Legal Mock Test - 10


39 Questions MCQ Test Mock Test Series for CLAT 2020 | Legal Mock Test - 10


Description
This mock test of Legal Mock Test - 10 for CLAT helps you for every CLAT entrance exam. This contains 39 Multiple Choice Questions for CLAT Legal Mock Test - 10 (mcq) to study with solutions a complete question bank. The solved questions answers in this Legal Mock Test - 10 quiz give you a good mix of easy questions and tough questions. CLAT students definitely take this Legal Mock Test - 10 exercise for a better result in the exam. You can find other Legal Mock Test - 10 extra questions, long questions & short questions for CLAT on EduRev as well by searching above.
QUESTION: 1

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 are the two main components to limit an aspiring state from violating the privacy of citizens?

Solution:
QUESTION: 2

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. Which among the following options highlight the central problem with Section 35 of the bill?

Solution:

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.

QUESTION: 3

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 is the major problem with not having judicial oversight over the surveillance and not having judicial members in the selection committee?

Solution:

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.

QUESTION: 4

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?

Solution:

Option A is clearly given, Option C can be derived from the inference that since no anonymized data is kept protected from re-identification, the authorities can very well, re identify any data as and when they wish to, thus, reducing anonymity of privacy a myth.

QUESTION: 5

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?

Solution:
QUESTION: 6

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?

Solution:
QUESTION: 7

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?

Solution:
QUESTION: 8

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?

Solution:

The part of the article quoted includes renewed which shows that precedents of such issues exist. The J&K situation has once again captured international attention

QUESTION: 9

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?

Solution:

This article is the author's criticism of India’s stand and the reasons for the same. So, he disagrees. As for the reasoning option, B gives the actual reason while option D simply states a fact which would require further elaboration to offer reasoning for the author’s opinion.

QUESTION: 10

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?

Solution:

The question specifically asks for the relevance of the document to the author's argument. Other options are also true but option B is the one which points out the relevance required by the question.

QUESTION: 11

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?

Solution:
QUESTION: 12

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?

Solution:

The discussion on universal declaration of human rights, altered nature of modern international law lays the premise to establish that India acknowledges the shift.

QUESTION: 13

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?

Solution:

Option D is one of the reasons why the ruling party's actions have been criticised. The author in this article talks about how the voices of dissent have been crushed. Restriction on the media being one of the ways.

QUESTION: 14

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)?

Solution:

FCRA affects the civil society organisations and not the press. Options B and D are correct but option C is the answer because it talks about the overall effect of the bill and is the compound effect of Option B and D.

QUESTION: 15

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?

Solution:
QUESTION: 16

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?

Solution:

The author in the second paragraph mentions that the public does not really trust the judiciary because of its inactions in the Kashmir issue.

QUESTION: 17

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?

Solution:

The author in the second paragraph mentions that the public does not really trust the judiciary because of its inactions in the Kashmir issue.

QUESTION: 18

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?

Solution:

Elected representatives join other political parties at times even without resigning their present political parties. This Aya Ram Gaya Ram culture needs to discouraged. 

QUESTION: 19

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?

Solution:

They keep on enjoying the fruits for which they are no longer entitled. They have voluntarily given up the membership of their political party or have shifted their allegiance from the party they supported at the time of election.

QUESTION: 20

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?

Solution:

All the three options BCD are part and parcel of right to information Act. But Option A does not find place anywhere.

QUESTION: 21

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;

Solution:

It talks about empowering the citizens by making them aware of information regarding government at various ends. 

QUESTION: 22

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?

Solution:

Transparency does not undermine judicial independence rather it strengthens it. Judiciary has to be independent from executive not rom public.

QUESTION: 23

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

Solution:

Right to Information
RTI stands for Right to Information. It is a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. It is an Act of the parliament which was passed in 2005 to replace the Freedom of Information Act, 2002.

QUESTION: 24

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

Solution:

It is an Act of the parliament which was passed in 2005

QUESTION: 25

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?

Solution:

Since this institution is central to the working of government. They have key role in governance by constitutional design. Considered steel frame in past they have evidently proved yes man.

QUESTION: 26

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;

Solution:

A sense of belonging for an officer and being accesible to public are most likely to  affect integrity of officer.

QUESTION: 27

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?

Solution:

The problem to be redressed in hand to achieve gender equality in every sphere of life. All the directives talk about minimizing the disparities/inequalities bringing men and women at par.

QUESTION: 28

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?

Solution:

Article 25 talks about freedom of religion. 

QUESTION: 29

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?

Solution:

The remedy of reviewing the judgment is available. Same bench which assed the judgment hears review petition.

QUESTION: 30

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?

Solution:

 Judgment can be challenged by filing appeal by the party against whom it has been passed. It is always the higher bench which hears appeal and can reverse the judgment.  

QUESTION: 31

Principle: A proposal (offer) should be made with an intention that after its valid acceptance, a legally binding promise or agreement will be created. The intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the terms of the agreement and the surrounding circumstances under which such an agreement is entered.
Facts: One morning while having breakfast, the teacher, says to `x’ (teacher’s student) in a casual manner, ‘I give you a car to you’ if you get through the AIEEE exam. 
Which of the following answers are CORRECT?

Solution:

Intention is very important for a contract to take place between two parties. To make a student study, parents, guardians and teachers give a lot of incentives some of which are just fantasies to make them study and achieve the best. The above promise of gifting a car was not of contractual obligation but just to give him some mental boost to clear the exam.

QUESTION: 32

A snake charmer while showing his play claims to cure the snake bite. The deceased got himself a snake bite believing on assurance of the snake charmer. The snake charmer could not cure the deceased. The snake charmer is liable for:

Solution:
QUESTION: 33

A operates a property business. He offers B to buy any property from his assets in lieu of 100000 rupees. Is this offer a valid offer?

Solution:

A operates a property business and is having many properties. He makes a general offer to B and if B accepts the same it will become a contract. This contract is not vague.

QUESTION: 34

There is a fire in a particular locality. ‘A’ who sees this fire, pulls down houses of others, in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading and with the purpose of saving human life and property. In this case:

Solution:

It is basic principle that in order to prevent gross harm, causing lesser harm is not an offence particularly when it comes to saving a human life. He is not criminally liable for any offence as his intention is to save human life and property.

QUESTION: 35

Assertion (A): The acceptance must be communicated by the offeree to the offeror and must be qualified and absolute. 
Reason (Ꭱ): An acceptance that is not communicated clearly to the offeror does not lead to the formation of contract.

Solution:

A contract comes into being from the acceptance of an offer. When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted (Sec. 2(b). Thus, acceptance of the offer must be absolute and unqualified. It cannot be conditional. Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror to create a binding contract. Mental acceptance is no acceptance in the eyes of law. But where the offer is to be accepted by being acted upon, no communication to the offer will be necessary.

QUESTION: 36

Consider the following statements 
1. The maximum number of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India is prescribed in the Constitution of India.
2. The maximum number of the Members of the Union Public Service Commission is prescribed in the Constitution of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Solution:

Article - 124 (1) says that there shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and not more than seven other judges until Parliament may by law prescribes the maximum number of Judges of Supreme Court.

QUESTION: 37

Which one of the following is wrong?

Solution:

It is President who is head of State. Prime minister is head of council of ministers. 

QUESTION: 38

What is meant by "doliincapax"?

Solution:

The basis of the presumption in doli incapax lies in the theory of Criminal responsibility. Theory has been built upon the theory that a person should be held criminally responsible only for acts he intends to commit. According to the English Law a child below the age of ten years is considered as doli incapax. In Germany and Italy a child below thw age of 14 is considered as doli incapax and Philipines a child below 9 years.

QUESTION: 39

Aman, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law in consequence to which X and Y suffer grievous hurt and they sue Aman for the same in the court of law. Decide the guilt of Aman

Solution:

Aman shall not be guilty of the offence as he has followed the command of the senior.

Similar Content

Related tests