Legal Mock Test - 10 - CLAT MCQ

Passage: Section 35 of the Bill, for instance, empowers the Government to grant a carte blanche authorization to any of its agencies to gather personal data, thereby overriding privacy protections and categorically undermining the two main components required to limit an aspiring surveillance state: accountability and transparency. Privacy protections, the Bill states, can be overridden in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order; or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order
The Srikrishna Committee’s Draft Bill, on the other hand, permitted surveillance only if “authorised pursuant to a law” and “in accordance with the procedure established by such law” if “necessary for, and proportionate to, such interests being achieved.” This was in line with the judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, which emphasised that infringements upon privacy must meet the global constitutional standards of proportionality. The 2019 Bill eliminates these procedural restraints and does away with parliamentary or judicial oversight. Moreover, while the draft Bill provided such an exemption to the Government only in the interests of the security of the State, the current Bill further enhances the scope and boundaries of the broad scheme of power the Government enjoys.
The Government’s sweeping power invokes grave privacy concerns, disregards the procedural and content based mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, and strikes at the very root of the interpretive advance made in the Privacy judgement.
As if this were not unconstitutional enough, the Bill allows the Central Government to collect anonymized “personal” or “non-personal data” from data fiduciaries. Neither term is distinguished nor defined in the bill. This provision is especially alarming in the wake of recent studies, which suggest that no anonymized personal data is protected from reidentification, thus raising a grave concern about confidentiality, privacy, and the ethical use of data. It is hardly a stretch to assume that this Bill, for all practical purposes, might seriously jeopardise the privacy of those set of individuals who espouse political sentiments that the Government may find unfavourable and thereby giving rise to a retributive form of policy making.
Another change which is a cause of worry is the substitution of the judicial members in the selection committee, which is responsible for the appointment of the chairperson and the members of the DPAI, as was envisioned in the draft Bill, with the Cabinet Secretary, Law Secretary, and Electronics and Information and Technology Secretary, thereby making it impervious to judicial and expert influence. While the US Supreme Court maintains that judicial authorization is required before the operation of certain kinds of domestic surveillance, the current Bill mentions no such prerequisite. The Bill further fails to grapple effectively against executive overreach and does not stand the scrutiny of the proportionalityjurisprudence, i.e., the principle which seeks to safeguard citizens from excessive Government measures.

Q. What could be a potential outcome of not having anonymized data protected from re- identification?

Passage: It was reported that the woman who had complained against the then-Chief Justice was reinstated in service to the Supreme Court. Given, however, that the complainant’s allegation was that she had been dismissed from service because she had refused advances from the then Chief Justice, this “reinstatement” raises a host of deeply troubling questions about what passes for justice and accountability at the Supreme Court.
1: As the Supreme Court has provided no reasons for reinstatement, there is – at least formally – a presumption that the original dismissal was unlawful. If the original dismissal was unlawful, it immediately puts paid to the “disgruntled employee” theory that was bandied around in open Court last year, as a form of character assassination. Who will now (a) take responsibility for the unlawful dismissal, and (b) for the “disgruntled employee” narrative that happened under the watch of Supreme Court judges?
2: The informal “ad-hoc” Committee of three Supreme Court judges who examined the allegations and issued a “clean chit” to the Chief Justice, did so on the basis of their belief that the complaint had no merits. It follows from that fact that the three Supreme Court judges believed that the complainant had lied about being sexually harassed (there is no other way to spin this). Lying about sexual harassment allegations against the Chief Justice of India is a very serious matter. These days, the Supreme Court and government lawyers like to constantly throw around allegations of people “maligning” the institution by writing articles; well, if there is one thing that does “malign” the institution, it is (presumably) trying to trap the Chief Justice in a false sexual harassment case. But if that is true, then what is the Supreme Court doing reinstating the complainant? In particular, keep in mind that the head of the ad-hoc Committee was Bobde J., who is now the Chief Justice – and who, therefore, would presumably have signed off on this reinstatement. How can the present Chief Justice simultaneously hold the views that a complainant levelled false allegations against the then- Chief Justice, but also that the complainant should be reinstated into service?
After the initial article reporting the reinstatement was written, the Hindustan Times carried a report stating that the reinstatement happened after the complainant “agreed not to pursue the matter.” This report raises a second set of disturbing questions.
3: It is normally understood that there is a right of appeal from a first-instance decision (although, as the Supreme Court set up an “informal ad-hoc Committee” to deal with this issue, it is unclear what rules it would have followed for an appeal). Reinstatement at the cost of giving up that right is tantamount to blackmail. Was the Supreme Court involved in any way in brokering this deal, and therefore complicit in blackmail?
4: The Hindustan Times reports that the complainant’s assurance was given at the insistence of a “top government functionary.” Why is a “top government functionary” involved in these proceedings? Given that the Executive is the largest litigant before the Supreme Court – and even as we speak, defending a large number of constitutional challenges on far-reaching issues – does that not raise deeply disturbing questions about the separation of powers and what channels of communication (if any) exist between government and Court?

Q. Why is there a presumption that the dismissal of the employee was unlawful?

Passage: It was reported that the woman who had complained against the then-Chief Justice was reinstated in service to the Supreme Court. Given, however, that the complainant’s allegation was that she had been dismissed from service because she had refused advances from the then Chief Justice, this “reinstatement” raises a host of deeply troubling questions about what passes for justice and accountability at the Supreme Court.
1: As the Supreme Court has provided no reasons for reinstatement, there is – at least formally – a presumption that the original dismissal was unlawful. If the original dismissal was unlawful, it immediately puts paid to the “disgruntled employee” theory that was bandied around in open Court last year, as a form of character assassination. Who will now (a) take responsibility for the unlawful dismissal, and (b) for the “disgruntled employee” narrative that happened under the watch of Supreme Court judges?
2: The informal “ad-hoc” Committee of three Supreme Court judges who examined the allegations and issued a “clean chit” to the Chief Justice, did so on the basis of their belief that the complaint had no merits. It follows from that fact that the three Supreme Court judges believed that the complainant had lied about being sexually harassed (there is no other way to spin this). Lying about sexual harassment allegations against the Chief Justice of India is a very serious matter. These days, the Supreme Court and government lawyers like to constantly throw around allegations of people “maligning” the institution by writing articles; well, if there is one thing that does “malign” the institution, it is (presumably) trying to trap the Chief Justice in a false sexual harassment case. But if that is true, then what is the Supreme Court doing reinstating the complainant? In particular, keep in mind that the head of the ad-hoc Committee was Bobde J., who is now the Chief Justice – and who, therefore, would presumably have signed off on this reinstatement. How can the present Chief Justice simultaneously hold the views that a complainant levelled false allegations against the then- Chief Justice, but also that the complainant should be reinstated into service?
After the initial article reporting the reinstatement was written, the Hindustan Times carried a report stating that the reinstatement happened after the complainant “agreed not to pursue the matter.” This report raises a second set of disturbing questions.
3: It is normally understood that there is a right of appeal from a first-instance decision (although, as the Supreme Court set up an “informal ad-hoc Committee” to deal with this issue, it is unclear what rules it would have followed for an appeal). Reinstatement at the cost of giving up that right is tantamount to blackmail. Was the Supreme Court involved in any way in brokering this deal, and therefore complicit in blackmail?
4: The Hindustan Times reports that the complainant’s assurance was given at the insistence of a “top government functionary.” Why is a “top government functionary” involved in these proceedings? Given that the Executive is the largest litigant before the Supreme Court – and even as we speak, defending a large number of constitutional challenges on far-reaching issues – does that not raise deeply disturbing questions about the separation of powers and what channels of communication (if any) exist between government and Court?

Q. What is the fallacy in Chief Justice Bobde’s views?

Passage: It was reported that the woman who had complained against the then-Chief Justice was reinstated in service to the Supreme Court. Given, however, that the complainant’s allegation was that she had been dismissed from service because she had refused advances from the then Chief Justice, this “reinstatement” raises a host of deeply troubling questions about what passes for justice and accountability at the Supreme Court.
1: As the Supreme Court has provided no reasons for reinstatement, there is – at least formally – a presumption that the original dismissal was unlawful. If the original dismissal was unlawful, it immediately puts paid to the “disgruntled employee” theory that was bandied around in open Court last year, as a form of character assassination. Who will now (a) take responsibility for the unlawful dismissal, and (b) for the “disgruntled employee” narrative that happened under the watch of Supreme Court judges?
2: The informal “ad-hoc” Committee of three Supreme Court judges who examined the allegations and issued a “clean chit” to the Chief Justice, did so on the basis of their belief that the complaint had no merits. It follows from that fact that the three Supreme Court judges believed that the complainant had lied about being sexually harassed (there is no other way to spin this). Lying about sexual harassment allegations against the Chief Justice of India is a very serious matter. These days, the Supreme Court and government lawyers like to constantly throw around allegations of people “maligning” the institution by writing articles; well, if there is one thing that does “malign” the institution, it is (presumably) trying to trap the Chief Justice in a false sexual harassment case. But if that is true, then what is the Supreme Court doing reinstating the complainant? In particular, keep in mind that the head of the ad-hoc Committee was Bobde J., who is now the Chief Justice – and who, therefore, would presumably have signed off on this reinstatement. How can the present Chief Justice simultaneously hold the views that a complainant levelled false allegations against the then- Chief Justice, but also that the complainant should be reinstated into service?
After the initial article reporting the reinstatement was written, the Hindustan Times carried a report stating that the reinstatement happened after the complainant “agreed not to pursue the matter.” This report raises a second set of disturbing questions.
3: It is normally understood that there is a right of appeal from a first-instance decision (although, as the Supreme Court set up an “informal ad-hoc Committee” to deal with this issue, it is unclear what rules it would have followed for an appeal). Reinstatement at the cost of giving up that right is tantamount to blackmail. Was the Supreme Court involved in any way in brokering this deal, and therefore complicit in blackmail?
4: The Hindustan Times reports that the complainant’s assurance was given at the insistence of a “top government functionary.” Why is a “top government functionary” involved in these proceedings? Given that the Executive is the largest litigant before the Supreme Court – and even as we speak, defending a large number of constitutional challenges on far-reaching issues – does that not raise deeply disturbing questions about the separation of powers and what channels of communication (if any) exist between government and Court?

Q. What is the context under which the supreme court may be complicit in blackmail?

Passage: The human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) following the dilution of Article 370 and the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) have brought renewed international focus on India’s human rights practice. Responding to criticism made by the United Nations agencies and others, the Indian state asserted that both J&K and CAA are entirely internal matters and there cannot be any interference in such sovereign decisions.
What is remarkable about modern international human rights law is its recognition of individuals as subjects. Classic international law governed the conduct between states and did not recognise the rights of individuals. Countries made agreements on the premise that a sovereign state had the exclusive right to take any action if thought fit to deal with its nationals. Such a notion of absolute sovereignty was challenged in 19th century with the emergence of humanitarian intervention to protect minorities living in other states. Later, in 1919, the evolution of labour standards led to the establishment of the International Labour Office (ILO). In 1926, the Slavery Convention adopted by the League of Nations prohibiting slave trade heralded the first human rights treaty based on the principle of dignity of a human being. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the United Nations, was the first comprehensive international human rights document. The Universal Declaration has acquired the force of law as part of the customary law of nations. It has provided the basis for binding human rights treaties and non-binding guidelines/principles that constitute a distinct body of law known as international human rights law.
This progress of international law in the last 100 years makes the Indian state’s assertion of its sovereign right unsustainable. The evolution of international human rights law is also about the gradual weakening of the concept of unrestricted sovereignty. The Indian government has ratified several international human rights treaties and submits periodic reports to the respective treaty bodies. By doing so, it has acknowledged the principle that the treatment of its citizens is not entirely an internal matter, and such measures do not enjoy an absolute sovereignty.
The Indian government’s response to concerns about its human rights practice has always been that international scrutiny is unwarranted since the country is the largest democracy in the world with an independent judiciary, free media, and an active civil society. These claims sound less credible after the recent developments in J&K and the passage of the CAA.

Q. The author says that the kashmir issue has brought "renewed international focus" on India's human rights practice. What inference can be drawn from this statement?

Passage: The human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) following the dilution of Article 370 and the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) have brought renewed international focus on India’s human rights practice. Responding to criticism made by the United Nations agencies and others, the Indian state asserted that both J&K and CAA are entirely internal matters and there cannot be any interference in such sovereign decisions.
What is remarkable about modern international human rights law is its recognition of individuals as subjects. Classic international law governed the conduct between states and did not recognise the rights of individuals. Countries made agreements on the premise that a sovereign state had the exclusive right to take any action if thought fit to deal with its nationals. Such a notion of absolute sovereignty was challenged in 19th century with the emergence of humanitarian intervention to protect minorities living in other states. Later, in 1919, the evolution of labour standards led to the establishment of the International Labour Office (ILO). In 1926, the Slavery Convention adopted by the League of Nations prohibiting slave trade heralded the first human rights treaty based on the principle of dignity of a human being. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the United Nations, was the first comprehensive international human rights document. The Universal Declaration has acquired the force of law as part of the customary law of nations. It has provided the basis for binding human rights treaties and non-binding guidelines/principles that constitute a distinct body of law known as international human rights law.
This progress of international law in the last 100 years makes the Indian state’s assertion of its sovereign right unsustainable. The evolution of international human rights law is also about the gradual weakening of the concept of unrestricted sovereignty. The Indian government has ratified several international human rights treaties and submits periodic reports to the respective treaty bodies. By doing so, it has acknowledged the principle that the treatment of its citizens is not entirely an internal matter, and such measures do not enjoy an absolute sovereignty.
The Indian government’s response to concerns about its human rights practice has always been that international scrutiny is unwarranted since the country is the largest democracy in the world with an independent judiciary, free media, and an active civil society. These claims sound less credible after the recent developments in J&K and the passage of the CAA.

Q. In reply to international criticism on the J&K situation, Indian government's stand is "entirely internal matters and there cannot be any interference in such sovereign decisions". What is the author's opinion on it?

Passage: The human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) following the dilution of Article 370 and the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) have brought renewed international focus on India’s human rights practice. Responding to criticism made by the United Nations agencies and others, the Indian state asserted that both J&K and CAA are entirely internal matters and there cannot be any interference in such sovereign decisions.
What is remarkable about modern international human rights law is its recognition of individuals as subjects. Classic international law governed the conduct between states and did not recognise the rights of individuals. Countries made agreements on the premise that a sovereign state had the exclusive right to take any action if thought fit to deal with its nationals. Such a notion of absolute sovereignty was challenged in 19th century with the emergence of humanitarian intervention to protect minorities living in other states. Later, in 1919, the evolution of labour standards led to the establishment of the International Labour Office (ILO). In 1926, the Slavery Convention adopted by the League of Nations prohibiting slave trade heralded the first human rights treaty based on the principle of dignity of a human being. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the United Nations, was the first comprehensive international human rights document. The Universal Declaration has acquired the force of law as part of the customary law of nations. It has provided the basis for binding human rights treaties and non-binding guidelines/principles that constitute a distinct body of law known as international human rights law.
This progress of international law in the last 100 years makes the Indian state’s assertion of its sovereign right unsustainable. The evolution of international human rights law is also about the gradual weakening of the concept of unrestricted sovereignty. The Indian government has ratified several international human rights treaties and submits periodic reports to the respective treaty bodies. By doing so, it has acknowledged the principle that the treatment of its citizens is not entirely an internal matter, and such measures do not enjoy an absolute sovereignty.
The Indian government’s response to concerns about its human rights practice has always been that international scrutiny is unwarranted since the country is the largest democracy in the world with an independent judiciary, free media, and an active civil society. These claims sound less credible after the recent developments in J&K and the passage of the CAA.

Q. What is the significance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the point the author is trying to make?

Passage: The human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) following the dilution of Article 370 and the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) have brought renewed international focus on India’s human rights practice. Responding to criticism made by the United Nations agencies and others, the Indian state asserted that both J&K and CAA are entirely internal matters and there cannot be any interference in such sovereign decisions.
What is remarkable about modern international human rights law is its recognition of individuals as subjects. Classic international law governed the conduct between states and did not recognise the rights of individuals. Countries made agreements on the premise that a sovereign state had the exclusive right to take any action if thought fit to deal with its nationals. Such a notion of absolute sovereignty was challenged in 19th century with the emergence of humanitarian intervention to protect minorities living in other states. Later, in 1919, the evolution of labour standards led to the establishment of the International Labour Office (ILO). In 1926, the Slavery Convention adopted by the League of Nations prohibiting slave trade heralded the first human rights treaty based on the principle of dignity of a human being. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the United Nations, was the first comprehensive international human rights document. The Universal Declaration has acquired the force of law as part of the customary law of nations. It has provided the basis for binding human rights treaties and non-binding guidelines/principles that constitute a distinct body of law known as international human rights law.
This progress of international law in the last 100 years makes the Indian state’s assertion of its sovereign right unsustainable. The evolution of international human rights law is also about the gradual weakening of the concept of unrestricted sovereignty. The Indian government has ratified several international human rights treaties and submits periodic reports to the respective treaty bodies. By doing so, it has acknowledged the principle that the treatment of its citizens is not entirely an internal matter, and such measures do not enjoy an absolute sovereignty.
The Indian government’s response to concerns about its human rights practice has always been that international scrutiny is unwarranted since the country is the largest democracy in the world with an independent judiciary, free media, and an active civil society. These claims sound less credible after the recent developments in J&K and the passage of the CAA.

Q. What is the most significant difference between the earlier approach of international law and the current approach?

Passage: The human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) following the dilution of Article 370 and the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) have brought renewed international focus on India’s human rights practice. Responding to criticism made by the United Nations agencies and others, the Indian state asserted that both J&K and CAA are entirely internal matters and there cannot be any interference in such sovereign decisions.
What is remarkable about modern international human rights law is its recognition of individuals as subjects. Classic international law governed the conduct between states and did not recognise the rights of individuals. Countries made agreements on the premise that a sovereign state had the exclusive right to take any action if thought fit to deal with its nationals. Such a notion of absolute sovereignty was challenged in 19th century with the emergence of humanitarian intervention to protect minorities living in other states. Later, in 1919, the evolution of labour standards led to the establishment of the International Labour Office (ILO). In 1926, the Slavery Convention adopted by the League of Nations prohibiting slave trade heralded the first human rights treaty based on the principle of dignity of a human being. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the United Nations, was the first comprehensive international human rights document. The Universal Declaration has acquired the force of law as part of the customary law of nations. It has provided the basis for binding human rights treaties and non-binding guidelines/principles that constitute a distinct body of law known as international human rights law.
This progress of international law in the last 100 years makes the Indian state’s assertion of its sovereign right unsustainable. The evolution of international human rights law is also about the gradual weakening of the concept of unrestricted sovereignty. The Indian government has ratified several international human rights treaties and submits periodic reports to the respective treaty bodies. By doing so, it has acknowledged the principle that the treatment of its citizens is not entirely an internal matter, and such measures do not enjoy an absolute sovereignty.
The Indian government’s response to concerns about its human rights practice has always been that international scrutiny is unwarranted since the country is the largest democracy in the world with an independent judiciary, free media, and an active civil society. These claims sound less credible after the recent developments in J&K and the passage of the CAA.

Q. What is the main argument that the author has used to support his opinion on India's position in the issue?

Passage: The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which is the lead agency within the UN system on all aspects related to human rights, has expressed its concern stating that the CAA “is fundamentally discriminatory in nature”. It has also said that “although India’s broader naturalization laws remain in place, these amendments will have a discriminatory effect on people’s access to nationality.”
International human rights law includes safeguards against unwarranted foreign intervention and stresses the exhaustion of domestic remedies before an issue is considered by an international body. The Indian state always assured the international community that the judiciary, mainly its Supreme Court, would provide adequate remedies to victims of human rights violations. However, of late, the faith of the common people in the higher judiciary has been weakened. In the face of serious allegations about human rights violations in J&K, the Supreme Court has “ducked, evaded and adjourned”, as put across by advocate Gautam Bhatia.
While responding to criticism against its human rights practices, the Indian government also refers to the role of free media and civil society in protecting the human rights of vulnerable groups. However, in the context of J&K and the ongoing struggle against the CAA, the media has not come out any better. As for civil society organisations, the government since 2014 has systematically targeted them, including by making it difficult for them to receive funds from foreign donors. Since 2014, the government has cancelled the registration of about 14,000 NGOs under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). It has also mainly targeted its own critics.
Indian and international human rights groups are getting increasingly concerned about the actions of people associated with the ruling party who are engaged in the intimidation of critics, attacks against minorities, and restrictions on the freedoms of artistes. The brazen attack on JNU students on January 5 by armed goons and the total lack of response by the police is emblematic of free reign given to non-state actors in various parts of the country.
The international community is sympathetic to governments that are committed to upholding human rights but lack human and other resources to pursue it. In the case of India, it is not a question of resources but an unwillingness to uphold human rights. The government’s action in J&K, the passage of the CAA, and its response to protests on the CAA demonstrate that the present regime is not fully committed to upholding human rights and does not respect international human rights standards. Of course, it is possible for the Indian government, due to its diplomatic clout, to avoid robust intervention by the UN Human Rights Council and other UN human rights mechanisms. However, it would not be able to avoid scrutiny by the international community, which would complement the struggle of the Indian civil society to reclaim the Indian Constitution and advance human rights.

Q. Why is the author critical of the ruling party?

Passage: The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which is the lead agency within the UN system on all aspects related to human rights, has expressed its concern stating that the CAA “is fundamentally discriminatory in nature”. It has also said that “although India’s broader naturalization laws remain in place, these amendments will have a discriminatory effect on people’s access to nationality.”
International human rights law includes safeguards against unwarranted foreign intervention and stresses the exhaustion of domestic remedies before an issue is considered by an international body. The Indian state always assured the international community that the judiciary, mainly its Supreme Court, would provide adequate remedies to victims of human rights violations. However, of late, the faith of the common people in the higher judiciary has been weakened. In the face of serious allegations about human rights violations in J&K, the Supreme Court has “ducked, evaded and adjourned”, as put across by advocate Gautam Bhatia.
While responding to criticism against its human rights practices, the Indian government also refers to the role of free media and civil society in protecting the human rights of vulnerable groups. However, in the context of J&K and the ongoing struggle against the CAA, the media has not come out any better. As for civil society organisations, the government since 2014 has systematically targeted them, including by making it difficult for them to receive funds from foreign donors. Since 2014, the government has cancelled the registration of about 14,000 NGOs under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). It has also mainly targeted its own critics.
Indian and international human rights groups are getting increasingly concerned about the actions of people associated with the ruling party who are engaged in the intimidation of critics, attacks against minorities, and restrictions on the freedoms of artistes. The brazen attack on JNU students on January 5 by armed goons and the total lack of response by the police is emblematic of free reign given to non-state actors in various parts of the country.
The international community is sympathetic to governments that are committed to upholding human rights but lack human and other resources to pursue it. In the case of India, it is not a question of resources but an unwillingness to uphold human rights. The government’s action in J&K, the passage of the CAA, and its response to protests on the CAA demonstrate that the present regime is not fully committed to upholding human rights and does not respect international human rights standards. Of course, it is possible for the Indian government, due to its diplomatic clout, to avoid robust intervention by the UN Human Rights Council and other UN human rights mechanisms. However, it would not be able to avoid scrutiny by the international community, which would complement the struggle of the Indian civil society to reclaim the Indian Constitution and advance human rights.

Q. What are the ramifications of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA)?

Passage: The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which is the lead agency within the UN system on all aspects related to human rights, has expressed its concern stating that the CAA “is fundamentally discriminatory in nature”. It has also said that “although India’s broader naturalization laws remain in place, these amendments will have a discriminatory effect on people’s access to nationality.”
International human rights law includes safeguards against unwarranted foreign intervention and stresses the exhaustion of domestic remedies before an issue is considered by an international body. The Indian state always assured the international community that the judiciary, mainly its Supreme Court, would provide adequate remedies to victims of human rights violations. However, of late, the faith of the common people in the higher judiciary has been weakened. In the face of serious allegations about human rights violations in J&K, the Supreme Court has “ducked, evaded and adjourned”, as put across by advocate Gautam Bhatia.
While responding to criticism against its human rights practices, the Indian government also refers to the role of free media and civil society in protecting the human rights of vulnerable groups. However, in the context of J&K and the ongoing struggle against the CAA, the media has not come out any better. As for civil society organisations, the government since 2014 has systematically targeted them, including by making it difficult for them to receive funds from foreign donors. Since 2014, the government has cancelled the registration of about 14,000 NGOs under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). It has also mainly targeted its own critics.
Indian and international human rights groups are getting increasingly concerned about the actions of people associated with the ruling party who are engaged in the intimidation of critics, attacks against minorities, and restrictions on the freedoms of artistes. The brazen attack on JNU students on January 5 by armed goons and the total lack of response by the police is emblematic of free reign given to non-state actors in various parts of the country.
The international community is sympathetic to governments that are committed to upholding human rights but lack human and other resources to pursue it. In the case of India, it is not a question of resources but an unwillingness to uphold human rights. The government’s action in J&K, the passage of the CAA, and its response to protests on the CAA demonstrate that the present regime is not fully committed to upholding human rights and does not respect international human rights standards. Of course, it is possible for the Indian government, due to its diplomatic clout, to avoid robust intervention by the UN Human Rights Council and other UN human rights mechanisms. However, it would not be able to avoid scrutiny by the international community, which would complement the struggle of the Indian civil society to reclaim the Indian Constitution and advance human rights.

Q. What are the safeguards against international intervention in domestic matters?

Passage: The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which is the lead agency within the UN system on all aspects related to human rights, has expressed its concern stating that the CAA “is fundamentally discriminatory in nature”. It has also said that “although India’s broader naturalization laws remain in place, these amendments will have a discriminatory effect on people’s access to nationality.”
International human rights law includes safeguards against unwarranted foreign intervention and stresses the exhaustion of domestic remedies before an issue is considered by an international body. The Indian state always assured the international community that the judiciary, mainly its Supreme Court, would provide adequate remedies to victims of human rights violations. However, of late, the faith of the common people in the higher judiciary has been weakened. In the face of serious allegations about human rights violations in J&K, the Supreme Court has “ducked, evaded and adjourned”, as put across by advocate Gautam Bhatia.
While responding to criticism against its human rights practices, the Indian government also refers to the role of free media and civil society in protecting the human rights of vulnerable groups. However, in the context of J&K and the ongoing struggle against the CAA, the media has not come out any better. As for civil society organisations, the government since 2014 has systematically targeted them, including by making it difficult for them to receive funds from foreign donors. Since 2014, the government has cancelled the registration of about 14,000 NGOs under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). It has also mainly targeted its own critics.
Indian and international human rights groups are getting increasingly concerned about the actions of people associated with the ruling party who are engaged in the intimidation of critics, attacks against minorities, and restrictions on the freedoms of artistes. The brazen attack on JNU students on January 5 by armed goons and the total lack of response by the police is emblematic of free reign given to non-state actors in various parts of the country.
The international community is sympathetic to governments that are committed to upholding human rights but lack human and other resources to pursue it. In the case of India, it is not a question of resources but an unwillingness to uphold human rights. The government’s action in J&K, the passage of the CAA, and its response to protests on the CAA demonstrate that the present regime is not fully committed to upholding human rights and does not respect international human rights standards. Of course, it is possible for the Indian government, due to its diplomatic clout, to avoid robust intervention by the UN Human Rights Council and other UN human rights mechanisms. However, it would not be able to avoid scrutiny by the international community, which would complement the struggle of the Indian civil society to reclaim the Indian Constitution and advance human rights.

Q. What is the public perception of the Supreme Court?

Passage: The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which is the lead agency within the UN system on all aspects related to human rights, has expressed its concern stating that the CAA “is fundamentally discriminatory in nature”. It has also said that “although India’s broader naturalization laws remain in place, these amendments will have a discriminatory effect on people’s access to nationality.”
International human rights law includes safeguards against unwarranted foreign intervention and stresses the exhaustion of domestic remedies before an issue is considered by an international body. The Indian state always assured the international community that the judiciary, mainly its Supreme Court, would provide adequate remedies to victims of human rights violations. However, of late, the faith of the common people in the higher judiciary has been weakened. In the face of serious allegations about human rights violations in J&K, the Supreme Court has “ducked, evaded and adjourned”, as put across by advocate Gautam Bhatia.
While responding to criticism against its human rights practices, the Indian government also refers to the role of free media and civil society in protecting the human rights of vulnerable groups. However, in the context of J&K and the ongoing struggle against the CAA, the media has not come out any better. As for civil society organisations, the government since 2014 has systematically targeted them, including by making it difficult for them to receive funds from foreign donors. Since 2014, the government has cancelled the registration of about 14,000 NGOs under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). It has also mainly targeted its own critics.
Indian and international human rights groups are getting increasingly concerned about the actions of people associated with the ruling party who are engaged in the intimidation of critics, attacks against minorities, and restrictions on the freedoms of artistes. The brazen attack on JNU students on January 5 by armed goons and the total lack of response by the police is emblematic of free reign given to non-state actors in various parts of the country.
The international community is sympathetic to governments that are committed to upholding human rights but lack human and other resources to pursue it. In the case of India, it is not a question of resources but an unwillingness to uphold human rights. The government’s action in J&K, the passage of the CAA, and its response to protests on the CAA demonstrate that the present regime is not fully committed to upholding human rights and does not respect international human rights standards. Of course, it is possible for the Indian government, due to its diplomatic clout, to avoid robust intervention by the UN Human Rights Council and other UN human rights mechanisms. However, it would not be able to avoid scrutiny by the international community, which would complement the struggle of the Indian civil society to reclaim the Indian Constitution and advance human rights.

Q. What does the author think about the role of media in current times?

Passage: An issue hangs like the proverbial sword of Damocles on the moral fabric of the nation’s political system. India’s controversial antidefection law, which is often invoked just before a trial of strength to manipulate numbers in a House, needs to be quickly debated and dusted. Currently, the provisions of the law are prone to serious abuse and manipulation.
On September 18, 2017, 18 dissident AIADMK MLAs belonging to the TTV Dinakaran faction were disqualified by Tamil Nadu Speaker P Dhanapal after they withdrew support to Chief Minister E Palaniswami, bringing the effective strength of the House from 234 to 215. It is a different matter that Palaniswami needs only 108 MLAs to survive.
Consider the case in 2015 when the Hyderabad High Court refused to intervene after hearing a petition that alleged the delay by the Telangana Assembly Speaker in acting against a member under the anti-defection law.
Now, there have been several cases where the courts have expressed concern about the unnecessary delay in deciding such petitions.
This delay in decision making has often helped members, who have defected from their parties, to remain members of the House. In some cases, opposition members have been appointed ministers while still retaining membership of their original parties. This needs to change.

Q. Which of the following views can be attributed to the author of the above passage?

Passage: An issue hangs like the proverbial sword of Damocles on the moral fabric of the nation’s political system. India’s controversial antidefection law, which is often invoked just before a trial of strength to manipulate numbers in a House, needs to be quickly debated and dusted. Currently, the provisions of the law are prone to serious abuse and manipulation.
On September 18, 2017, 18 dissident AIADMK MLAs belonging to the TTV Dinakaran faction were disqualified by Tamil Nadu Speaker P Dhanapal after they withdrew support to Chief Minister E Palaniswami, bringing the effective strength of the House from 234 to 215. It is a different matter that Palaniswami needs only 108 MLAs to survive.
Consider the case in 2015 when the Hyderabad High Court refused to intervene after hearing a petition that alleged the delay by the Telangana Assembly Speaker in acting against a member under the anti-defection law.
Now, there have been several cases where the courts have expressed concern about the unnecessary delay in deciding such petitions.
This delay in decision making has often helped members, who have defected from their parties, to remain members of the House. In some cases, opposition members have been appointed ministers while still retaining membership of their original parties. This needs to change.

Q. Why the courts have expressed concerns about delay in deciding petitions under anti defective laws?

Passage: The words of Sir Francis Bacon — “Knowledge is power” — aptly bring out the essence of the Right to Information Act (RTI). Knowledge, gained through access to correct information, has the ability to upturn the power dynamic: It places a person at a formidable position to fight for their rights and enables them to ask vital questions.
The introduction of this Act into the country’s approach to governance has revolutionised the democratic landscape of India. It has strengthened the principles of democracy, which in Abraham Lincoln’s words is “of the people, by the people and for the people”, by facilitating people’s participation in governance. Empowerment of the people by enabling the demand of information from government authorities lifted the veil of secrecy from government functioning — which helped in keeping a check on arbitrary decision making by public institutions. Contrary to popular belief, the RTI was not just limited to the urban elites; it gave voice to the poor sections of the society by providing them with a tool of information to hold the government accountable. This was confirmed by a nation-wide assessment held by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which stated that out of two million RTI applications filed between 2005 and 2009, a total of 4,00,000 were from rural areas.

Q. Which of the following views cannot be attributed to the author of the above passage?

Passage: The words of Sir Francis Bacon — “Knowledge is power” — aptly bring out the essence of the Right to Information Act (RTI). Knowledge, gained through access to correct information, has the ability to upturn the power dynamic: It places a person at a formidable position to fight for their rights and enables them to ask vital questions.
The introduction of this Act into the country’s approach to governance has revolutionised the democratic landscape of India. It has strengthened the principles of democracy, which in Abraham Lincoln’s words is “of the people, by the people and for the people”, by facilitating people’s participation in governance. Empowerment of the people by enabling the demand of information from government authorities lifted the veil of secrecy from government functioning — which helped in keeping a check on arbitrary decision making by public institutions. Contrary to popular belief, the RTI was not just limited to the urban elites; it gave voice to the poor sections of the society by providing them with a tool of information to hold the government accountable. This was confirmed by a nation-wide assessment held by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which stated that out of two million RTI applications filed between 2005 and 2009, a total of 4,00,000 were from rural areas.

Q. According to the Passage, RTI stands for;

Passage: The words of Sir Francis Bacon — “Knowledge is power” — aptly bring out the essence of the Right to Information Act (RTI). Knowledge, gained through access to correct information, has the ability to upturn the power dynamic: It places a person at a formidable position to fight for their rights and enables them to ask vital questions.
The introduction of this Act into the country’s approach to governance has revolutionised the democratic landscape of India. It has strengthened the principles of democracy, which in Abraham Lincoln’s words is “of the people, by the people and for the people”, by facilitating people’s participation in governance. Empowerment of the people by enabling the demand of information from government authorities lifted the veil of secrecy from government functioning — which helped in keeping a check on arbitrary decision making by public institutions. Contrary to popular belief, the RTI was not just limited to the urban elites; it gave voice to the poor sections of the society by providing them with a tool of information to hold the government accountable. This was confirmed by a nation-wide assessment held by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which stated that out of two million RTI applications filed between 2005 and 2009, a total of 4,00,000 were from rural areas.

Q. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that it is a “public authority” and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. If a Chief Judge is being investigated for his involvement in a high-level corruption scandal in the administrative office of the SC, can an application under RTI be filed to pertaining to the same?

Passage: The words of Sir Francis Bacon — “Knowledge is power” — aptly bring out the essence of the Right to Information Act (RTI). Knowledge, gained through access to correct information, has the ability to upturn the power dynamic: It places a person at a formidable position to fight for their rights and enables them to ask vital questions.
The introduction of this Act into the country’s approach to governance has revolutionised the democratic landscape of India. It has strengthened the principles of democracy, which in Abraham Lincoln’s words is “of the people, by the people and for the people”, by facilitating people’s participation in governance. Empowerment of the people by enabling the demand of information from government authorities lifted the veil of secrecy from government functioning — which helped in keeping a check on arbitrary decision making by public institutions. Contrary to popular belief, the RTI was not just limited to the urban elites; it gave voice to the poor sections of the society by providing them with a tool of information to hold the government accountable. This was confirmed by a nation-wide assessment held by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which stated that out of two million RTI applications filed between 2005 and 2009, a total of 4,00,000 were from rural areas.

Q. RTI in full form stands for

Passage: The words of Sir Francis Bacon — “Knowledge is power” — aptly bring out the essence of the Right to Information Act (RTI). Knowledge, gained through access to correct information, has the ability to upturn the power dynamic: It places a person at a formidable position to fight for their rights and enables them to ask vital questions.
The introduction of this Act into the country’s approach to governance has revolutionised the democratic landscape of India. It has strengthened the principles of democracy, which in Abraham Lincoln’s words is “of the people, by the people and for the people”, by facilitating people’s participation in governance. Empowerment of the people by enabling the demand of information from government authorities lifted the veil of secrecy from government functioning — which helped in keeping a check on arbitrary decision making by public institutions. Contrary to popular belief, the RTI was not just limited to the urban elites; it gave voice to the poor sections of the society by providing them with a tool of information to hold the government accountable. This was confirmed by a nation-wide assessment held by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which stated that out of two million RTI applications filed between 2005 and 2009, a total of 4,00,000 were from rural areas.

Q. RTI the act was founded in which year

Passage: The makers of our Constitution designed the institutions of our republic with great care and attention to detail. The deliberations of the Constituent Assembly bear witness to the extraordinary quality of thought which went into the making of these institutions. They were designed to endure and it was expected that as the republic grew, a body of good practices, conventions and intangible legacies would nourish and sustain them and make them stronger.
Instead, we have seen every party in power since Indira Gandhi try to weaken and diminish these institutions. The Parliament, the Supreme Court, the Chief Election Commissioner, the Comptroller & Auditor General, the Union Public Service Commission are among the long list of institutions where constant attempts have been made to subdue them, erode their autonomy and authority (sometimes in the guise of reform) and have them subordinated to the will of the political executive, particularly the Prime Minister’s Office. Yet, their structural strength has enabled them to resist these attacks and substantially retain their character although each of them is probably weaker than before. The one institution that has received the maximum battering from every quarter is that of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). In the sixty four years of its existence (it came into existence in 1951 by an Act of Parliament under Article 312 of the Constitution), there have been more than fifty Commissions, Committees, Task Forces etc that have questioned and investigated different aspects of its architecture, tinkered with the recruitment system, and re-engineered it to change the socio-cultural and age profile of the entrants, introduced an OBC quota in addition to the original one for SC and ST, and suggested several other ‘reforms’ which have substantially changed its character.
Some changes have been necessitated by major sociological and political developments, for instance, the acceptance of the recommendations of the Mandal Commission. Some others have been motivated by the desire to make the IAS politically and culturally more acceptable. Yet despite these changes in the original architecture — or maybe because of them — the institution remains central to the working of the Government and, in the minds of the public, still exercises disproportionate power in the scheme of things.

Q. Which of the following views can be attributed to the author of the above passage?

Passage: The makers of our Constitution designed the institutions of our republic with great care and attention to detail. The deliberations of the Constituent Assembly bear witness to the extraordinary quality of thought which went into the making of these institutions. They were designed to endure and it was expected that as the republic grew, a body of good practices, conventions and intangible legacies would nourish and sustain them and make them stronger.
Instead, we have seen every party in power since Indira Gandhi try to weaken and diminish these institutions. The Parliament, the Supreme Court, the Chief Election Commissioner, the Comptroller & Auditor General, the Union Public Service Commission are among the long list of institutions where constant attempts have been made to subdue them, erode their autonomy and authority (sometimes in the guise of reform) and have them subordinated to the will of the political executive, particularly the Prime Minister’s Office. Yet, their structural strength has enabled them to resist these attacks and substantially retain their character although each of them is probably weaker than before. The one institution that has received the maximum battering from every quarter is that of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). In the sixty four years of its existence (it came into existence in 1951 by an Act of Parliament under Article 312 of the Constitution), there have been more than fifty Commissions, Committees, Task Forces etc that have questioned and investigated different aspects of its architecture, tinkered with the recruitment system, and re-engineered it to change the socio-cultural and age profile of the entrants, introduced an OBC quota in addition to the original one for SC and ST, and suggested several other ‘reforms’ which have substantially changed its character.
Some changes have been necessitated by major sociological and political developments, for instance, the acceptance of the recommendations of the Mandal Commission. Some others have been motivated by the desire to make the IAS politically and culturally more acceptable. Yet despite these changes in the original architecture — or maybe because of them — the institution remains central to the working of the Government and, in the minds of the public, still exercises disproportionate power in the scheme of things.

Q. The Indian Administrative Service (IAS) is diminished, completely weakened and the officers are selected from their birth state and posted to the same. In such a situation, according to the author;

Passage: A woman in the hospital, about to give birth, receives a call from her employer. She is being dismissed from her job because her pregnancy is considered an “offense.” An autopsy surgeon is prohibited from continuing at her job after a new decree labels it inappropriate for women. A secretary is fired after confiding to colleagues that her boss is sexually harassing her.
Stories like this are all too common, affecting women at every stage of their working life and holding them back from economic opportunities. According to the World Bank’s Women, Business and the Law 2020 report published today, women still have just three-fourths the legal rights of men.
Laws matter for women’s economic inclusion. Although achieving gender equality is not a short-term process – requiring strong political will and a concerted effort by governments, civil society, international organizations among others – legal and regulatory reforms can play a foundational role as an important first step. And we know that better performance in the Women Business and the Law index is associated with more women working and with higher income and improved development outcomes.

Q. As per the given passage, pick the Directive Principle of State Policy shall be the suitable one/s to redress the problem elucidated?

Passage: The Supreme Court on Friday advocated patience to women of menstruating age fighting for their right to enter and worship at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The law was in their favour and any judicial order at this time may spark violence. The situation was already “explosive,” the court said. 
Two women in their 30s recently approached the court with a plea to direct the police to provide them protection for their intended pilgrimage to the famed forest temple in the ongoing season. They pointed out that a Constitution Bench lifted the ban on women of menstruating age to enter the temple in a majority judgment on September 28, 2018. The State’s refusal to provide them protection was in gross contempt of the judgment, they argued. On November 14, a Bench of five judges, sitting in review of the judgment, referred the fundamental question of whether a woman’s right to worship was subservient to age-old religious customs, faith and traditions, however unequal, to a sevenjudge Bench. The Review Bench, however, did not stay the verdict allowing women in the 10 to 50 age to enter the temple.

Q. Which article of the Constitution of India talks about the freedom of religion in India?

Passage: The Supreme Court on Friday advocated patience to women of menstruating age fighting for their right to enter and worship at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The law was in their favour and any judicial order at this time may spark violence. The situation was already “explosive,” the court said. 
Two women in their 30s recently approached the court with a plea to direct the police to provide them protection for their intended pilgrimage to the famed forest temple in the ongoing season. They pointed out that a Constitution Bench lifted the ban on women of menstruating age to enter the temple in a majority judgment on September 28, 2018. The State’s refusal to provide them protection was in gross contempt of the judgment, they argued. On November 14, a Bench of five judges, sitting in review of the judgment, referred the fundamental question of whether a woman’s right to worship was subservient to age-old religious customs, faith and traditions, however unequal, to a sevenjudge Bench. The Review Bench, however, did not stay the verdict allowing women in the 10 to 50 age to enter the temple.

Q. Can the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India be reviewed?

Passage: The Supreme Court on Friday advocated patience to women of menstruating age fighting for their right to enter and worship at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The law was in their favour and any judicial order at this time may spark violence. The situation was already “explosive,” the court said. 
Two women in their 30s recently approached the court with a plea to direct the police to provide them protection for their intended pilgrimage to the famed forest temple in the ongoing season. They pointed out that a Constitution Bench lifted the ban on women of menstruating age to enter the temple in a majority judgment on September 28, 2018. The State’s refusal to provide them protection was in gross contempt of the judgment, they argued. On November 14, a Bench of five judges, sitting in review of the judgment, referred the fundamental question of whether a woman’s right to worship was subservient to age-old religious customs, faith and traditions, however unequal, to a sevenjudge Bench. The Review Bench, however, did not stay the verdict allowing women in the 10 to 50 age to enter the temple.

Q. Can the judgment of a Supreme Court be reversed by the higher bench of Supreme Court?