Introduction
CLATalogue has started a series of newspaper editorials analysis to help aspirants get acquainted with currents affairs, legal news as well as to get a hang of the examination pattern. It will also help you understand how to attempt CLAT reading comprehensions.
One of the posts in the series is available here.
Passage / Question
“After the Babri Masjid demolition, the SC in SR Bomnai (1994) upheld the dismissal of BJP Governments in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh, this author had criticized this part of an otherwise historic judgment. Though in its Hindutva judgment (2018), the Court controversially held Hindutva to be a way of life, not a religion (…).
In the privacy judgment, the Court talked about culinary freedom and the freedom to dress. As a result, several laws that put restriction on beef eating can be constitutionally re-examined. In Hadiya’s case (2018) too, the SC overruled the regressive judgment of Kerala High Court, though its decision to ask the NIA to investigate the link between conversions and terrorist activities was unnecessary. In Tehseen S Poonawala (2018), it came down heavily against mob lynching and asked the Parliament to enact a law against such activities.
Even in the triple talaq verdict (2017), the majority deemed triple talaq to be void because the Quran doesn’t mention it and pointed out what is sinful in theology cannot be valid in law.
…
In Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College (1974), Justice HR Khanna observed that “minorities are as much the children of soil as the majority and the approach has been to ensure that nothing should be done as might deprive the minorities of their sense of belonging (…).”
-The above extract is taken from Bench over Religion, by Faizan Mustafa.[i]
Analysis
By talking about cases where the judges have been sympathetic to the rights of minorities, especially Muslims, the passage is communicating the sensitive attitude of judges to the causes of Muslims. It also shows how Muslim women have had success in enforcing their rights in Court.
In that context, questions to a passage like this can relate to case laws where rights of minorities were in question. Students must have knowledge on leading cases on rights of minorities—especially women. Some examples are cases relating to the right to maintenance of wives, right of access to religious places, etc.
Sample Questions
- In which of the following cases, one judge equated the prohibition of menstruating women’s entry to a temple to constitutionally prohibited untouchability?
a. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
b. Sabrimala Temple v. Women of Kerala
c. Hadiya v. State of Kerala
d. None of These
2. In which of the following cases, the right of Muslim women to a fair maintenance was established beyond the Iddat peiod?
a. Daniel Latifi v. Union of India
b. Shayara Bano v. Union of India
c. Hadiya v. State of Kerala
d. None of These
3. Which judgment is referred to as the ‘privacy’ judgment in the passage?
a. Shayara Bano v. Union of India
b. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
c. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
d. None of These
4. What is the name of the triple talaq judgment referred above?
a. Shah Bano Begum v. Union of India
b. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
c. Daniel Latifi v. Union of India
d. Shayara Bano v. Union of India
ANSWERS: 1-A, 2-A, 3-B, 4-D
To see more practice questions and to learn how to attempt CLAT reading comprehensions, visit this page.
[i] The Indian Express, July 5 2022: The Editorial Page; Web copy available at https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/muslims-and-judiciary-we-do-not-have-muslim-or-non-muslim-judges-in-india-8008761/ (last accessed 20.07.2022)
Source: Lawctopus
