LegalEdge Classroom Handout

Part of the Most Awesome and Consistently Successful Study Material and Test Series Module, spanning across both
Physical and Online Programs in the entire Country. While most of the world fumbled and faltered, 2020 has been
another inspiring Success story both for us and those who chose to trust us. As a result LE was able to engineer
Clean-Sweep-Landslide figures of a handsome 35 Selections under 100 ranks, and a whopping 180 selections under
500 ranks in CLAT 2020. With AILET being no different, a total of 30 LEtians found their way into NLUD in 2020.
Read on!

LEGAL REASONING

‘O’ Batch Class Sheet-02

Passage (Q.1-Q.4): In the present petition of Priyapreet Kaur v. State of Punjab, the Court reemphasized on the
extended view of Article 21 in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement
of fundamental rights, seeking protection of their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21. The petitioners
are residing together in a live-in relationship and are willing to marry each other, against the wishes of their
families. They are met with regular threat from their family members against which the present petition has been
moved seeking protection.
Court observed, “The petitioners are both major and have every right to live their lives as they desire within the
four corners of the law. The society cannot determine how an individual should live her or his life. The
Constitution of India guarantees every individual the right to life and the choice of a partner is an important facet
of the right to life.”
Reliance was placed on the case of Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018), wherein the Supreme Court observed,
“The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution
guarantees the right to life. This right cannot be taken away except through a law which is substantively and
procedurally fair, just and reasonable. Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental
right is the ability of each individual to take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness...”
The Court further clarified, “Merely because of the fact that petitioner No.2 is not of a marriageable age the
petitioners cannot possibly be denied enforcement of their fundamental rights… The petitioners, both being
major, have decided to live together in a live-in relationship and there possibly may not be any legally justifiable
reason for the respondents to object to the same.”
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “P&H HC | Reiterating personal autonomy of choosing a life partner,
Court clarifies that enforcement of a Fundamental Right cannot rest on ‘marriageable age’ of the petitioner”, The
SCC Online Blog, 31st December 2020; https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/12/31/ph-hc-reiterating-
personal-autonomy-of-choosing-a-life-partner-court-clarifies-that-enforcement-of-a-fundamental-right-cannot-
rest-on-marriageable-age-of-the-petitioner/]

1. The Rai’s and the Bhayana’s have been family friends for a long time, and hold frequent gatherings and
holidays together. The children of the respective families, Maithili and Toshaar, had been meeting at many such
gatherings and eventually fell in love. Their families didn’t essentially approve of this relationship as both the
families considered the other child to be spoilt, but chose to remain mum. Even at the age of 23, Maithili and
Toshaar were forced to stay at their parent’s house, and had never had the opportunity to live on their own,
which infuriated the two.
Eventually, Maithili got selected for a job position in Mumbai and decided to move out of her parent’s house.
After her parents disapproved of her decision, she decided to run away and asked Toshaar to do the same as
well. The next day, both of them ran away and started living in Mumbai. When Maithili’s parents found out, they
filed a case contending that their daughter was not mature enough to make such a big decision on her own. Are
Maithili and Toshaar guilty?

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433|www.legaledge.in Page 1 of 4

 (a) They are not guilty, as for a major, choosing a partner and entering into a live-in relationship is the purview
of the individual itself, and not of the parents or family members.
(b) They are not guilty, as the marriageable age of Maithili and Toshaar should not play a role in them choosing
a partner and living with them.
(c) They are guilty, as the opinion of the parents should be given due consideration, as is given in the society.
(d) They are not guilty, as they are above 18 years of age, and hence majors. Thus, they should be given their
autonomy.

2. Strictly according to the passage, what all can be inferred about Article 21?
(a) The Right to Privacy is an integral part of the article and is central to the pursuit of happiness.
(b) Article 21 is the Right to life, and includes Right to food and shelter.
(c) The right of an individual to live life according to their wishes and to choose their own partners is an integral
part of Article 21.
(d) Article 21 has evolved greatly through a variety of judgements, as it is the Supreme Court’s responsibility to
protect and guarantee fundamental rights.

3. Seher is an independent 19-year-old who is pursuing a degree in Scientific Research and Methodology, and
lives in a metropolitan city away from her parental home. While attending her classes in her University she
meets Raj, a hardworking student in her batch. After a while, they became great friends and eventually fell in
love. As they are sure that they are going to marry each other in the future, they move in together and enter into
a live-in relationship. Since both Seher and Raj come from conservative families that do not believe in love
marriages, or people choosing their own partners, they did not inform their families about such recent
developments.
A few months pass, and one day Raj’s family decides to pay him a surprise visit, only to find out about his live-in
relationship. Furious, they try to take Raj back to his native town but he refuses. Further enraged, his parents
file a case, contending that Raj cannot pursue such a relationship as he is still 19-years-old, and hence cannot
legally marry. Who should be held liable?
(a) Raj is not liable, as it is not necessary that Raj and Seher may marry after being in such relationship, hence
the question of legally acceptable age of marriage does not arise.
(b) Raj is liable, as he should not have entered into a live-in relationship when he was not of marriageable age,
as such relationships serve no purpose without a marriage taking place in the future.
(c) Raj and Seher are not liable, as the parents do not have a legally justifiable reason to object to their
relationship.
(d) Both Raj and Seher have attained majority, and can live however they want to within the sphere of law.
Raj’s age of legally marrying somebody is irrelevant in this case.

4. According to the passage, which of the following statements are true?

(a) The right to marry somebody of one’s choice, despite their marriageable age, is a fundamental right of an
individual.
(b) The right to choose one’s partner for a live-in relationship also applies to the LGBTQ+ community.
(c) In the judgement provided in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., a criminal can be sentenced to death if found
guilty in the Court of Law.
(d) In the case of Priyapreet Kaur v. State of Punjab, the case was filed under Article 21.

Passage (Q.5-Q.9): The apex court, concerned with the ‘perennial pendency’ of causes before the ‘hierarchical
courts’ in the wake of interim orders of stay granted by the High Court, ordered as follows:
“In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order
unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the case was of
such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial
Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of
the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of
stay is produced.”
The reverberations of this have been driven home and felt only when the orders passed in March 2018 in “Asian
Resurfacing”’ resurfaced before the top court.
It would make robustly common and good sense to quote the erudite judge himself:
“Learned Additional CJM, Pune, by his order, has instead of following our judgment in letter as well as spirit,
stated that the Complainant should move an application before the High Court to resume the trial. The
Magistrate goes on to say: “The lower Court cannot pass any order which has been stayed by the Hon’ble High
Court, Bombay with due respect of ratio of the judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd.” We
must remind the Magistrates all over the country that in our pyramidical structure under the Constitution of India,
the Supreme Court is at the Apex, and the High Courts, though not subordinate administratively, are certainly
subordinate judicially. This kind of orders fly in the face of para 35 of our judgment. We expect that the
Magistrates all over the country will follow our order in letter and spirit."

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

 5. Justice Kuronone has been elevated to the High Court of Bombay by the collegium. When Kuronone J. took
hold of the courtroom 30% of the pending cases awaited trial. A year later it was observed that 70% of the
pending cases await trail and several cases had issue with stay orders given for a long period. Katkeju read the
above passage and raised questions on Kuronone J. regarding his ability to follow the rules set by the court.
Decide.
(a) The courts of India have the highest pendency of cases all around the world. If Kuronone J. was following
the rules pending cases wouldn’t rise to 70%
(b) Kuronone J. is doing his job in securing justice; pendency of cases does not determine anything.
(c) This is not an issue to be concerned with; as percentage do not determine the progress and clearance of
the cases.
(d) Supreme Court must take cognizance of the matter, like it was taken in case of the Add. CJM of Pune.

6. Justice Kuronone was held to be incompetent, in the High Court of Bombay because of the use of Marathi in the
court, by the inspection committee. The Supreme Court transferred Kuronone J. to the Madras high court.
Justice Kuronone who has now got acquainted with Marathi and started enjoying Bombay High Court wanted to
prove himself therefore he put a stay order on his transfer. The order was extended for a period more than 6
months. Decide.
(a) Supreme Court must order Justice Kuronone to follow the rules set by the apex court.
(b) Justice Kuronone violated the law.
(c) Stay order, by Justice Kuronone, extending for a period more than 6 months is against the law set by the
apex court in Asian Resurfacing case.
(d) Now that the order has been extended for more than 6 months, a date must be fixed for commencement of
the proceeding or produce an order of extention.

7. After one month, since the appointment of Justice Kuronone, his court gave an extension to a stay order on
execution of death penalty of Dr. Ajmera (convicted for rarest of rare case) by a speaking order because the
intellects of Ajmera are of such exceptional nature that they are needed by the scientists to develop a cure for
cancer within 6 months, meanwhile mercy petition is also pending. Trial court did not set a date when conviction
can be executed. Do the facts in this question follow the law mentioned in the passage?
(a) No, just because a person has exceptional intellects he cannot escape the clutches of the law.
(b) Yes, because the situation is of exceptional nature, mitigating circumstances and pendency of petition is of
importance.
(c) No, the law has not been followed if intellects are of exceptional nature in the eyes of law then any person
above 300IQ can misuse the law; moreover trial court failed to follow the law as well.
(d) Yes, because Dr. Ajmera is needed to find cure for the world’s deadliest disease this certainly falls under
the category of Exceptional Nature.

8. Saks, an entrepreneur, has his property dispute case pending in the civil court of Noida. The civil judge put a
stay order, on any construction on the disputed property, on 27 th July, 2020. On 19th January petitioners request
an extension of stay order reason cited was ‘if the construction is allowed to continue the building will become
strong and unable to succumb.’ The civil judge granted the extension which is being challenged in the high
court. Decide.
(a) The stay cannot be granted, every citizen has a right to build their property therefore reason cited is not of
exceptional nature.
(b) The court rightfully granted the stay, in case of property disputes construction shall be stayed, unless the
decision of the court has come, in order to mitigate the losses.
(c) The stay order by the civil judge must be revoked.
(d) Further construction on a disputed property results in change of value of the property, thereby increasing
the contribution of a party that may lose the case; therefore, stay order is rightfully granted.

9. What is the reason for the reminder, by the apex court, in the passage?
(a) So that the lower courts follow the order of the high court.
(b) The Courts all over India should understand who is in charge.
(c) Supreme Court has to show its authority to the lower courts in order to maintain the hierarchy.
(d) The Courts should follow the constitution.

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

 Passage (Q.10-Q.13): Contract labourers are indirect employees who are hired and remunerated by a
contractor who is compensated by the principal company or the establishment. The major characteristics that
define these contract labours are the inferior status of labour, casual nature of employment, no fixed payroll,
lack of job security, poor economic conditions, etc. Viewing these circumstances, it is evident that such grim
conditions of contract labour need to be addressed.
The apex court looked into the challenging conditions in which the contract labours were engulfed in and,
thereafter, laid down the rules and guidelines as to the circumstances and places in which the contract labour
should not be employed. These are as follows:
1. Where the work is of perennial nature and goes on from day to day.
2. Where the work is incidental and mandatory to the working of the company.
3. Where the work is of such nature that it is sufficient to employ a substantial number of workmen for whole-
time.
4. Where the work is being done in most concerns through regular workmen.
In spite of such regulating guidelines, the contract labourers continue to face challenges and exploitation. So
much so that there was a popular demand to ban contract labour at one time. There was also widespread
agitation organised by workmen and their unions for the purpose of abolishing contract labour, specifically in
certain areas where it was imperative that the terms and conditions of service employing such labour be
regulated. Thus, viewing such state of affairs, the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970, was
passed by the Parliament and enforced in September 1970.

10. Jolly is a poor law student studying in JGLS; he occasionally works part time, on construction field, to increase
his spending capacity. His pay is dependent on his work whole day; his work is majorly assembling bricks and
making walls, he is also provided a helmet for safety purpose. Due to Covid, colleges are shut and Jolly is
working full-time, in constructing the tallest government building of Bhopal, to earn enough to buy expensive law
books without having to rely on parents. After reading this passage, he feels like his job is illegal. Is jolly a
contract labourer?
(a) Jolly is not a contract labourer.
(b) Jolly is a contract labourer because of his economic condition, he doesn’t have money to buy books and
unlike every other student he has to work and earn to spend.
(c) Jolly is not a contract labourer because his job is not inferior, making walls is a skilled labour and no skilled
labour has any inferior status. He certainly is not a skilled labourer.
(d) Jolly is a contract labourer because there is no job security, no PF and can be fired anytime.

11. Applying additional facts and arguing on merit established that Jolly is in a contract labour job but is it illegal?
(a) The type of job jolly is employed in has been made illegal by the court.
(b) The job is not illegal as he is working where all the essentials of labourers’ requirement are fulfilled.
(c) His job has been explicitly disallowed by the court there is not payment security and such types of labour
jobs are illegal.
(d) The job is legal as it is a perennial and the work has to be done daily and does not qualify as a part time job.

12. Kamlesh, a 16 years old beggar, is a resident of Bhopal.He, along with his friends, works in a fire cracker factory
during Diwali. He set a record and won the best employee award for making the most fire crackers in an hour. A
month before Diwali, factory was shut because they have been accused of violating the law made by the
Supreme Court. Decide.
(a) Kamlesh has a right to work and he shall be allowed to work in the factory, such action is illegal.
(b) Factory was employing contract labourers when the court explicitly disallowed such practice.
(c) Kamlesh’s rights have not been violated.
(d) This act shall be challenged in the court of law; the factory did not violate any law.

13. The court is convinced that Kamlesh is not a contract labourer what argument could persuade the court in other
direction?
(a) Kamlesh works is a casual employment, and such nature of employment is a part of contract labour.
(b) The inferior status of labour, unskilled people can do the job of making fire crackers as 16 y.o. kids are
made to do such jobs.
(c) Kamlesh does not have fixed payroll, major essential of a contract labourer is not having a fixed payroll.
(d) All of the above.

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