government’s refusal to do so, even while making
it mandatory to publish all orders in force and any future orders to enable affected persons to challenge it before the
High Court or any other appropriate forum.
5. Finding itself in a dilemma of how to quash “non-existent” orders to suspend Internet and mobile services, the bench
chose the next best option of asking the government to constitute a review committee to review such orders once in
every seven working days as suspension of such services can be resorted to only for a temporary duration. The bench
also directed the competent authorities to review all orders now in force for suspending Internet services forthwith.
6. The bench held: “Orders not in accordance with the law laid down above must be revoked. Further, in future, if there
is a necessity to pass such orders, the law laid down herein must be followed.”
7. As an additional safeguard, the bench directed that in any case the state/concerned authorities should consider
forthwith allowing government websites, localized/limited e-banking facilities, hospitals’ services and other essential
services in those regions wherein the Internet services are not likely to be restored immediately.
8. The bench was apparently conscious that the review committee constituted by the government could recommend
suspension of Internet services week after week, making the mandatory requirement to apply such restrictions for a
temporary period appear hollow.
9. These directions, observers hope, will make the government accountable even for its past omissions and
commissions following the withdrawal of the special status for Jammu and Kashmir by amending Article 370 of the
Constitution on August 5 last year. The Supreme Court is likely to start hearing the several petitions filed to challenge
the constitutionality of the withdrawal of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir from January 22. However, the
January 10 judgment drew a line between the merits of that decision and the proportionality of the restrictions sought
to be imposed on citizens in the guise of national security interests arising from it.
10. The judgment, while not providing any immediate relief to the affected citizens of Kashmir, opens the door to future
challenges against any arbitrary decision of the government by ignoring the key principles laid down in it. One such
principle is that the power under Section 144 of the CrPC, being remedial as well as preventive, is exercisable not
only where there exists present danger but also when there is an apprehension of danger.
11. However, the bench qualified it by saying that the “danger” contemplated here should be in the nature of an
“emergency” and for the purpose of preventing obstruction and annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in Page 2 of 4
Insta_Legal 2.0

UNION V. FEDERAL - RIGHTS OF STATES (PASSING OF RESOLUTION BY STATE GOVERNMENT

AGAINST CENTRAL ACT)

1. Amid nationwide protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, or CAA, 2019, and the threat of non-
cooperation by some States with the Central government’s plan to update the National Population Register (NPR)
and possibly establish a National Register of Indian Citizens.
2. Kerala has filed a suit in the Supreme Court of India seeking to declare the CAA as unconstitutional. Meanwhile,
Chhattisgarh has also filed a similar suit, challenging the constitutional validity of the National Investigation Agency
Act.
3. Both have invoked Article 131, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the top court to adjudicate disputes between
two or more States, or between States and the Centre. Punjab has also decided to challenge the CAA in the Supreme
Court.
4. Article 131 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in disputes involving States, or the Centre on the one
hand and one or more States on the other. This means no other court can entertain such a dispute.
5. It is well-known that both High Courts and the Supreme Court have the power to adjudicate cases against the State
and Central governments.
6. In particular, the validity of any executive or legislative action is normally challenged by way of writ petitions under
Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of High Courts, and, in respect to fundamental rights violations, under Article
32 in the Supreme Court.
7. Unlike individuals, State governments cannot complain of fundamental rights being violated.
8. Therefore, the Constitution provides that whenever a State feels that its legal rights are under threat or have been
violated, it can take the “dispute” to the Supreme Court.
9. States have filed such cases under Article 131 against neighbouring States in respect of river water sharing and
boundary disputes. There have been instances of such cases being filed against the Centre too.
10. Kerala’s suit asks for a declaration that the CAA, 2019, is violative of the Constitution, and against the principle of
secularism that is a basic feature of the Constitution. Simultaneously, it challenges the validity of notifications issued
under the Passport (Entry into India) Amendment Rules and the Foreigners (Amendment) Order, in 2015-16, as being
contrary to the Constitution.
11. Chhattisgarh has sought a declaration that the NIA Act, 2008, is unconstitutional on the ground that it is “beyond the
legislative competence of Parliament”.
12. There are two conflicting opinions of the Supreme Court on this point. In 2011, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Union
of India and Another, the court said: “...when the Central laws can be challenged in the State High Courts as well
and also before this Court under Article 32, normally, no recourse can be permitted to challenge the validity of a
Central law under the exclusive original jurisdiction of this Court provided under Article 131.”
13. However, in State of Jharkhand vs. State of Bihar and Another (2014), another Bench said it was unable to accept
the view that the constitutionality of a law cannot be raised in a suit under Article 131. Therefore, the matter was
referred to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

VIOLATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE LAWS

1. India sees more than five lakh road accidents a year leading to 1.5 lakh deaths. According to the Union Transport
Minister, this could come down by half if the provisions of this Bill are implemented.
2. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2019 is based on the recommendations of the Group of Transport Ministers
(GoM) of States constituted by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways to address the issue of road safety and to
improve the access of the citizens while dealing with transport departments.
3. The amendments in the Bill mainly focus on issues relating to improving road safety, citizens’ facilitation while dealing
with the transport department, strengthening rural transport, last mile connectivity and public transport, automation
and computerization and enabling online services
4. Road safety: Bill proposes to increase penalties to act as a deterrent against traffic violations.
5. Compensation for road accident victims: Cashless treatment of road accident victims during the golden hour (first
1 hour after accident). The minimum compensation for death or grievous injury due to hit and run has been moved
up substantially to ₹2 lakh and ₹50,000, respectively.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in Page 3 of 4
Insta_Legal 2.0

6. Road Safety Board: The Bill provides for a National Road Safety Board, to be created by the central government
through a notification. The Board will advise the central and state governments on all aspects of road safety and traffic
management.
7. Protection of Good Samaritan: To help road accident victims, Good Samaritan guidelines have been incorporated
in the Bill. They will not be liable for any civil or criminal action for any injury to or death of an accident victim, caused
due to their negligence in providing assistance to the victim.
8. Motor Vehicle Accident Fund: The Bill requires the central government to constitute a Motor Vehicle Accident Fund,
to provide compulsory insurance cover to all road users in India.
9. Third-party insurance terms are friendlier with no cap on liability of insurers and quicker claims processing.
10. To reduce scope for manipulation and corruption in transport departments, vehicle fitness tests will be automated and
driving tests, computerised. Also, the driver training process for commercial driving will be strengthened and more
training schools set up.
11. Recall of vehicles: The Bill allows the central government to order for recall of motor vehicles if a defect in the vehicle
may cause damage to the environment, or the driver, or other road users.
12. National Transportation Policy: The central government may develop a National Transportation Policy, in
consultation with state governments.
13. Taxi aggregators: The Bill defines aggregators as digital intermediaries or market places which can be used by
passengers to connect with a driver for transportation purposes (taxi services). These aggregators will be issued
licenses by state. Further, they must comply with the Information Technology Act, 2000.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
1. The judicial activism is use of judicial power to articulate and enforce what is beneficial for the society in general and
people at large.
2. Judicial activism gives jurists the right to strike down any legislation or rule against the precedent if it goes against the
Constitution. The Golak Nath case is an example of judicial activism.
3. Failure on part of the legislative and executive wings of the Government to provide ‘good governance’ makes judicial
activism an imperative.
4. Judicial activism began when access to courts was opened up to the poor, indigent and disadvantaged sections
through Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
5. The judiciary, led by the Supreme Court, became an active participant in the dispensing of social justice and increased
its relevance to the nation in a manner not envisaged by the makers of the Constitution.
6. In Kesavananda Bharati case the Supreme Court held that by Article 368 of the Constitution, Parliament has amending
powers but does not extend to alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
7. Initially Supreme Court was a conservative institution. In the 1980s, there was a rapid expansion of judicial power. It
allowed “public interest” cases to be filed on behalf of those who were unable to access the courts.
8. By the 1990s and the 2000s, under the label of “judicial activism”, the court began to engage in a host of administrative
activities. It included managing welfare schemes to “beautifying cities” to overseeing anti-corruption initiatives. The
constitutional court had become a Supreme ‘Administrative’ Court.
9. Reasons for judicial activism are Near Collapse of responsible government, Pressure on judiciary to step in aid,
Judicial enthusiasm to participate in social reform and change, Legislative vacuum left open, the constitutional
scheme, Authority to make final declaration as to validity of a law, Role of Judiciary as guardian of fundamental rights,
Public confidence in the judiciary etc.
10. The Judiciary cannot take over the functions of the Executive. Judicial activism, however, does not mean governance
by the judiciary.
11. Judicial activism must also function within the limits of the judicial process because the courts are the only forum for
those wronged by administrative excesses and executive arbitrariness.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in Page 4 of 4