Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.India banned 250+ Chinese apps under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, and justifying its move, the government cited the reasons of apps engaging in activities which were prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, the security of the state and public order. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has through its press release alleged India of violating the WTO rules.World Trade Organisation (WTO) is the chief body that looks into discriminatory trade practices. It was formed by Marrakesh Agreement which succeeded the erstwhile General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, 1947 (GATS). As far as the obligations are concerned, every member state is mandated to maintain anti-discriminatory policies and keep their markets open access based markets. Services under GATS are defined as any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority and thus incorporate within its definition all kinds of services as long as they are commercial in nature. However, the question that is often raised is - Are Internet-based services covered by GATS?When we talk of e-commerce, then such activities are indeed under the GATS agreement as they require physical delivery, but when it comes to purely Internet-based services like Facebook and search engines, they were generally seen as exceptions until the US-Gambling dispute which applied the provisions of the GATS to online gambling and thus cleared the classification of online services under GATS.As long as such restrictions have the same impact on all the domestic and foreign states, there is no case of National Treatment obligation breach. However, as in the present case, only China looks to have been disadvantaged, it is pressing for charges of discriminatory tactics. As per Article XVI of the GATS, member states are prohibited from imposing quantitative restrictions in areas where they have undertaken such commitments. In this case, the present ban can be seen as a quota restriction.But would that make Indias move look like a contradiction to the obligations? The answer is - No because just like every other obligation, there exist certain exceptions. The GATS obligations of member states may sometimes conflict with national defence and security interests and hence Article XXI provides a list of security exceptions to the obligations that are imposed under GATS. When we interpret this provision, we can clearly say that Indias move has been in no way violative, as it is clearly protected as an exception.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Indian Ban on Chinese Apps: Does the Move Contradict WTO Rules?, Jurist.org]Q.Suppose India decides to prohibit the usage of Twitter and Facebook, citing concerns related to sovereignty and security, as permitted by Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Is the Indian government empowered to take such action?a)No, Facebook and Twitter are global brands that do not engage in espionage activities.b)Yes, if the reason behind the ban pertains to sovereignty and security, then India has the authority to impose it.c)No, these platforms are essential for the digital space.d)Both options 1 and 3.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.India banned 250+ Chinese apps under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, and justifying its move, the government cited the reasons of apps engaging in activities which were prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, the security of the state and public order. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has through its press release alleged India of violating the WTO rules.World Trade Organisation (WTO) is the chief body that looks into discriminatory trade practices. It was formed by Marrakesh Agreement which succeeded the erstwhile General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, 1947 (GATS). As far as the obligations are concerned, every member state is mandated to maintain anti-discriminatory policies and keep their markets open access based markets. Services under GATS are defined as any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority and thus incorporate within its definition all kinds of services as long as they are commercial in nature. However, the question that is often raised is - Are Internet-based services covered by GATS?When we talk of e-commerce, then such activities are indeed under the GATS agreement as they require physical delivery, but when it comes to purely Internet-based services like Facebook and search engines, they were generally seen as exceptions until the US-Gambling dispute which applied the provisions of the GATS to online gambling and thus cleared the classification of online services under GATS.As long as such restrictions have the same impact on all the domestic and foreign states, there is no case of National Treatment obligation breach. However, as in the present case, only China looks to have been disadvantaged, it is pressing for charges of discriminatory tactics. As per Article XVI of the GATS, member states are prohibited from imposing quantitative restrictions in areas where they have undertaken such commitments. In this case, the present ban can be seen as a quota restriction.But would that make Indias move look like a contradiction to the obligations? The answer is - No because just like every other obligation, there exist certain exceptions. The GATS obligations of member states may sometimes conflict with national defence and security interests and hence Article XXI provides a list of security exceptions to the obligations that are imposed under GATS. When we interpret this provision, we can clearly say that Indias move has been in no way violative, as it is clearly protected as an exception.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Indian Ban on Chinese Apps: Does the Move Contradict WTO Rules?, Jurist.org]Q.Suppose India decides to prohibit the usage of Twitter and Facebook, citing concerns related to sovereignty and security, as permitted by Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Is the Indian government empowered to take such action?a)No, Facebook and Twitter are global brands that do not engage in espionage activities.b)Yes, if the reason behind the ban pertains to sovereignty and security, then India has the authority to impose it.c)No, these platforms are essential for the digital space.d)Both options 1 and 3.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.India banned 250+ Chinese apps under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, and justifying its move, the government cited the reasons of apps engaging in activities which were prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, the security of the state and public order. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has through its press release alleged India of violating the WTO rules.World Trade Organisation (WTO) is the chief body that looks into discriminatory trade practices. It was formed by Marrakesh Agreement which succeeded the erstwhile General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, 1947 (GATS). As far as the obligations are concerned, every member state is mandated to maintain anti-discriminatory policies and keep their markets open access based markets. Services under GATS are defined as any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority and thus incorporate within its definition all kinds of services as long as they are commercial in nature. However, the question that is often raised is - Are Internet-based services covered by GATS?When we talk of e-commerce, then such activities are indeed under the GATS agreement as they require physical delivery, but when it comes to purely Internet-based services like Facebook and search engines, they were generally seen as exceptions until the US-Gambling dispute which applied the provisions of the GATS to online gambling and thus cleared the classification of online services under GATS.As long as such restrictions have the same impact on all the domestic and foreign states, there is no case of National Treatment obligation breach. However, as in the present case, only China looks to have been disadvantaged, it is pressing for charges of discriminatory tactics. As per Article XVI of the GATS, member states are prohibited from imposing quantitative restrictions in areas where they have undertaken such commitments. In this case, the present ban can be seen as a quota restriction.But would that make Indias move look like a contradiction to the obligations? The answer is - No because just like every other obligation, there exist certain exceptions. The GATS obligations of member states may sometimes conflict with national defence and security interests and hence Article XXI provides a list of security exceptions to the obligations that are imposed under GATS. When we interpret this provision, we can clearly say that Indias move has been in no way violative, as it is clearly protected as an exception.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Indian Ban on Chinese Apps: Does the Move Contradict WTO Rules?, Jurist.org]Q.Suppose India decides to prohibit the usage of Twitter and Facebook, citing concerns related to sovereignty and security, as permitted by Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Is the Indian government empowered to take such action?a)No, Facebook and Twitter are global brands that do not engage in espionage activities.b)Yes, if the reason behind the ban pertains to sovereignty and security, then India has the authority to impose it.c)No, these platforms are essential for the digital space.d)Both options 1 and 3.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.India banned 250+ Chinese apps under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, and justifying its move, the government cited the reasons of apps engaging in activities which were prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, the security of the state and public order. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has through its press release alleged India of violating the WTO rules.World Trade Organisation (WTO) is the chief body that looks into discriminatory trade practices. It was formed by Marrakesh Agreement which succeeded the erstwhile General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, 1947 (GATS). As far as the obligations are concerned, every member state is mandated to maintain anti-discriminatory policies and keep their markets open access based markets. Services under GATS are defined as any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority and thus incorporate within its definition all kinds of services as long as they are commercial in nature. However, the question that is often raised is - Are Internet-based services covered by GATS?When we talk of e-commerce, then such activities are indeed under the GATS agreement as they require physical delivery, but when it comes to purely Internet-based services like Facebook and search engines, they were generally seen as exceptions until the US-Gambling dispute which applied the provisions of the GATS to online gambling and thus cleared the classification of online services under GATS.As long as such restrictions have the same impact on all the domestic and foreign states, there is no case of National Treatment obligation breach. However, as in the present case, only China looks to have been disadvantaged, it is pressing for charges of discriminatory tactics. As per Article XVI of the GATS, member states are prohibited from imposing quantitative restrictions in areas where they have undertaken such commitments. In this case, the present ban can be seen as a quota restriction.But would that make Indias move look like a contradiction to the obligations? The answer is - No because just like every other obligation, there exist certain exceptions. The GATS obligations of member states may sometimes conflict with national defence and security interests and hence Article XXI provides a list of security exceptions to the obligations that are imposed under GATS. When we interpret this provision, we can clearly say that Indias move has been in no way violative, as it is clearly protected as an exception.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Indian Ban on Chinese Apps: Does the Move Contradict WTO Rules?, Jurist.org]Q.Suppose India decides to prohibit the usage of Twitter and Facebook, citing concerns related to sovereignty and security, as permitted by Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Is the Indian government empowered to take such action?a)No, Facebook and Twitter are global brands that do not engage in espionage activities.b)Yes, if the reason behind the ban pertains to sovereignty and security, then India has the authority to impose it.c)No, these platforms are essential for the digital space.d)Both options 1 and 3.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.India banned 250+ Chinese apps under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, and justifying its move, the government cited the reasons of apps engaging in activities which were prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, the security of the state and public order. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has through its press release alleged India of violating the WTO rules.World Trade Organisation (WTO) is the chief body that looks into discriminatory trade practices. It was formed by Marrakesh Agreement which succeeded the erstwhile General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, 1947 (GATS). As far as the obligations are concerned, every member state is mandated to maintain anti-discriminatory policies and keep their markets open access based markets. Services under GATS are defined as any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority and thus incorporate within its definition all kinds of services as long as they are commercial in nature. However, the question that is often raised is - Are Internet-based services covered by GATS?When we talk of e-commerce, then such activities are indeed under the GATS agreement as they require physical delivery, but when it comes to purely Internet-based services like Facebook and search engines, they were generally seen as exceptions until the US-Gambling dispute which applied the provisions of the GATS to online gambling and thus cleared the classification of online services under GATS.As long as such restrictions have the same impact on all the domestic and foreign states, there is no case of National Treatment obligation breach. However, as in the present case, only China looks to have been disadvantaged, it is pressing for charges of discriminatory tactics. As per Article XVI of the GATS, member states are prohibited from imposing quantitative restrictions in areas where they have undertaken such commitments. In this case, the present ban can be seen as a quota restriction.But would that make Indias move look like a contradiction to the obligations? The answer is - No because just like every other obligation, there exist certain exceptions. The GATS obligations of member states may sometimes conflict with national defence and security interests and hence Article XXI provides a list of security exceptions to the obligations that are imposed under GATS. When we interpret this provision, we can clearly say that Indias move has been in no way violative, as it is clearly protected as an exception.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Indian Ban on Chinese Apps: Does the Move Contradict WTO Rules?, Jurist.org]Q.Suppose India decides to prohibit the usage of Twitter and Facebook, citing concerns related to sovereignty and security, as permitted by Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Is the Indian government empowered to take such action?a)No, Facebook and Twitter are global brands that do not engage in espionage activities.b)Yes, if the reason behind the ban pertains to sovereignty and security, then India has the authority to impose it.c)No, these platforms are essential for the digital space.d)Both options 1 and 3.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.India banned 250+ Chinese apps under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, and justifying its move, the government cited the reasons of apps engaging in activities which were prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, the security of the state and public order. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has through its press release alleged India of violating the WTO rules.World Trade Organisation (WTO) is the chief body that looks into discriminatory trade practices. It was formed by Marrakesh Agreement which succeeded the erstwhile General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, 1947 (GATS). As far as the obligations are concerned, every member state is mandated to maintain anti-discriminatory policies and keep their markets open access based markets. Services under GATS are defined as any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority and thus incorporate within its definition all kinds of services as long as they are commercial in nature. However, the question that is often raised is - Are Internet-based services covered by GATS?When we talk of e-commerce, then such activities are indeed under the GATS agreement as they require physical delivery, but when it comes to purely Internet-based services like Facebook and search engines, they were generally seen as exceptions until the US-Gambling dispute which applied the provisions of the GATS to online gambling and thus cleared the classification of online services under GATS.As long as such restrictions have the same impact on all the domestic and foreign states, there is no case of National Treatment obligation breach. However, as in the present case, only China looks to have been disadvantaged, it is pressing for charges of discriminatory tactics. As per Article XVI of the GATS, member states are prohibited from imposing quantitative restrictions in areas where they have undertaken such commitments. In this case, the present ban can be seen as a quota restriction.But would that make Indias move look like a contradiction to the obligations? The answer is - No because just like every other obligation, there exist certain exceptions. The GATS obligations of member states may sometimes conflict with national defence and security interests and hence Article XXI provides a list of security exceptions to the obligations that are imposed under GATS. When we interpret this provision, we can clearly say that Indias move has been in no way violative, as it is clearly protected as an exception.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Indian Ban on Chinese Apps: Does the Move Contradict WTO Rules?, Jurist.org]Q.Suppose India decides to prohibit the usage of Twitter and Facebook, citing concerns related to sovereignty and security, as permitted by Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Is the Indian government empowered to take such action?a)No, Facebook and Twitter are global brands that do not engage in espionage activities.b)Yes, if the reason behind the ban pertains to sovereignty and security, then India has the authority to impose it.c)No, these platforms are essential for the digital space.d)Both options 1 and 3.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.India banned 250+ Chinese apps under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, and justifying its move, the government cited the reasons of apps engaging in activities which were prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, the security of the state and public order. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has through its press release alleged India of violating the WTO rules.World Trade Organisation (WTO) is the chief body that looks into discriminatory trade practices. It was formed by Marrakesh Agreement which succeeded the erstwhile General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, 1947 (GATS). As far as the obligations are concerned, every member state is mandated to maintain anti-discriminatory policies and keep their markets open access based markets. Services under GATS are defined as any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority and thus incorporate within its definition all kinds of services as long as they are commercial in nature. However, the question that is often raised is - Are Internet-based services covered by GATS?When we talk of e-commerce, then such activities are indeed under the GATS agreement as they require physical delivery, but when it comes to purely Internet-based services like Facebook and search engines, they were generally seen as exceptions until the US-Gambling dispute which applied the provisions of the GATS to online gambling and thus cleared the classification of online services under GATS.As long as such restrictions have the same impact on all the domestic and foreign states, there is no case of National Treatment obligation breach. However, as in the present case, only China looks to have been disadvantaged, it is pressing for charges of discriminatory tactics. As per Article XVI of the GATS, member states are prohibited from imposing quantitative restrictions in areas where they have undertaken such commitments. In this case, the present ban can be seen as a quota restriction.But would that make Indias move look like a contradiction to the obligations? The answer is - No because just like every other obligation, there exist certain exceptions. The GATS obligations of member states may sometimes conflict with national defence and security interests and hence Article XXI provides a list of security exceptions to the obligations that are imposed under GATS. When we interpret this provision, we can clearly say that Indias move has been in no way violative, as it is clearly protected as an exception.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Indian Ban on Chinese Apps: Does the Move Contradict WTO Rules?, Jurist.org]Q.Suppose India decides to prohibit the usage of Twitter and Facebook, citing concerns related to sovereignty and security, as permitted by Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Is the Indian government empowered to take such action?a)No, Facebook and Twitter are global brands that do not engage in espionage activities.b)Yes, if the reason behind the ban pertains to sovereignty and security, then India has the authority to impose it.c)No, these platforms are essential for the digital space.d)Both options 1 and 3.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.India banned 250+ Chinese apps under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, and justifying its move, the government cited the reasons of apps engaging in activities which were prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, the security of the state and public order. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has through its press release alleged India of violating the WTO rules.World Trade Organisation (WTO) is the chief body that looks into discriminatory trade practices. It was formed by Marrakesh Agreement which succeeded the erstwhile General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, 1947 (GATS). As far as the obligations are concerned, every member state is mandated to maintain anti-discriminatory policies and keep their markets open access based markets. Services under GATS are defined as any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority and thus incorporate within its definition all kinds of services as long as they are commercial in nature. However, the question that is often raised is - Are Internet-based services covered by GATS?When we talk of e-commerce, then such activities are indeed under the GATS agreement as they require physical delivery, but when it comes to purely Internet-based services like Facebook and search engines, they were generally seen as exceptions until the US-Gambling dispute which applied the provisions of the GATS to online gambling and thus cleared the classification of online services under GATS.As long as such restrictions have the same impact on all the domestic and foreign states, there is no case of National Treatment obligation breach. However, as in the present case, only China looks to have been disadvantaged, it is pressing for charges of discriminatory tactics. As per Article XVI of the GATS, member states are prohibited from imposing quantitative restrictions in areas where they have undertaken such commitments. In this case, the present ban can be seen as a quota restriction.But would that make Indias move look like a contradiction to the obligations? The answer is - No because just like every other obligation, there exist certain exceptions. The GATS obligations of member states may sometimes conflict with national defence and security interests and hence Article XXI provides a list of security exceptions to the obligations that are imposed under GATS. When we interpret this provision, we can clearly say that Indias move has been in no way violative, as it is clearly protected as an exception.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Indian Ban on Chinese Apps: Does the Move Contradict WTO Rules?, Jurist.org]Q.Suppose India decides to prohibit the usage of Twitter and Facebook, citing concerns related to sovereignty and security, as permitted by Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Is the Indian government empowered to take such action?a)No, Facebook and Twitter are global brands that do not engage in espionage activities.b)Yes, if the reason behind the ban pertains to sovereignty and security, then India has the authority to impose it.c)No, these platforms are essential for the digital space.d)Both options 1 and 3.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.India banned 250+ Chinese apps under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, and justifying its move, the government cited the reasons of apps engaging in activities which were prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, the security of the state and public order. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has through its press release alleged India of violating the WTO rules.World Trade Organisation (WTO) is the chief body that looks into discriminatory trade practices. It was formed by Marrakesh Agreement which succeeded the erstwhile General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, 1947 (GATS). As far as the obligations are concerned, every member state is mandated to maintain anti-discriminatory policies and keep their markets open access based markets. Services under GATS are defined as any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority and thus incorporate within its definition all kinds of services as long as they are commercial in nature. However, the question that is often raised is - Are Internet-based services covered by GATS?When we talk of e-commerce, then such activities are indeed under the GATS agreement as they require physical delivery, but when it comes to purely Internet-based services like Facebook and search engines, they were generally seen as exceptions until the US-Gambling dispute which applied the provisions of the GATS to online gambling and thus cleared the classification of online services under GATS.As long as such restrictions have the same impact on all the domestic and foreign states, there is no case of National Treatment obligation breach. However, as in the present case, only China looks to have been disadvantaged, it is pressing for charges of discriminatory tactics. As per Article XVI of the GATS, member states are prohibited from imposing quantitative restrictions in areas where they have undertaken such commitments. In this case, the present ban can be seen as a quota restriction.But would that make Indias move look like a contradiction to the obligations? The answer is - No because just like every other obligation, there exist certain exceptions. The GATS obligations of member states may sometimes conflict with national defence and security interests and hence Article XXI provides a list of security exceptions to the obligations that are imposed under GATS. When we interpret this provision, we can clearly say that Indias move has been in no way violative, as it is clearly protected as an exception.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Indian Ban on Chinese Apps: Does the Move Contradict WTO Rules?, Jurist.org]Q.Suppose India decides to prohibit the usage of Twitter and Facebook, citing concerns related to sovereignty and security, as permitted by Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Is the Indian government empowered to take such action?a)No, Facebook and Twitter are global brands that do not engage in espionage activities.b)Yes, if the reason behind the ban pertains to sovereignty and security, then India has the authority to impose it.c)No, these platforms are essential for the digital space.d)Both options 1 and 3.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.