In the landmark judgment of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:

A) If Section 66A of the I. T. Act, 2000 is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the present Government that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and Governments may go, but Section 66-A of the I. T. Act, 2000 goes on forever B) Driving in a drunken state, in a rash and negligent manner or driving with youthful adventurous enthusiasm as if there are no traffic rules or no discipline of law has come to the centre stage C) Life to the poor or the impecunious is as worth living for as it is to the rich and the luxuriously temperamental D) Violation of an interim or an interlocutory order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction ought to be viewed strictly if the rule of law is to be maintained

Answer & Solution

Correct Answer: Option A

Let's discuss the solution. Join the discussion

Question posted by Examveda

Community

Join the Discussion

Join the discussion

No comments yet Be the first to discuss this question.

Keep Learning

In the landmark judgment of Shreya Singhal v Union of India...

In the landmark judgment of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:

Join the Discussion

Related Questions on Constitution of India