CLAT Practice Test - 20 - CLAT MCQ

Research into social robots has shown that machines that respond to emotion can help the most vulnerable, the elderly and children, and could lead to robots becoming more widely socially acceptable. Robots that help care for others are often at the cutting edge of emotional interaction. Milo is both a robotic teacher and a student. Developers RoboKind created Milo to help children with autism spectrum disorders learn more about emotional expression and empathy while collecting data on their progress to target learning and treatment. Milo's friendly face makes him approachable and the children are able to analyse his expressions without feeling social anxiety. Another situation where robots can reduce stress is in hospital settings. Expper Tech's 'Robin' was designed as a companion robot to provide emotional support for children undergoing medical treatment. Robin explains medical procedures to them, plays games and tells stories, and during treatment distracts them to reduce their perception of pain.

Expert's robot uses AI to create empathy, remembering facial expressions and conversations to build dialogue for follow-up sessions. [1] In trials # the Wigmore Medical (UK) Pediatric Clinic # Yerevan, Armenia, the team found that Robin led to a 34% decrease # stress and an increase # happiness of 26% in the 120 children who interacted # him at least once.[1] Healthcare robots could all benefit from displaying emotional intelligence, both recognizing and responding to human emotions, and to some extent, managing them. The problem with this level of sophistication is the fear that human jobs may be lost as robots become more adept at handling social situations. Population trends suggest that the demand for robots to work alongside people in care situations will grow over time. By 2050, the number of people aged 65 and over globally will be 1.6 billion (17%), roughly twice the proportion of what it is today. An extra 3.5 million care workers will be needed and that will include emotionally intelligent robots. Today's simple systems are being trained to meet that demand. This includes ProxEmo, a little wheeled robot that can guess how you are feeling from the way you walk, and ENRICHMENT – the 'ambient assisted living' robot from the University of Lincoln in the UK – who helps older people to stay physically and mentally active.

Q. What does the word “ambient”, as used in the passage mean?

Research into social robots has shown that machines that respond to emotion can help the most vulnerable, the elderly and children, and could lead to robots becoming more widely socially acceptable. Robots that help care for others are often at the cutting edge of emotional interaction. Milo is both a robotic teacher and a student. Developers RoboKind created Milo to help children with autism spectrum disorders learn more about emotional expression and empathy while collecting data on their progress to target learning and treatment. Milo's friendly face makes him approachable and the children are able to analyse his expressions without feeling social anxiety. Another situation where robots can reduce stress is in hospital settings. Expper Tech's 'Robin' was designed as a companion robot to provide emotional support for children undergoing medical treatment. Robin explains medical procedures to them, plays games and tells stories, and during treatment distracts them to reduce their perception of pain.

Expert's robot uses AI to create empathy, remembering facial expressions and conversations to build dialogue for follow-up sessions. [1] In trials # the Wigmore Medical (UK) Pediatric Clinic # Yerevan, Armenia, the team found that Robin led to a 34% decrease # stress and an increase # happiness of 26% in the 120 children who interacted # him at least once.[1] Healthcare robots could all benefit from displaying emotional intelligence, both recognizing and responding to human emotions, and to some extent, managing them. The problem with this level of sophistication is the fear that human jobs may be lost as robots become more adept at handling social situations. Population trends suggest that the demand for robots to work alongside people in care situations will grow over time. By 2050, the number of people aged 65 and over globally will be 1.6 billion (17%), roughly twice the proportion of what it is today. An extra 3.5 million care workers will be needed and that will include emotionally intelligent robots. Today's simple systems are being trained to meet that demand. This includes ProxEmo, a little wheeled robot that can guess how you are feeling from the way you walk, and ENRICHMENT – the 'ambient assisted living' robot from the University of Lincoln in the UK – who helps older people to stay physically and mentally active.

Q. What is the speciality of ProxEmo?

Research into social robots has shown that machines that respond to emotion can help the most vulnerable, the elderly and children, and could lead to robots becoming more widely socially acceptable. Robots that help care for others are often at the cutting edge of emotional interaction. Milo is both a robotic teacher and a student. Developers RoboKind created Milo to help children with autism spectrum disorders learn more about emotional expression and empathy while collecting data on their progress to target learning and treatment. Milo's friendly face makes him approachable and the children are able to analyse his expressions without feeling social anxiety. Another situation where robots can reduce stress is in hospital settings. Expper Tech's 'Robin' was designed as a companion robot to provide emotional support for children undergoing medical treatment. Robin explains medical procedures to them, plays games and tells stories, and during treatment distracts them to reduce their perception of pain.

Expert's robot uses AI to create empathy, remembering facial expressions and conversations to build dialogue for follow-up sessions. [1] In trials # the Wigmore Medical (UK) Pediatric Clinic # Yerevan, Armenia, the team found that Robin led to a 34% decrease # stress and an increase # happiness of 26% in the 120 children who interacted # him at least once.[1] Healthcare robots could all benefit from displaying emotional intelligence, both recognizing and responding to human emotions, and to some extent, managing them. The problem with this level of sophistication is the fear that human jobs may be lost as robots become more adept at handling social situations. Population trends suggest that the demand for robots to work alongside people in care situations will grow over time. By 2050, the number of people aged 65 and over globally will be 1.6 billion (17%), roughly twice the proportion of what it is today. An extra 3.5 million care workers will be needed and that will include emotionally intelligent robots. Today's simple systems are being trained to meet that demand. This includes ProxEmo, a little wheeled robot that can guess how you are feeling from the way you walk, and ENRICHMENT – the 'ambient assisted living' robot from the University of Lincoln in the UK – who helps older people to stay physically and mentally active.

Q. Identify the correct order of sequence of prepositions in place of # in the sentence [1].

Of the large minority of English people who have not visited India, it is safe to say that there are few who have strong familiarity with the mighty peninsula by reason of the pictures and descriptions so freely scattered. Yet the absurdity of this vague and nebulous “knowledge” is most clearly demonstrated directly if there arises any discussion concerning the great races of India. Perhaps the classification most easily understood is that of religion.

(A)The Hindus, who form by far the largest proportion of the total population, are naturally the best known; Hinduism in some form was brought in by the Aryan invasion. To this religion most of the native Princes ruling independent States belong. The Hindus to Mohammedans are about three to one.

(B)The Buddhists are the next most important in number, and though the Buddhists are only as one in twenty to the Mohammedans, they are not in the same position, because they are segregated to a great extent; the mass of the Buddhists being the Shans and Burmans of Burma, and some, of a slightly different type, being found in the independent States of Sikkim and Bhutan; they are not scattered throughout India.

(C) The Mohammedans, the next in order numerically, can claim the Nizam of Hyderabad, who rules the largest independent State, as belonging to their religion. The Mohammedans succeeded in establishing a dynasty which lasted for many hundreds of years. To the Mohammedan Moguls belong the proudest names in Indian history—those of Baber, Akbar and Aurungzeb, father, grandson, and great–grandson. At the present time the Mohammedans dread the power of the Hindus, who so far outnumber them, and it is certain that if British leave India, the Hindus would make a desperate attempt to drive their Mohammedan fellow–countrymen into the sea, and thus to sweep the country clear of them.

(D)The Sikhs are about half as many as the Buddhists; the Jains and Parsees also count but little in a population numbered in millions. After religion there is the evidence of language to be considered.

“There is a greater diversity of races, languages, social customs, physical conditions, etc., between the different provinces of India than is often to be found between the different countries of Europe.” It is difficult, indeed, to regard the mighty peninsula as if it were a congeries of European countries, their straits defining the boundaries of the nations; yet the Latin languages have a common origin. Similarly, the tongues of the races of India. Some of these languages are allied, as Tamil and Telugu, but they are more than mere variations of dialect, having split off so far back that they may fairly be classed as languages by themselves.

Q. What is the author aiming at describing through the above passage?

Of the large minority of English people who have not visited India, it is safe to say that there are few who have strong familiarity with the mighty peninsula by reason of the pictures and descriptions so freely scattered. Yet the absurdity of this vague and nebulous “knowledge” is most clearly demonstrated directly if there arises any discussion concerning the great races of India. Perhaps the classification most easily understood is that of religion.

(A)The Hindus, who form by far the largest proportion of the total population, are naturally the best known; Hinduism in some form was brought in by the Aryan invasion. To this religion most of the native Princes ruling independent States belong. The Hindus to Mohammedans are about three to one.

(B)The Buddhists are the next most important in number, and though the Buddhists are only as one in twenty to the Mohammedans, they are not in the same position, because they are segregated to a great extent; the mass of the Buddhists being the Shans and Burmans of Burma, and some, of a slightly different type, being found in the independent States of Sikkim and Bhutan; they are not scattered throughout India.

(C) The Mohammedans, the next in order numerically, can claim the Nizam of Hyderabad, who rules the largest independent State, as belonging to their religion. The Mohammedans succeeded in establishing a dynasty which lasted for many hundreds of years. To the Mohammedan Moguls belong the proudest names in Indian history—those of Baber, Akbar and Aurungzeb, father, grandson, and great–grandson. At the present time the Mohammedans dread the power of the Hindus, who so far outnumber them, and it is certain that if British leave India, the Hindus would make a desperate attempt to drive their Mohammedan fellow–countrymen into the sea, and thus to sweep the country clear of them.

(D)The Sikhs are about half as many as the Buddhists; the Jains and Parsees also count but little in a population numbered in millions. After religion there is the evidence of language to be considered.

“There is a greater diversity of races, languages, social customs, physical conditions, etc., between the different provinces of India than is often to be found between the different countries of Europe.” It is difficult, indeed, to regard the mighty peninsula as if it were a congeries of European countries, their straits defining the boundaries of the nations; yet the Latin languages have a common origin. Similarly, the tongues of the races of India. Some of these languages are allied, as Tamil and Telugu, but they are more than mere variations of dialect, having split off so far back that they may fairly be classed as languages by themselves.

Q. Place the sentences denoted as a, b, c and d in the most coherent manner possible.

Of the large minority of English people who have not visited India, it is safe to say that there are few who have strong familiarity with the mighty peninsula by reason of the pictures and descriptions so freely scattered. Yet the absurdity of this vague and nebulous “knowledge” is most clearly demonstrated directly if there arises any discussion concerning the great races of India. Perhaps the classification most easily understood is that of religion.

(A)The Hindus, who form by far the largest proportion of the total population, are naturally the best known; Hinduism in some form was brought in by the Aryan invasion. To this religion most of the native Princes ruling independent States belong. The Hindus to Mohammedans are about three to one.

(B)The Buddhists are the next most important in number, and though the Buddhists are only as one in twenty to the Mohammedans, they are not in the same position, because they are segregated to a great extent; the mass of the Buddhists being the Shans and Burmans of Burma, and some, of a slightly different type, being found in the independent States of Sikkim and Bhutan; they are not scattered throughout India.

(C) The Mohammedans, the next in order numerically, can claim the Nizam of Hyderabad, who rules the largest independent State, as belonging to their religion. The Mohammedans succeeded in establishing a dynasty which lasted for many hundreds of years. To the Mohammedan Moguls belong the proudest names in Indian history—those of Baber, Akbar and Aurungzeb, father, grandson, and great–grandson. At the present time the Mohammedans dread the power of the Hindus, who so far outnumber them, and it is certain that if British leave India, the Hindus would make a desperate attempt to drive their Mohammedan fellow–countrymen into the sea, and thus to sweep the country clear of them.

(D)The Sikhs are about half as many as the Buddhists; the Jains and Parsees also count but little in a population numbered in millions. After religion there is the evidence of language to be considered.

“There is a greater diversity of races, languages, social customs, physical conditions, etc., between the different provinces of India than is often to be found between the different countries of Europe.” It is difficult, indeed, to regard the mighty peninsula as if it were a congeries of European countries, their straits defining the boundaries of the nations; yet the Latin languages have a common origin. Similarly, the tongues of the races of India. Some of these languages are allied, as Tamil and Telugu, but they are more than mere variations of dialect, having split off so far back that they may fairly be classed as languages by themselves.

Q. Which of the following would support the tone of the passage?

1. India is one of the most diverse lands found anywhere else in the world.

2. Being a large country with large population, India presents endless varieties of physical features and cultural patterns.

3. India is a very religion diverse country

Of the large minority of English people who have not visited India, it is safe to say that there are few who have strong familiarity with the mighty peninsula by reason of the pictures and descriptions so freely scattered. Yet the absurdity of this vague and nebulous “knowledge” is most clearly demonstrated directly if there arises any discussion concerning the great races of India. Perhaps the classification most easily understood is that of religion.

(A)The Hindus, who form by far the largest proportion of the total population, are naturally the best known; Hinduism in some form was brought in by the Aryan invasion. To this religion most of the native Princes ruling independent States belong. The Hindus to Mohammedans are about three to one.

(B)The Buddhists are the next most important in number, and though the Buddhists are only as one in twenty to the Mohammedans, they are not in the same position, because they are segregated to a great extent; the mass of the Buddhists being the Shans and Burmans of Burma, and some, of a slightly different type, being found in the independent States of Sikkim and Bhutan; they are not scattered throughout India.

(C) The Mohammedans, the next in order numerically, can claim the Nizam of Hyderabad, who rules the largest independent State, as belonging to their religion. The Mohammedans succeeded in establishing a dynasty which lasted for many hundreds of years. To the Mohammedan Moguls belong the proudest names in Indian history—those of Baber, Akbar and Aurungzeb, father, grandson, and great–grandson. At the present time the Mohammedans dread the power of the Hindus, who so far outnumber them, and it is certain that if British leave India, the Hindus would make a desperate attempt to drive their Mohammedan fellow–countrymen into the sea, and thus to sweep the country clear of them.

(D)The Sikhs are about half as many as the Buddhists; the Jains and Parsees also count but little in a population numbered in millions. After religion there is the evidence of language to be considered.

“There is a greater diversity of races, languages, social customs, physical conditions, etc., between the different provinces of India than is often to be found between the different countries of Europe.” It is difficult, indeed, to regard the mighty peninsula as if it were a congeries of European countries, their straits defining the boundaries of the nations; yet the Latin languages have a common origin. Similarly, the tongues of the races of India. Some of these languages are allied, as Tamil and Telugu, but they are more than mere variations of dialect, having split off so far back that they may fairly be classed as languages by themselves.

Q. Which of the following is not correct with regards to the passage?

1. Europe is more diverse than India

2. The States in India has more diversity than the countries in Europe

3. India was once a country with only Hindu population

Of the large minority of English people who have not visited India, it is safe to say that there are few who have strong familiarity with the mighty peninsula by reason of the pictures and descriptions so freely scattered. Yet the absurdity of this vague and nebulous “knowledge” is most clearly demonstrated directly if there arises any discussion concerning the great races of India. Perhaps the classification most easily understood is that of religion.

(A)The Hindus, who form by far the largest proportion of the total population, are naturally the best known; Hinduism in some form was brought in by the Aryan invasion. To this religion most of the native Princes ruling independent States belong. The Hindus to Mohammedans are about three to one.

(B)The Buddhists are the next most important in number, and though the Buddhists are only as one in twenty to the Mohammedans, they are not in the same position, because they are segregated to a great extent; the mass of the Buddhists being the Shans and Burmans of Burma, and some, of a slightly different type, being found in the independent States of Sikkim and Bhutan; they are not scattered throughout India.

(C) The Mohammedans, the next in order numerically, can claim the Nizam of Hyderabad, who rules the largest independent State, as belonging to their religion. The Mohammedans succeeded in establishing a dynasty which lasted for many hundreds of years. To the Mohammedan Moguls belong the proudest names in Indian history—those of Baber, Akbar and Aurungzeb, father, grandson, and great–grandson. At the present time the Mohammedans dread the power of the Hindus, who so far outnumber them, and it is certain that if British leave India, the Hindus would make a desperate attempt to drive their Mohammedan fellow–countrymen into the sea, and thus to sweep the country clear of them.

(D)The Sikhs are about half as many as the Buddhists; the Jains and Parsees also count but little in a population numbered in millions. After religion there is the evidence of language to be considered.

“There is a greater diversity of races, languages, social customs, physical conditions, etc., between the different provinces of India than is often to be found between the different countries of Europe.” It is difficult, indeed, to regard the mighty peninsula as if it were a congeries of European countries, their straits defining the boundaries of the nations; yet the Latin languages have a common origin. Similarly, the tongues of the races of India. Some of these languages are allied, as Tamil and Telugu, but they are more than mere variations of dialect, having split off so far back that they may fairly be classed as languages by themselves.

Q. Which of the following could be the title of the passage?

The Supreme Court’s interim order in the ongoing contestation between large sections of the farmers and the Centre over the new farm laws may be motivated by a laudable intention to break the deadlock in negotiations. However, it is difficult to shake off the impression that the Court is seeking to impose a compromise on the farmers’ unions. One portion of the order stays the three laws, seeks to maintain the Minimum Support Price as before and prevents possible dispossession of farmers of their land under the new laws. The stated reason is that the stay would “assuage the hurt feelings of the farmers” and encourage them to go to the negotiating table. However, it is somewhat disconcerting that the stay of legislation is effected solely as an instrument to facilitate the Court’s arrangement rather than on the basis of any identified legal or constitutional infirmities in the laws. The order forming a four-member committee may indeed help relieve the current tension and allay the government’s fears that the Republic Day celebrations may be disrupted, but it is not clear if it would help the reaching of an amicable settlement as the Samyukt Kisan Morcha, the umbrella body spearheading the protests, has refused to appear before the panel. The Court’s approach raises the question whether it should traverse beyond its adjudicative role and pass judicial orders of significant import on the basis of sanguine hope and mediational zeal.

The Court did make its position amply clear during the hearing, with the Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde, faulting the Centre for its failure to break the deadlock arising out of the weeks-long protest by thousands of farmers in the vicinity of Delhi, demanding nothing short of an outright repeal of the laws. It is only in the wake of the government’s perceived failure that the Court has chosen to intervene, but it is unfortunate that it is not in the form of adjudicating key questions such as the constitutionality of the laws, but by handing over the role of thrashing out the issues involved to a four-member panel. It is not clear how the four members on the committee were chosen, and there is already some well-founded criticism that some of them have already voiced their support for the farm laws in question. The Court wants the panel to give its recommendations on hearing the views of all stakeholders. Here, the exercise could turn tricky. How will the Court deal with a possible recommendation that the laws be amended? It would be strange and even questionable if the Court directed Parliament to bring the laws in line with the committee’s views. While a negotiated settlement is always preferable, it is equally important that judicial power is not seen as being used to dilute the import of the protest or de-legitimise farmer unions that stay away from the proceedings of the panel or interfere with the powers of Parliament to legislate.

Q. Which of the following could be extrapolated from the passage?

The Supreme Court’s interim order in the ongoing contestation between large sections of the farmers and the Centre over the new farm laws may be motivated by a laudable intention to break the deadlock in negotiations. However, it is difficult to shake off the impression that the Court is seeking to impose a compromise on the farmers’ unions. One portion of the order stays the three laws, seeks to maintain the Minimum Support Price as before and prevents possible dispossession of farmers of their land under the new laws. The stated reason is that the stay would “assuage the hurt feelings of the farmers” and encourage them to go to the negotiating table. However, it is somewhat disconcerting that the stay of legislation is effected solely as an instrument to facilitate the Court’s arrangement rather than on the basis of any identified legal or constitutional infirmities in the laws. The order forming a four-member committee may indeed help relieve the current tension and allay the government’s fears that the Republic Day celebrations may be disrupted, but it is not clear if it would help the reaching of an amicable settlement as the Samyukt Kisan Morcha, the umbrella body spearheading the protests, has refused to appear before the panel. The Court’s approach raises the question whether it should traverse beyond its adjudicative role and pass judicial orders of significant import on the basis of sanguine hope and mediational zeal.

The Court did make its position amply clear during the hearing, with the Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde, faulting the Centre for its failure to break the deadlock arising out of the weeks-long protest by thousands of farmers in the vicinity of Delhi, demanding nothing short of an outright repeal of the laws. It is only in the wake of the government’s perceived failure that the Court has chosen to intervene, but it is unfortunate that it is not in the form of adjudicating key questions such as the constitutionality of the laws, but by handing over the role of thrashing out the issues involved to a four-member panel. It is not clear how the four members on the committee were chosen, and there is already some well-founded criticism that some of them have already voiced their support for the farm laws in question. The Court wants the panel to give its recommendations on hearing the views of all stakeholders. Here, the exercise could turn tricky. How will the Court deal with a possible recommendation that the laws be amended? It would be strange and even questionable if the Court directed Parliament to bring the laws in line with the committee’s views. While a negotiated settlement is always preferable, it is equally important that judicial power is not seen as being used to dilute the import of the protest or de-legitimise farmer unions that stay away from the proceedings of the panel or interfere with the powers of Parliament to legislate.

Q. Which of the following is true regarding the tone of the author in the passage?

The Supreme Court’s interim order in the ongoing contestation between large sections of the farmers and the Centre over the new farm laws may be motivated by a laudable intention to break the deadlock in negotiations. However, it is difficult to shake off the impression that the Court is seeking to impose a compromise on the farmers’ unions. One portion of the order stays the three laws, seeks to maintain the Minimum Support Price as before and prevents possible dispossession of farmers of their land under the new laws. The stated reason is that the stay would “assuage the hurt feelings of the farmers” and encourage them to go to the negotiating table. However, it is somewhat disconcerting that the stay of legislation is effected solely as an instrument to facilitate the Court’s arrangement rather than on the basis of any identified legal or constitutional infirmities in the laws. The order forming a four-member committee may indeed help relieve the current tension and allay the government’s fears that the Republic Day celebrations may be disrupted, but it is not clear if it would help the reaching of an amicable settlement as the Samyukt Kisan Morcha, the umbrella body spearheading the protests, has refused to appear before the panel. The Court’s approach raises the question whether it should traverse beyond its adjudicative role and pass judicial orders of significant import on the basis of sanguine hope and mediational zeal.

The Court did make its position amply clear during the hearing, with the Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde, faulting the Centre for its failure to break the deadlock arising out of the weeks-long protest by thousands of farmers in the vicinity of Delhi, demanding nothing short of an outright repeal of the laws. It is only in the wake of the government’s perceived failure that the Court has chosen to intervene, but it is unfortunate that it is not in the form of adjudicating key questions such as the constitutionality of the laws, but by handing over the role of thrashing out the issues involved to a four-member panel. It is not clear how the four members on the committee were chosen, and there is already some well-founded criticism that some of them have already voiced their support for the farm laws in question. The Court wants the panel to give its recommendations on hearing the views of all stakeholders. Here, the exercise could turn tricky. How will the Court deal with a possible recommendation that the laws be amended? It would be strange and even questionable if the Court directed Parliament to bring the laws in line with the committee’s views. While a negotiated settlement is always preferable, it is equally important that judicial power is not seen as being used to dilute the import of the protest or de-legitimise farmer unions that stay away from the proceedings of the panel or interfere with the powers of Parliament to legislate.

Q. Which of the following is true on the basis of the passage:

1. The intention behind the stay order decreed by the court could be to break the dead lock

2. The farm laws seek to prevent the dispossession of land of the farmers

3. The stay would provide the much needed respite to the farmers

The Supreme Court’s interim order in the ongoing contestation between large sections of the farmers and the Centre over the new farm laws may be motivated by a laudable intention to break the deadlock in negotiations. However, it is difficult to shake off the impression that the Court is seeking to impose a compromise on the farmers’ unions. One portion of the order stays the three laws, seeks to maintain the Minimum Support Price as before and prevents possible dispossession of farmers of their land under the new laws. The stated reason is that the stay would “assuage the hurt feelings of the farmers” and encourage them to go to the negotiating table. However, it is somewhat disconcerting that the stay of legislation is effected solely as an instrument to facilitate the Court’s arrangement rather than on the basis of any identified legal or constitutional infirmities in the laws. The order forming a four-member committee may indeed help relieve the current tension and allay the government’s fears that the Republic Day celebrations may be disrupted, but it is not clear if it would help the reaching of an amicable settlement as the Samyukt Kisan Morcha, the umbrella body spearheading the protests, has refused to appear before the panel. The Court’s approach raises the question whether it should traverse beyond its adjudicative role and pass judicial orders of significant import on the basis of sanguine hope and mediational zeal.

The Court did make its position amply clear during the hearing, with the Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde, faulting the Centre for its failure to break the deadlock arising out of the weeks-long protest by thousands of farmers in the vicinity of Delhi, demanding nothing short of an outright repeal of the laws. It is only in the wake of the government’s perceived failure that the Court has chosen to intervene, but it is unfortunate that it is not in the form of adjudicating key questions such as the constitutionality of the laws, but by handing over the role of thrashing out the issues involved to a four-member panel. It is not clear how the four members on the committee were chosen, and there is already some well-founded criticism that some of them have already voiced their support for the farm laws in question. The Court wants the panel to give its recommendations on hearing the views of all stakeholders. Here, the exercise could turn tricky. How will the Court deal with a possible recommendation that the laws be amended? It would be strange and even questionable if the Court directed Parliament to bring the laws in line with the committee’s views. While a negotiated settlement is always preferable, it is equally important that judicial power is not seen as being used to dilute the import of the protest or de-legitimise farmer unions that stay away from the proceedings of the panel or interfere with the powers of Parliament to legislate.

Q. Which of the following is not consistent with the passage?

The Supreme Court’s interim order in the ongoing contestation between large sections of the farmers and the Centre over the new farm laws may be motivated by a laudable intention to break the deadlock in negotiations. However, it is difficult to shake off the impression that the Court is seeking to impose a compromise on the farmers’ unions. One portion of the order stays the three laws, seeks to maintain the Minimum Support Price as before and prevents possible dispossession of farmers of their land under the new laws. The stated reason is that the stay would “assuage the hurt feelings of the farmers” and encourage them to go to the negotiating table. However, it is somewhat disconcerting that the stay of legislation is effected solely as an instrument to facilitate the Court’s arrangement rather than on the basis of any identified legal or constitutional infirmities in the laws. The order forming a four-member committee may indeed help relieve the current tension and allay the government’s fears that the Republic Day celebrations may be disrupted, but it is not clear if it would help the reaching of an amicable settlement as the Samyukt Kisan Morcha, the umbrella body spearheading the protests, has refused to appear before the panel. The Court’s approach raises the question whether it should traverse beyond its adjudicative role and pass judicial orders of significant import on the basis of sanguine hope and mediational zeal.

The Court did make its position amply clear during the hearing, with the Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde, faulting the Centre for its failure to break the deadlock arising out of the weeks-long protest by thousands of farmers in the vicinity of Delhi, demanding nothing short of an outright repeal of the laws. It is only in the wake of the government’s perceived failure that the Court has chosen to intervene, but it is unfortunate that it is not in the form of adjudicating key questions such as the constitutionality of the laws, but by handing over the role of thrashing out the issues involved to a four-member panel. It is not clear how the four members on the committee were chosen, and there is already some well-founded criticism that some of them have already voiced their support for the farm laws in question. The Court wants the panel to give its recommendations on hearing the views of all stakeholders. Here, the exercise could turn tricky. How will the Court deal with a possible recommendation that the laws be amended? It would be strange and even questionable if the Court directed Parliament to bring the laws in line with the committee’s views. While a negotiated settlement is always preferable, it is equally important that judicial power is not seen as being used to dilute the import of the protest or de-legitimise farmer unions that stay away from the proceedings of the panel or interfere with the powers of Parliament to legislate.

Q. Which of the following could be an apt title to the passage?

The Supreme Court clearance for the Central Vista redevelopment project that will give the country a new Parliament complex marks a big win for the government. Yet citizens will have little to cheer about the peremptory manner in which the project was cleared. Government had pitched the redevelopment citing the inadequacies of the current Parliament building and many of the “Bhawans” housing central ministries. This has failed to convince heritage conservationists and transparency activists. They are upset over the short shrift given to public consultations and in their words, the government’s tendency for “rule by law rather than rule of law”.

Both the majority and dissenting verdicts refused, rightly, to get drawn into non-justiciable arguments like the rationale for displacing Parliament from its current complex or the aesthetics and undesirability of redevelopment in a heritage zone and the irrevocable harm done to heritage buildings and overall architectural harmony of the area. Yet the fact that these arguments come up before a constitutional court is a reflection of governmental failure to meaningfully engage with the public at the project’s commencement.

Modes like discussion by both Houses of Parliament and public hearings could have helped the government persuade concerned citizens. In the end, government’s executive prerogative must prevail, but not without it having invested significant effort in due process and consensus. After all, at stake is the future of a building with an extraordinary past. This is where the Constitution was adopted besides serving as the “temple of democracy” for several decades. Countries with storied histories are known to proudly showcase their key institutions of democracy to highlight antiquity and unbroken tradition. No less contestable is proceeding with expensive redevelopment plans during an economic crisis, which offered excuses for cutting MPLADS funds and GST compensation that act as beneficial capital transfers to the grassroots.

While both judgments did highlight the importance of transparency, public consultations and environmental protection, the minority verdict goes further. It quashed the land use change and directed the central authority to put all drawings, layout plans and explanatory memoranda on its website, invite suggestions and objections, and conduct public hearings before the Heritage Conservation Committee ahead of granting permissions in accordance with the law. Liberties taken with democratic due process, even if not found to be justiciable in courts, rarely augur well in the long run. The ongoing farmers’ agitation also drives home the merits of greater public consultation.

Q. What is the basic nature of the passage?

The Supreme Court clearance for the Central Vista redevelopment project that will give the country a new Parliament complex marks a big win for the government. Yet citizens will have little to cheer about the peremptory manner in which the project was cleared. Government had pitched the redevelopment citing the inadequacies of the current Parliament building and many of the “Bhawans” housing central ministries. This has failed to convince heritage conservationists and transparency activists. They are upset over the short shrift given to public consultations and in their words, the government’s tendency for “rule by law rather than rule of law”.

Both the majority and dissenting verdicts refused, rightly, to get drawn into non-justiciable arguments like the rationale for displacing Parliament from its current complex or the aesthetics and undesirability of redevelopment in a heritage zone and the irrevocable harm done to heritage buildings and overall architectural harmony of the area. Yet the fact that these arguments come up before a constitutional court is a reflection of governmental failure to meaningfully engage with the public at the project’s commencement.

Modes like discussion by both Houses of Parliament and public hearings could have helped the government persuade concerned citizens. In the end, government’s executive prerogative must prevail, but not without it having invested significant effort in due process and consensus. After all, at stake is the future of a building with an extraordinary past. This is where the Constitution was adopted besides serving as the “temple of democracy” for several decades. Countries with storied histories are known to proudly showcase their key institutions of democracy to highlight antiquity and unbroken tradition. No less contestable is proceeding with expensive redevelopment plans during an economic crisis, which offered excuses for cutting MPLADS funds and GST compensation that act as beneficial capital transfers to the grassroots.

While both judgments did highlight the importance of transparency, public consultations and environmental protection, the minority verdict goes further. It quashed the land use change and directed the central authority to put all drawings, layout plans and explanatory memoranda on its website, invite suggestions and objections, and conduct public hearings before the Heritage Conservation Committee ahead of granting permissions in accordance with the law. Liberties taken with democratic due process, even if not found to be justiciable in courts, rarely augur well in the long run. The ongoing farmers’ agitation also drives home the merits of greater public consultation.

Q. Which of the following is untrue according to the passage?

The Supreme Court clearance for the Central Vista redevelopment project that will give the country a new Parliament complex marks a big win for the government. Yet citizens will have little to cheer about the peremptory manner in which the project was cleared. Government had pitched the redevelopment citing the inadequacies of the current Parliament building and many of the “Bhawans” housing central ministries. This has failed to convince heritage conservationists and transparency activists. They are upset over the short shrift given to public consultations and in their words, the government’s tendency for “rule by law rather than rule of law”.

Both the majority and dissenting verdicts refused, rightly, to get drawn into non-justiciable arguments like the rationale for displacing Parliament from its current complex or the aesthetics and undesirability of redevelopment in a heritage zone and the irrevocable harm done to heritage buildings and overall architectural harmony of the area. Yet the fact that these arguments come up before a constitutional court is a reflection of governmental failure to meaningfully engage with the public at the project’s commencement.

Modes like discussion by both Houses of Parliament and public hearings could have helped the government persuade concerned citizens. In the end, government’s executive prerogative must prevail, but not without it having invested significant effort in due process and consensus. After all, at stake is the future of a building with an extraordinary past. This is where the Constitution was adopted besides serving as the “temple of democracy” for several decades. Countries with storied histories are known to proudly showcase their key institutions of democracy to highlight antiquity and unbroken tradition. No less contestable is proceeding with expensive redevelopment plans during an economic crisis, which offered excuses for cutting MPLADS funds and GST compensation that act as beneficial capital transfers to the grassroots.

While both judgments did highlight the importance of transparency, public consultations and environmental protection, the minority verdict goes further. It quashed the land use change and directed the central authority to put all drawings, layout plans and explanatory memoranda on its website, invite suggestions and objections, and conduct public hearings before the Heritage Conservation Committee ahead of granting permissions in accordance with the law. Liberties taken with democratic due process, even if not found to be justiciable in courts, rarely augur well in the long run. The ongoing farmers’ agitation also drives home the merits of greater public consultation.

Q. What is the meaning of the term ‘antiquity’?

The Supreme Court clearance for the Central Vista redevelopment project that will give the country a new Parliament complex marks a big win for the government. Yet citizens will have little to cheer about the peremptory manner in which the project was cleared. Government had pitched the redevelopment citing the inadequacies of the current Parliament building and many of the “Bhawans” housing central ministries. This has failed to convince heritage conservationists and transparency activists. They are upset over the short shrift given to public consultations and in their words, the government’s tendency for “rule by law rather than rule of law”.

Both the majority and dissenting verdicts refused, rightly, to get drawn into non-justiciable arguments like the rationale for displacing Parliament from its current complex or the aesthetics and undesirability of redevelopment in a heritage zone and the irrevocable harm done to heritage buildings and overall architectural harmony of the area. Yet the fact that these arguments come up before a constitutional court is a reflection of governmental failure to meaningfully engage with the public at the project’s commencement.

Modes like discussion by both Houses of Parliament and public hearings could have helped the government persuade concerned citizens. In the end, government’s executive prerogative must prevail, but not without it having invested significant effort in due process and consensus. After all, at stake is the future of a building with an extraordinary past. This is where the Constitution was adopted besides serving as the “temple of democracy” for several decades. Countries with storied histories are known to proudly showcase their key institutions of democracy to highlight antiquity and unbroken tradition. No less contestable is proceeding with expensive redevelopment plans during an economic crisis, which offered excuses for cutting MPLADS funds and GST compensation that act as beneficial capital transfers to the grassroots.

While both judgments did highlight the importance of transparency, public consultations and environmental protection, the minority verdict goes further. It quashed the land use change and directed the central authority to put all drawings, layout plans and explanatory memoranda on its website, invite suggestions and objections, and conduct public hearings before the Heritage Conservation Committee ahead of granting permissions in accordance with the law. Liberties taken with democratic due process, even if not found to be justiciable in courts, rarely augur well in the long run. The ongoing farmers’ agitation also drives home the merits of greater public consultation.

Q. Which of the following seems to be the most appropriate title to the passage?

The Supreme Court clearance for the Central Vista redevelopment project that will give the country a new Parliament complex marks a big win for the government. Yet citizens will have little to cheer about the peremptory manner in which the project was cleared. Government had pitched the redevelopment citing the inadequacies of the current Parliament building and many of the “Bhawans” housing central ministries. This has failed to convince heritage conservationists and transparency activists. They are upset over the short shrift given to public consultations and in their words, the government’s tendency for “rule by law rather than rule of law”.

Both the majority and dissenting verdicts refused, rightly, to get drawn into non-justiciable arguments like the rationale for displacing Parliament from its current complex or the aesthetics and undesirability of redevelopment in a heritage zone and the irrevocable harm done to heritage buildings and overall architectural harmony of the area. Yet the fact that these arguments come up before a constitutional court is a reflection of governmental failure to meaningfully engage with the public at the project’s commencement.

Modes like discussion by both Houses of Parliament and public hearings could have helped the government persuade concerned citizens. In the end, government’s executive prerogative must prevail, but not without it having invested significant effort in due process and consensus. After all, at stake is the future of a building with an extraordinary past. This is where the Constitution was adopted besides serving as the “temple of democracy” for several decades. Countries with storied histories are known to proudly showcase their key institutions of democracy to highlight antiquity and unbroken tradition. No less contestable is proceeding with expensive redevelopment plans during an economic crisis, which offered excuses for cutting MPLADS funds and GST compensation that act as beneficial capital transfers to the grassroots.

While both judgments did highlight the importance of transparency, public consultations and environmental protection, the minority verdict goes further. It quashed the land use change and directed the central authority to put all drawings, layout plans and explanatory memoranda on its website, invite suggestions and objections, and conduct public hearings before the Heritage Conservation Committee ahead of granting permissions in accordance with the law. Liberties taken with democratic due process, even if not found to be justiciable in courts, rarely augur well in the long run. The ongoing farmers’ agitation also drives home the merits of greater public consultation.

Q. Give the antonym for ‘peremptory’

In the US, geothermal electricity accounts for only 0.4 percent of net generation, but there is potential for it to provide 100 Gigawatts or 10 percent of the national total. Tapping that resource means America would keep its place as world leader in the field, but it requires renewed investment in enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Geothermal plants are normally built where fault lines in the Earth’s crust give access to natural reservoirs of hot underground water. Drilling wells into these reservoirs, holding water hotter than 302 Fahrenheit (150 Celsius) can provide enough recyclable steam and water to drive generation turbines for decades. Not every geothermal plant has the helpful geology of The Geysers–highly volcanic, spacious reservoir and permeable rock–so technological innovation is needed. Just as fracking has exploited hidden gas reserves by pumping liquids at high pressure into rock to release them, EGS use water to fracture rock and increase through flow to generate electricity. Heat is captured from its passage through the rock and the heated water converted into electricity. Cooled water is then recycled and pumped back to gather more heat. EGS technologies will open up many more sites for geothermal energy. ""You can effectively put a power plant anywhere,” said Will Pettit, director of the Geothermal Resources Council. “All you have to do is drill deep enough and you will find hot rock.” Binary cycle plants are the growth technology because they can operate at lower water temperatures and more diverse geographical locations. Now a new supercharged technique that uses special properties of water at temperatures in excess of 750 F (400 c) is promising to release a gargantuan amount of energy reserves. Water at this temperature and pressure is found at depths greater than 1.9 miles (3 km). To access it requires upgraded drilling technology and materials, but at this depth the water acts as a supercritical liquid that can potentially produce ten times more energy than conventional geothermal wells. Geothermal plants already emit 11 times less carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than the average US coal power plant, making them environmentally sound. Unlike solar and wind farms they can also operate 24 hours a day to provide a solid base load for homes and businesses. There are downsides too. Seismic activity around drilling wells is a factor, as are potential for gas emissions such as SO2 (causing acid rain), and water pollution. High investment costs are another.

Q. What does the author opine about the contribution of geothermal energy to the national total?

In the US, geothermal electricity accounts for only 0.4 percent of net generation, but there is potential for it to provide 100 Gigawatts or 10 percent of the national total. Tapping that resource means America would keep its place as world leader in the field, but it requires renewed investment in enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Geothermal plants are normally built where fault lines in the Earth’s crust give access to natural reservoirs of hot underground water. Drilling wells into these reservoirs, holding water hotter than 302 Fahrenheit (150 Celsius) can provide enough recyclable steam and water to drive generation turbines for decades. Not every geothermal plant has the helpful geology of The Geysers–highly volcanic, spacious reservoir and permeable rock–so technological innovation is needed. Just as fracking has exploited hidden gas reserves by pumping liquids at high pressure into rock to release them, EGS use water to fracture rock and increase through flow to generate electricity. Heat is captured from its passage through the rock and the heated water converted into electricity. Cooled water is then recycled and pumped back to gather more heat. EGS technologies will open up many more sites for geothermal energy. ""You can effectively put a power plant anywhere,” said Will Pettit, director of the Geothermal Resources Council. “All you have to do is drill deep enough and you will find hot rock.” Binary cycle plants are the growth technology because they can operate at lower water temperatures and more diverse geographical locations. Now a new supercharged technique that uses special properties of water at temperatures in excess of 750 F (400 c) is promising to release a gargantuan amount of energy reserves. Water at this temperature and pressure is found at depths greater than 1.9 miles (3 km). To access it requires upgraded drilling technology and materials, but at this depth the water acts as a supercritical liquid that can potentially produce ten times more energy than conventional geothermal wells. Geothermal plants already emit 11 times less carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than the average US coal power plant, making them environmentally sound. Unlike solar and wind farms they can also operate 24 hours a day to provide a solid base load for homes and businesses. There are downsides too. Seismic activity around drilling wells is a factor, as are potential for gas emissions such as SO2 (causing acid rain), and water pollution. High investment costs are another.

Q. Why are technological innovations needed in geothermal plants?

In the US, geothermal electricity accounts for only 0.4 percent of net generation, but there is potential for it to provide 100 Gigawatts or 10 percent of the national total. Tapping that resource means America would keep its place as world leader in the field, but it requires renewed investment in enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Geothermal plants are normally built where fault lines in the Earth’s crust give access to natural reservoirs of hot underground water. Drilling wells into these reservoirs, holding water hotter than 302 Fahrenheit (150 Celsius) can provide enough recyclable steam and water to drive generation turbines for decades. Not every geothermal plant has the helpful geology of The Geysers–highly volcanic, spacious reservoir and permeable rock–so technological innovation is needed. Just as fracking has exploited hidden gas reserves by pumping liquids at high pressure into rock to release them, EGS use water to fracture rock and increase through flow to generate electricity. Heat is captured from its passage through the rock and the heated water converted into electricity. Cooled water is then recycled and pumped back to gather more heat. EGS technologies will open up many more sites for geothermal energy. ""You can effectively put a power plant anywhere,” said Will Pettit, director of the Geothermal Resources Council. “All you have to do is drill deep enough and you will find hot rock.” Binary cycle plants are the growth technology because they can operate at lower water temperatures and more diverse geographical locations. Now a new supercharged technique that uses special properties of water at temperatures in excess of 750 F (400 c) is promising to release a gargantuan amount of energy reserves. Water at this temperature and pressure is found at depths greater than 1.9 miles (3 km). To access it requires upgraded drilling technology and materials, but at this depth the water acts as a supercritical liquid that can potentially produce ten times more energy than conventional geothermal wells. Geothermal plants already emit 11 times less carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than the average US coal power plant, making them environmentally sound. Unlike solar and wind farms they can also operate 24 hours a day to provide a solid base load for homes and businesses. There are downsides too. Seismic activity around drilling wells is a factor, as are potential for gas emissions such as SO2 (causing acid rain), and water pollution. High investment costs are another.

Q. As per Will Pettit, what does one have to do to put a power plant anywhere?

In the US, geothermal electricity accounts for only 0.4 percent of net generation, but there is potential for it to provide 100 Gigawatts or 10 percent of the national total. Tapping that resource means America would keep its place as world leader in the field, but it requires renewed investment in enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Geothermal plants are normally built where fault lines in the Earth’s crust give access to natural reservoirs of hot underground water. Drilling wells into these reservoirs, holding water hotter than 302 Fahrenheit (150 Celsius) can provide enough recyclable steam and water to drive generation turbines for decades. Not every geothermal plant has the helpful geology of The Geysers–highly volcanic, spacious reservoir and permeable rock–so technological innovation is needed. Just as fracking has exploited hidden gas reserves by pumping liquids at high pressure into rock to release them, EGS use water to fracture rock and increase through flow to generate electricity. Heat is captured from its passage through the rock and the heated water converted into electricity. Cooled water is then recycled and pumped back to gather more heat. EGS technologies will open up many more sites for geothermal energy. ""You can effectively put a power plant anywhere,” said Will Pettit, director of the Geothermal Resources Council. “All you have to do is drill deep enough and you will find hot rock.” Binary cycle plants are the growth technology because they can operate at lower water temperatures and more diverse geographical locations. Now a new supercharged technique that uses special properties of water at temperatures in excess of 750 F (400 c) is promising to release a gargantuan amount of energy reserves. Water at this temperature and pressure is found at depths greater than 1.9 miles (3 km). To access it requires upgraded drilling technology and materials, but at this depth the water acts as a supercritical liquid that can potentially produce ten times more energy than conventional geothermal wells. Geothermal plants already emit 11 times less carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than the average US coal power plant, making them environmentally sound. Unlike solar and wind farms they can also operate 24 hours a day to provide a solid base load for homes and businesses. There are downsides too. Seismic activity around drilling wells is a factor, as are potential for gas emissions such as SO2 (causing acid rain), and water pollution. High investment costs are another.

Q. What is the meaning of the word “gargantuan” occurring in the passage?

In the US, geothermal electricity accounts for only 0.4 percent of net generation, but there is potential for it to provide 100 Gigawatts or 10 percent of the national total. Tapping that resource means America would keep its place as world leader in the field, but it requires renewed investment in enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Geothermal plants are normally built where fault lines in the Earth’s crust give access to natural reservoirs of hot underground water. Drilling wells into these reservoirs, holding water hotter than 302 Fahrenheit (150 Celsius) can provide enough recyclable steam and water to drive generation turbines for decades. Not every geothermal plant has the helpful geology of The Geysers–highly volcanic, spacious reservoir and permeable rock–so technological innovation is needed. Just as fracking has exploited hidden gas reserves by pumping liquids at high pressure into rock to release them, EGS use water to fracture rock and increase through flow to generate electricity. Heat is captured from its passage through the rock and the heated water converted into electricity. Cooled water is then recycled and pumped back to gather more heat. EGS technologies will open up many more sites for geothermal energy. ""You can effectively put a power plant anywhere,” said Will Pettit, director of the Geothermal Resources Council. “All you have to do is drill deep enough and you will find hot rock.” Binary cycle plants are the growth technology because they can operate at lower water temperatures and more diverse geographical locations. Now a new supercharged technique that uses special properties of water at temperatures in excess of 750 F (400 c) is promising to release a gargantuan amount of energy reserves. Water at this temperature and pressure is found at depths greater than 1.9 miles (3 km). To access it requires upgraded drilling technology and materials, but at this depth the water acts as a supercritical liquid that can potentially produce ten times more energy than conventional geothermal wells. Geothermal plants already emit 11 times less carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than the average US coal power plant, making them environmentally sound. Unlike solar and wind farms they can also operate 24 hours a day to provide a solid base load for homes and businesses. There are downsides too. Seismic activity around drilling wells is a factor, as are potential for gas emissions such as SO2 (causing acid rain), and water pollution. High investment costs are another.

Q. Why are Geothermal plants considered eco-friendly?

In the US, geothermal electricity accounts for only 0.4 percent of net generation, but there is potential for it to provide 100 Gigawatts or 10 percent of the national total. Tapping that resource means America would keep its place as world leader in the field, but it requires renewed investment in enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Geothermal plants are normally built where fault lines in the Earth’s crust give access to natural reservoirs of hot underground water. Drilling wells into these reservoirs, holding water hotter than 302 Fahrenheit (150 Celsius) can provide enough recyclable steam and water to drive generation turbines for decades. Not every geothermal plant has the helpful geology of The Geysers–highly volcanic, spacious reservoir and permeable rock–so technological innovation is needed. Just as fracking has exploited hidden gas reserves by pumping liquids at high pressure into rock to release them, EGS use water to fracture rock and increase through flow to generate electricity. Heat is captured from its passage through the rock and the heated water converted into electricity. Cooled water is then recycled and pumped back to gather more heat. EGS technologies will open up many more sites for geothermal energy. ""You can effectively put a power plant anywhere,” said Will Pettit, director of the Geothermal Resources Council. “All you have to do is drill deep enough and you will find hot rock.” Binary cycle plants are the growth technology because they can operate at lower water temperatures and more diverse geographical locations. Now a new supercharged technique that uses special properties of water at temperatures in excess of 750 F (400 c) is promising to release a gargantuan amount of energy reserves. Water at this temperature and pressure is found at depths greater than 1.9 miles (3 km). To access it requires upgraded drilling technology and materials, but at this depth the water acts as a supercritical liquid that can potentially produce ten times more energy than conventional geothermal wells. Geothermal plants already emit 11 times less carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than the average US coal power plant, making them environmentally sound. Unlike solar and wind farms they can also operate 24 hours a day to provide a solid base load for homes and businesses. There are downsides too. Seismic activity around drilling wells is a factor, as are potential for gas emissions such as SO2 (causing acid rain), and water pollution. High investment costs are another.

Q. What does this statement imply – “Tapping that resource means America would keep its place as world leader in the field …”?

The registration of cases against some senior journalists and Congress MP Shashi Tharoor for their “misleading” social media posts on the Republic Day violence during the farmers’ protests in Delhi, by the U.P. and M.P. police is an instance of fishing for malice where there is none. The Gautama Buddha Nagar police have clearly gone overboard in their response to tweets that reflected an early, and factually incorrect, piece of information that a farmer who had died during the tractor rally in Delhi had fallen to a police bullet. Later reports said he had died when a tractor overturned during the protests. The police have invoked the offences of sedition, conspiracy, promotion of enmity between different sections, and breach of harmony between groups. Besides, they have sought to portray it as a threat to national security and an attempt to instigate violence. A similar FIR has been filed on the basis of a complaint in Bhopal, but it invokes only sections relating to promotion of enmity and ill-will. It is apparent, and also strange, that the complainants and the police have sought to link the violence on January 26 with the circulation of a piece of misleading information for a short period. For one thing, the clashes between some of the protesters and the police had already started when the lone death among the protesters occurred; and, second, the position was clarified in a short while.

As the Editors’ Guild of India has pointed out, it was natural for journalists to report emerging details on a day of protest and action at a time when several reports were coming from eyewitnesses on the ground and the police. It is a matter of concern that there is an attempt to portray these early versions as intentionally malicious. There is little surprise in the attempt by the police to invoke Section 124A of the IPC (sedition) at the slightest pretext. It is part of the now-familiar practice of weaving a narrative of an imagined threat to national security whenever some sections of the police get an opportunity to slap criminal cases against journalists and dissenters seen as critical of the current establishment. The violence that marred the protests that day provided them with the opportune backdrop necessary to file a sedition case. An exasperating part of this narrative is that all those who had put out similar information through their social media handles have been deemed to be acting in concert, and even participating in the same conspiracy. Hence, the inclusion of Section 120B, the conspiracy provision in the penal code. There is little doubt that the registration of cases in two States different from the place where the farmer-protester’s death occurred indicates an attempt to build a narrative that media misreporting led to some of the violence that day. It also shows a tendency not to miss an opportunity to harass and intimidate journalists.

Q. Which of the following is true regarding the tone of the author in the passage?

The registration of cases against some senior journalists and Congress MP Shashi Tharoor for their “misleading” social media posts on the Republic Day violence during the farmers’ protests in Delhi, by the U.P. and M.P. police is an instance of fishing for malice where there is none. The Gautama Buddha Nagar police have clearly gone overboard in their response to tweets that reflected an early, and factually incorrect, piece of information that a farmer who had died during the tractor rally in Delhi had fallen to a police bullet. Later reports said he had died when a tractor overturned during the protests. The police have invoked the offences of sedition, conspiracy, promotion of enmity between different sections, and breach of harmony between groups. Besides, they have sought to portray it as a threat to national security and an attempt to instigate violence. A similar FIR has been filed on the basis of a complaint in Bhopal, but it invokes only sections relating to promotion of enmity and ill-will. It is apparent, and also strange, that the complainants and the police have sought to link the violence on January 26 with the circulation of a piece of misleading information for a short period. For one thing, the clashes between some of the protesters and the police had already started when the lone death among the protesters occurred; and, second, the position was clarified in a short while.

As the Editors’ Guild of India has pointed out, it was natural for journalists to report emerging details on a day of protest and action at a time when several reports were coming from eyewitnesses on the ground and the police. It is a matter of concern that there is an attempt to portray these early versions as intentionally malicious. There is little surprise in the attempt by the police to invoke Section 124A of the IPC (sedition) at the slightest pretext. It is part of the now-familiar practice of weaving a narrative of an imagined threat to national security whenever some sections of the police get an opportunity to slap criminal cases against journalists and dissenters seen as critical of the current establishment. The violence that marred the protests that day provided them with the opportune backdrop necessary to file a sedition case. An exasperating part of this narrative is that all those who had put out similar information through their social media handles have been deemed to be acting in concert, and even participating in the same conspiracy. Hence, the inclusion of Section 120B, the conspiracy provision in the penal code. There is little doubt that the registration of cases in two States different from the place where the farmer-protester’s death occurred indicates an attempt to build a narrative that media misreporting led to some of the violence that day. It also shows a tendency not to miss an opportunity to harass and intimidate journalists.

Q. Which of the following would the author agree to?

The registration of cases against some senior journalists and Congress MP Shashi Tharoor for their “misleading” social media posts on the Republic Day violence during the farmers’ protests in Delhi, by the U.P. and M.P. police is an instance of fishing for malice where there is none. The Gautama Buddha Nagar police have clearly gone overboard in their response to tweets that reflected an early, and factually incorrect, piece of information that a farmer who had died during the tractor rally in Delhi had fallen to a police bullet. Later reports said he had died when a tractor overturned during the protests. The police have invoked the offences of sedition, conspiracy, promotion of enmity between different sections, and breach of harmony between groups. Besides, they have sought to portray it as a threat to national security and an attempt to instigate violence. A similar FIR has been filed on the basis of a complaint in Bhopal, but it invokes only sections relating to promotion of enmity and ill-will. It is apparent, and also strange, that the complainants and the police have sought to link the violence on January 26 with the circulation of a piece of misleading information for a short period. For one thing, the clashes between some of the protesters and the police had already started when the lone death among the protesters occurred; and, second, the position was clarified in a short while.

As the Editors’ Guild of India has pointed out, it was natural for journalists to report emerging details on a day of protest and action at a time when several reports were coming from eyewitnesses on the ground and the police. It is a matter of concern that there is an attempt to portray these early versions as intentionally malicious. There is little surprise in the attempt by the police to invoke Section 124A of the IPC (sedition) at the slightest pretext. It is part of the now-familiar practice of weaving a narrative of an imagined threat to national security whenever some sections of the police get an opportunity to slap criminal cases against journalists and dissenters seen as critical of the current establishment. The violence that marred the protests that day provided them with the opportune backdrop necessary to file a sedition case. An exasperating part of this narrative is that all those who had put out similar information through their social media handles have been deemed to be acting in concert, and even participating in the same conspiracy. Hence, the inclusion of Section 120B, the conspiracy provision in the penal code. There is little doubt that the registration of cases in two States different from the place where the farmer-protester’s death occurred indicates an attempt to build a narrative that media misreporting led to some of the violence that day. It also shows a tendency not to miss an opportunity to harass and intimidate journalists.

Q. Which of the following is the meaning of the word exasperating?