CLAT

Passage: We have inherited the tradition of secrecy about the budget from Britain where also the system has been strongly attacked by eminent economists and political scientists including Peter Jay. Sir Richard Clarke, who was the originating genius of nearly every important development in the British budgeting techniques during the last two decades, has spoken out about the abuse of budget secrecy:―The problems of long-term tax policy should surely be debated openly with the facts on the table. In my opinion, all governments should have just the same duty to publish their expenditure policy.
Indeed, this obligation to public taxation policy is really essential for the control of public expenditure in order to get realistic taxation implications. Realising that democracy flourishes best on the principles of open government, more and more democracies are having an open public debate on budget proposals before introducing the appropriate Bill in the legislature. In the United States the budget is conveyed in a message by the President to the Congress, which comes well in advance of the date when the Bill is introduced in the Congress. In Finland the Parliament and the people are already discussing in June the tentative budget proposals which are to be introduced in the Finnish Parliament in September. Every budget contains a cartload of figures in black and white-but the dark figures represent the myriad lights and shades of India‘s life, the contrasting tones of poverty and wealth, and of bread so dear and flesh and blood so cheap, the deep tints of adventure and enterprise and man‘s ageless struggle for a brighter morning. The Union budget should not be an annual scourge but a part of presentation of annual accounts of a partnership between the Government and the people.
That partnership would work much better when the nonsensical secrecy is replaced by openness and public consultations, resulting in fair laws and the people‘s acceptance of their moral duty to pay.
Directions: Choose the word which is most nearly the SAME in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

Q. MYRIAD

A statement followed by two assumptions numbered I and II. An assumption is something supposed or taken for granted. You have to consider the statement and the following assumptions and decide which of the assumptions is implicit in the statement.

Give answer (a) if only Assumption I is implicit.

Give answer (b) if only Assumption II is implicit.

Give answer (c) if either Assumption I or II is implicit.

Give answer (d) if neither Assumption I nor II is implicit.

Give answer (e) if both Assumptions I and II are Implicit.

Q. 

Statement: An advertisement: If you want to follow the footprints of an ideal leader, wear ‘X’ brand of shoes.

Assumptions:

I. Most people like to become ideal leaders.

II. One can’t become ideal leader unless one wears ‘X’ brand of shoes. 

The Earth is one of the known planets that circle the sun. In (6)                     times, the men who studied the (7)                noticed that while certain heavenly (8)              seemed fixed in the sky, others seemed to (9)                 about. The latter they named planets or wanderers (10)             astronomers have discovered that the four planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus (11)                Neptune, are surrounded by poisonous gases and are so (12)                 that any living thing attempting to (13)                one them would instantly be frozen to death. Of the five remaining (14)                   Venus most closely  (15)                the Earth in size.

Democracy rests on a tension between two different principles. There are, on the one hand, the principles of equality before the law, or, more generally, of equality, and, on the other, what may be described as the leadership principle. The first give priority to rules and the second to persons. No matter how skillfully we contrive our schemes; there is a pint beyond which the one principle cannot be promoted without some sacrifice of the other.

Alexis de Tocqueville, the great nineteenth century write on democracy, maintained that the age of democracy, whose birth he was witnessing, would be the age of mediocrity: in saying this he was thinking primarily of a regime of equality governed by impersonal rules. Despite his strong attachment to democracy, he took great pains to point out what he believed to be its negative side: a dead level plane of achievement in practically every sphere of life. The age of democracy would, in his view, he an unheroic age; there would not be room in it for either heroes or hero-worshippers.

But modern democracies have not been able to do without heroes: this too was foreseen, with much misgiving, by Tocqueville. Tocqueville viewed this misgiving because he believed, rightly or wrongly, that unlike in aristocratic societies, there was no proper place in a democracy for heroes, and hence when they arose, they would sooner or later turn into despots. Whether they require heroes or not, democracies certainly require leaders, and, in the contemporary age, need to breed them in great profusion; the problem is to know what to do with them.

In a world preoccupied with scientific rationality, the advantages of a system based on an impersonal rule of law should be a recommendation with everybody. There is something orderly and predictable about such a system. When life is lived mainly in small, self-contained communities, men are able to take finer personal distinctions into account in dealing with their fellow men. They’re unable to do this in a large and amorphous society, and organized living would be impossible here without a system of impersonal rule. Above all, such a system guarantees a kind of equality to the extent that everybody, no matter in what station of life, is bound by the same explicit, often written rules, and nobody is above them.

But a system governed solely by impersonal rules can at best ensure order and stability; it cannot create any shining vision of a future in which mere formal equality will be replaced by real equality and fellowship. A world governed by impersonal rules cannot easily change itself, or when it does, the change is so gradual as to make the basic or fundamental change, a push is needed from within, a kind of individual initiative which will create new rules, new terms and conditions of file.

The issue of leadership thus acquired crucial significance in the context of change. If the modern age is preoccupied with scientific rationality, it is no less preoccupied with change. To accept what exists on its terms is traditional, not modern, and it may be all very well to appreciate tradition in music, dance and drama, but for society as a while, the choice has already been made in favour of modernization and development. Moreover, in some countries, the gap between ideal and reality has become so great that the argument of development and change is now irresistible.

In these countries no argument for development has greater appeal or urgency than the one which shows development to be the condition for the mitigation, if not the elimination, of inequality. There is something contradictory about the very presence of large inequalities in a society which professes to be democratic. It does not take people too long to realize that democracy by itself can guarantee only formally equality, beyond this; it can only whet people’s appetite for real or substantive equality. From this arises continued preoccupation with plans and schemes that will help to bridge the gap between the ideal of equality and the reality which is so contrary to it.

When pre-existing rules give no clear directions of change, leadership comes into its own. Every democracy invests its leadership with a measure of charisma, and expects from it a corresponding measure of energy and vitality. Now, the greater the urge for change in a society, the stronger the appeal of a dynamic leadership in it. A dynamic leadership seeks to free itself from the constraints of existing rules; in a sense that is the test of its dynamism. In this process, it may take a turn at which it ceases to regard itself as being bound by these rules, placing itself above them. There is always a tension between ‘charisma’ and ‘discipline’ and in the case of a democratic leadership, puts forward revolutionary claims, the tension tends to be resolved at the expense of discipline.

Characteristically, the legitimacy of such a leadership rests on its claim to be able to abolish or at least substantially reduce the existing inequalities in society. From the argument that format equality or equality before the law is but a limited good, it is often one short step to the argument that it is a hindrance or an obstacle to the establishment of real or substantive equality. The conflict between a ‘progressive’ executive and a ‘conservative’ judiciary is but one aspect of this larger problem. This conflict naturally acquires added piquancy when the executive is elected and the judiciary appointed.

Q.

What possible factor would a dynamic leader consider a ‘hindrance’ in achieving the development goals of a nation?

Read the passage given below and answer the questions based on it.

“Well, lately Mas’r has been saying that he was a fool to let me marry off the place; that he hates Mr. Shelby and all his tribe, because they are proud, and hold their heads up above him, and that I’ve got proud notions from you; and he says he won’t let me come here anymore, and that I shall take a wife and settle down on his place. At first he only scolded and grumbled these things; but yesterday he told me that I should take Mina for a wife, and settle down in a cabin with her, or he would sell me down river.”
“Why—but you were married to me, by the minister, as much as if you’d been a white man!” said Eliza, simply.
“Don’t you know a slave can’t be married? There is no law in this country for that; I can’t hold you for my wife, if he chooses to part us. That’s why I wish I’d never seen you,—why I wish I’d never been born; it would have been better for us both,—it would have been better for this poor child if he had never been born. All this may happen to him yet!”
“O, but master is so kind!”
“Yes, but who knows?—he may die—and then he may be sold to nobody knows who. What pleasure is it that he is handsome, and smart, and bright? I tell you, Eliza, that a sword will pierce through your soul for every good and pleasant thing your child is or has; it will make him worth too much for you to keep.”
The words smote heavily on Eliza’s heart; the vision of the trader came before her eyes, and, as if someone had struck her a deadly blow, she turned pale and gasped for breath. She looked nervously out on the verandah, where the boy, tired of the grave conversation, had retired, and where he was riding triumphantly up and down on Mr. Shelby’s walking-stick. She would have spoken to tell her husband her fears, but checked herself.

Q. Why does George say he wishes he had never seen Eliza?

The Constitution of Independent India and the various laws (21)____ to meet the constitutional obligation have fortified the  position of women vis-à-vis the man. But it is (22)____ on paper only. The myth that more and more women are getting higher education and are occupying position of  responsibility in all walks of life is falsified by the (23)____  of dowry deaths and divorce  cases filed in the (24)____ courts. One look at the national dailies will tell the (25)____  tale of the Indian women, women-who (26)____  a child is bargained for a bridal price or when she grows up serves as a supplier of dowry for her husband’s family or who, as widow immolates herself on her husband’s (27)____ be (28)____ as sati.

Our study about women’s place in Indian society is mainly based on urban, professional and educated Indian women. Deep in the rural heartland of the country, the rapidly changing world has not even touched the (29)____ of the life of a women. Most men of orthodox families take (30)____ in revealing that their (31)____ folk stay in ‘purdah’, a shield that (32)____ a woman of the joys of free nature. Still more alarming are the (33)____ of atrocities of women (34)____ incidents at Bantala, Singur and Birati are (35)____

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) was created in the early 1990s as a component of the Uruguay Round negotiation. However, it could have been negotiated as part of the Tokyo Round of the 1970s, since negotiation was an attempt at a ‘constitutional reform’ of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Or it could have been put off to the future, as the US government wanted. What factors led to the creation of the WTO in the early 1990s? One factor was the pattern of multilateral bargaining that developed late in the Uruguay Round. Like all complex international agreements, the WTO was a product of a series of trade-offs between principal actors and groups. For the United States, which did not want a new organization, the disputed settlement part of the WTO package achieved its longstanding goal of a more effective and more legal dispute settlement system. For the Europeans, who by the 1990s had come to view GATT dispute settlement less in political terms add more as a regime of legal obligations, the WTO package was acceptable as a means to discipline the resort to unilateral measures by the United States. Countries like Canada and other middle and smaller trading partners were attracted by the expansion of a rule-based system and by the symbolic value of a trade organization, both of which inherently support the weak against the strong. The developing countries were attracted due to the provisions banning unilateral measures. Finally, and perhaps most important, many countries at the Uruguay Round came to put a higher priority on the export gains than on the import losses that the negotiation would produce, and they came to associate the WTO and a rule-based system with those gains. This reasoning – replicated in many countries – was contained in U. S. Ambassador Kantor’s defence of the WTO, and it announced to a recognition that international trade and its benefits cannot be enjoyed unless trading nations accept the discipline of a negotiated rule-based environment. A second factor in the creation of the WTO was pressure from lawyers and the legal process. The dispute settlement system of the WTO was seen as a victory of legalists but the matter went deeper than that. The GATT, and the WTO, are contract organizations based on rules, and it is inevitable that an organization creating a further rule will in turn be influenced by legal process. Robert Hudee has written of the ‘momentum of legal development’, but what is this precisely? Legal development can be defined as promotion of the technical legal values of consistency, clarity (or certainty) and effectiveness; these are values that those responsible for administering any legal system will seek to maximize. As it played out in the WTO, consistency meant integrating under one roof the whole lot of separate agreements signed under GATT auspices; clarity meant removing ambiguities about the powers of contracting parties to make certain decisions or to undertake waivers; and effectiveness meant eliminating exceptions arising out of grandfather-rights and resolving defects in dispute settlement procedures and institutional provisions. Concern for these values is inherent in any rule-based system of co-operation, since without these value rules would be meaningless in the first place, therefore, create their own incentive for fulfilment. The moment of legal development has occurred in other institutions besides the GATT, most notably in the European Union (EU). Over the past two decades the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has consistently rendered decisions that have expanded incrementally the EU’s internal market, in which the doctrine of ‘mutual recognition’ handed down in Cassis de Dijon case in 1979 was a key turning point. The court is now widely recognized as a major player in European integration, even though arguably such a strong role was not originally envisaged in the Treaty of Rome, which initiated the current European Union. One means the Court used to expand integration was the ‘teleological method of interpretation’, whereby the actions of member states were evaluated against ‘the accomplishment of the most elementary goals set forth in the Preamble to the (Rome) treaty. The teleological method represents an effort to keep current policies consistent with slated goals, and it is analogous to the effort in GATT to keep contracting party trade practices consistent with slated rules. In both cases legal concerns and procedures are an independent force for further co-operation.
In the large part the WTO was an exercise in consolidation. In the context of a trade negotiation that created a near-revolutionary expansion of international trade rules, the formation of the WTO was a deeply conservative act needed to ensure that the benefits of the new rules would not be lost. The WTO was all about institutional structure and dispute settlement: these are the concerns of conservatives and not revolutionaries, that is why lawyers and legalists took the lead on these issues. The WTO codified the GATT institutional practice that had developed by custom over three decades, and it incorporated a new dispute settlement system that was necessary to keep both old and new rules from becoming a sham. Both the international structure and the dispute settlement system were necessary to preserve and enhance the integrity of the multilateral trade regime that had been built incrementally from the 1940s to the 1990s.

Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. 

Explanation 1: A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being moveable property is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being he subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.

Explanation 2: A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.

Explanation 3: A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.

Explanation 4: A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.

Explanation 5: The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied and may be given either by the person in possession or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.

Facts: A finds a ring lying on the high road, not in the possession of any person. A by taking it commits…….