Login
Register
- Mocks
- Previous Papers
- Learn
- Practice
- Colleges
- Courses
- Enroll To CAT 2024
- Tools
- Offers
- Other Exams
- Blogs
- Adda
The bench of Dr DY Chandrachud and MR Shah, JJ has refused to transfer to CBI the criminal cases lodged against Republic TV Editor in-Chief Arnab Goswami for alleged defamatory news show telecast on April 21 in connection with the Palghar mob-lynching case. It also quashed all FIRs against Arnab Goswami except one which was filed in Nagpur and which has been transferred to Mumbai via order dated 24.04.2020.
[Excerpt from SCC Online Blog, May 19, 2020]
Delivering the verdict, Justice Chandrachud said, "Article 32 of the Constitution constitutes recognition of the constitutional duty entrusted to this Court to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. The exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a). The petitioner is a media journalist. The airing of views on television shows which he hosts is in the exercise of his fundamental right to speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). India's freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak truth to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal...Free citizens cannot exist when the news media is chained to adhere to one position. Yuval Noah Harari has put it succinctly in his recent book titled "21 Lessons for the 21st Century”: “Questions you cannot answer are usually far better for you than answers you cannot question.”
[Excerpt from Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs Union Of India on 19 May, 2020]
The above passage mentions about the Journalist‘s request to transfer the case to the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) for investigation. What could be the appropriate reason for such request?
The above passage quotes the observation of the Court in relation to freedom of speech and expression as, "Questions you cannot answer are better than questions you cannot question." Now, based on such observation, chose the most appropriate option which describes the scope of such questions.
It is an established principle of law that the offence of defamation (harming the reputation) has many exceptions and the imputation of truth is one of those, but the accused must prove that such imputation was true and also for the public good. In the light of this statement which of the following questions/statements are not defamatory?
In the above passage, the Court ordered for the merging of different FIRs into one and the investigation to be conducted at Mumbai. What is the reason behind such order?
Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act, which need not be a long gap. To bring common intention into effect a pre-concert is not necessarily be proved, but it may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons and could be inferred from facts and circumstances of each case. For example A and B caught hold of C where only B stabbed C with a knife but A is also liable for murder as there was a pre concerted action. In the case Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, Supreme court emphasized on this point that prior concert need not be something always very much prior to the incident, but could well be something that may develop on the spot, on the spur of the moment.
Common Intention and Similar Intention
Common intention does not mean similar intention of several persons. To constitute common intention it is necessary that the intention of each one of them be known to the rest of them and shared by them. In the case of Dukhmochan Pandey v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court, held that: “Common intention which developed at the spur of the moment is different from the similar intention actuated a number of person at the same time....the distinction between a common intention and similar intention may be fine, but is nonetheless a real one and if overlooked, may lead to miscarriage of justice....” The mere presence of accused together is not sufficient to hold that they shared the common intention to commit the offence
in question. It is necessary that the intention of each one of 'several persons‘ be known to each other for constituting common intention.
A gang of six members went to a bank, armed with weapons to commit a heist. While five of the gang members went inside the bank, Mr. A (the sixth member) waited outside the bank to alert them on any threat. During the heist one of the gang members fired a gun at the branch manager, as a result he died. All five escaped but Mr. A was caught and arrested. Now, choose the most appropriate option as per the principle stated in the above passage.
Raman and Raghav were riding on a motorcycle on a busy street, suddenly Aman (another biker) bumped into their bike. A heated argument started between the three of them. While Raghav started abusing Aman, Raman hit Aman with an iron rod lying on the road and as a consequence he died. Now, chose the correct option.
After reading the passage which of the following is not correct in relation to the difference between Common and Similar intention?
Mr. X and Mr. Y entered into a house at night to commit theft, while committing theft Mr. Y committed sexual assault on a minor girl of aged 11 years. Identify for which of the following offences Mr. X is liable for.
Which of the following statements is correct in relation to the difference between common intention and similar intention?
Day-wise Structured & Planned Preparation Guide
By proceeding you agree to create your account
Free CAT Schedule PDF will be sent to your email address soon !!!
