Brinda Karat Seeks Presidential Intervention in Akhlaq Lynching Case
Photo by Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries
त्वरित संशोधन
Brinda Karat seeks President's intervention in the Akhlaq lynching case.
The Uttar Pradesh government is moving to withdraw charges against the accused.
Mohammad Akhlaq was lynched in 2015 in Gautam Buddh Nagar.
महत्वपूर्ण तिथियां
दृश्य सामग्री
Location of Akhlaq Lynching Incident
Shows the location of Dadri, Uttar Pradesh, where the lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq occurred, highlighting the region's socio-political context.
Loading interactive map...
परीक्षा के दृष्टिकोण
Role of the President in safeguarding constitutional values
Separation of powers and judicial independence
Article 14 and Article 21 implications
Federalism and state government's power to withdraw cases
विस्तृत सारांश देखें
सारांश
पृष्ठभूमि
नवीनतम घटनाक्रम
बहुविकल्पीय प्रश्न (MCQ)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the power of a State Government to withdraw criminal cases: 1. Under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Public Prosecutor may withdraw from the prosecution of any person with the consent of the Court. 2. The State Government can direct the Public Prosecutor to withdraw a case even if the Court disagrees, as the executive power is supreme in such matters. 3. The Court's role is limited to ensuring that the Public Prosecutor's application for withdrawal is not based on extraneous considerations. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.1 and 3 only
- C.2 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: B
Statement 1 is correct as per Section 321 CrPC. Statement 3 is also correct; the court must ensure the withdrawal is not based on extraneous factors. Statement 2 is incorrect; the court's consent is mandatory, and the executive power is not supreme in this regard.
2. In the context of the Mohammad Akhlaq lynching case and Brinda Karat's appeal, which of the following statements best reflects the constitutional concerns raised?
- A.The incident primarily violates Article 19, concerning freedom of speech and expression.
- B.The withdrawal of charges undermines Article 14, guaranteeing equality before the law, and Article 21, protecting the right to life and personal liberty.
- C.The case mainly concerns Article 25, relating to freedom of religion.
- D.The appeal focuses on Article 32, the right to constitutional remedies, due to the slow pace of the trial.
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: B
The lynching and subsequent withdrawal of charges raise serious concerns about equality before the law (Article 14) and the right to life (Article 21), as the victim was allegedly targeted based on his religious identity. The withdrawal of charges could be seen as a denial of justice.
3. Assertion (A): The President of India has the power to seek information from the Union Government relating to decisions taken by the Council of Ministers. Reason (R): This power is enshrined in Article 78 of the Constitution, enabling the President to be informed about the affairs of the Union and proposals for legislation. In the context of the above statements, which of the following is correct?
- A.Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
- B.Both A and R are true, but R is NOT the correct explanation of A.
- C.A is true, but R is false.
- D.A is false, but R is true.
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: A
Both the assertion and reason are correct. Article 78 explicitly grants the President the power to seek information from the Union Government, making the reason the correct explanation for the assertion.
4. Which of the following statements is NOT correct regarding mob lynching in India?
- A.There is a specific central law that explicitly defines and punishes mob lynching as a distinct crime.
- B.The Supreme Court has issued guidelines to prevent and punish incidents of mob lynching.
- C.Some states have enacted specific laws to address mob lynching.
- D.The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has expressed concerns about the increasing incidents of mob lynching.
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: A
Currently, there is no specific central law that explicitly defines and punishes mob lynching as a distinct crime. While the Supreme Court has issued guidelines and some states have enacted laws, a comprehensive central law is still lacking.