Question Description
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government's proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the 'claims and objections' stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. "Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.Which among the following substantiates the observation of the Supreme Court that the government is contradicting its own stand in the issue of National Register of Citizens?a)The government first wanted to draft the NRC but now it is not interested in doing so because of reasons best known to them.b)The government wants the Supreme Court to take stock of the situation now when it rejected the same offer in the past.c)The government first asked for documents to prove legacy once and for all but it is again asking for the documents in a later stage in certain cases.d)The government did not want to financially support the initiative in the beginning but now it is inclined to give money to this program.e)The government is not very sure about the objective of the NRC but in the past it made tall claims that it knew everything about this initiative.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for Banking Exams 2024 is part of Banking Exams preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Banking Exams exam syllabus. Information about Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government's proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the 'claims and objections' stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. "Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.Which among the following substantiates the observation of the Supreme Court that the government is contradicting its own stand in the issue of National Register of Citizens?a)The government first wanted to draft the NRC but now it is not interested in doing so because of reasons best known to them.b)The government wants the Supreme Court to take stock of the situation now when it rejected the same offer in the past.c)The government first asked for documents to prove legacy once and for all but it is again asking for the documents in a later stage in certain cases.d)The government did not want to financially support the initiative in the beginning but now it is inclined to give money to this program.e)The government is not very sure about the objective of the NRC but in the past it made tall claims that it knew everything about this initiative.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Banking Exams 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government's proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the 'claims and objections' stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. "Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.Which among the following substantiates the observation of the Supreme Court that the government is contradicting its own stand in the issue of National Register of Citizens?a)The government first wanted to draft the NRC but now it is not interested in doing so because of reasons best known to them.b)The government wants the Supreme Court to take stock of the situation now when it rejected the same offer in the past.c)The government first asked for documents to prove legacy once and for all but it is again asking for the documents in a later stage in certain cases.d)The government did not want to financially support the initiative in the beginning but now it is inclined to give money to this program.e)The government is not very sure about the objective of the NRC but in the past it made tall claims that it knew everything about this initiative.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government's proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the 'claims and objections' stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. "Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.Which among the following substantiates the observation of the Supreme Court that the government is contradicting its own stand in the issue of National Register of Citizens?a)The government first wanted to draft the NRC but now it is not interested in doing so because of reasons best known to them.b)The government wants the Supreme Court to take stock of the situation now when it rejected the same offer in the past.c)The government first asked for documents to prove legacy once and for all but it is again asking for the documents in a later stage in certain cases.d)The government did not want to financially support the initiative in the beginning but now it is inclined to give money to this program.e)The government is not very sure about the objective of the NRC but in the past it made tall claims that it knew everything about this initiative.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Banking Exams. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Banking Exams Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government's proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the 'claims and objections' stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. "Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.Which among the following substantiates the observation of the Supreme Court that the government is contradicting its own stand in the issue of National Register of Citizens?a)The government first wanted to draft the NRC but now it is not interested in doing so because of reasons best known to them.b)The government wants the Supreme Court to take stock of the situation now when it rejected the same offer in the past.c)The government first asked for documents to prove legacy once and for all but it is again asking for the documents in a later stage in certain cases.d)The government did not want to financially support the initiative in the beginning but now it is inclined to give money to this program.e)The government is not very sure about the objective of the NRC but in the past it made tall claims that it knew everything about this initiative.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government's proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the 'claims and objections' stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. "Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.Which among the following substantiates the observation of the Supreme Court that the government is contradicting its own stand in the issue of National Register of Citizens?a)The government first wanted to draft the NRC but now it is not interested in doing so because of reasons best known to them.b)The government wants the Supreme Court to take stock of the situation now when it rejected the same offer in the past.c)The government first asked for documents to prove legacy once and for all but it is again asking for the documents in a later stage in certain cases.d)The government did not want to financially support the initiative in the beginning but now it is inclined to give money to this program.e)The government is not very sure about the objective of the NRC but in the past it made tall claims that it knew everything about this initiative.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government's proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the 'claims and objections' stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. "Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.Which among the following substantiates the observation of the Supreme Court that the government is contradicting its own stand in the issue of National Register of Citizens?a)The government first wanted to draft the NRC but now it is not interested in doing so because of reasons best known to them.b)The government wants the Supreme Court to take stock of the situation now when it rejected the same offer in the past.c)The government first asked for documents to prove legacy once and for all but it is again asking for the documents in a later stage in certain cases.d)The government did not want to financially support the initiative in the beginning but now it is inclined to give money to this program.e)The government is not very sure about the objective of the NRC but in the past it made tall claims that it knew everything about this initiative.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government's proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the 'claims and objections' stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. "Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.Which among the following substantiates the observation of the Supreme Court that the government is contradicting its own stand in the issue of National Register of Citizens?a)The government first wanted to draft the NRC but now it is not interested in doing so because of reasons best known to them.b)The government wants the Supreme Court to take stock of the situation now when it rejected the same offer in the past.c)The government first asked for documents to prove legacy once and for all but it is again asking for the documents in a later stage in certain cases.d)The government did not want to financially support the initiative in the beginning but now it is inclined to give money to this program.e)The government is not very sure about the objective of the NRC but in the past it made tall claims that it knew everything about this initiative.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government's proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the 'claims and objections' stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. "Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.Which among the following substantiates the observation of the Supreme Court that the government is contradicting its own stand in the issue of National Register of Citizens?a)The government first wanted to draft the NRC but now it is not interested in doing so because of reasons best known to them.b)The government wants the Supreme Court to take stock of the situation now when it rejected the same offer in the past.c)The government first asked for documents to prove legacy once and for all but it is again asking for the documents in a later stage in certain cases.d)The government did not want to financially support the initiative in the beginning but now it is inclined to give money to this program.e)The government is not very sure about the objective of the NRC but in the past it made tall claims that it knew everything about this initiative.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Banking Exams tests.