CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Directions: Read the following passage and an... Start Learning for Free
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seems to have been overzealous in registering a case against environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta and his organisation, Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, for violating Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) provisions. The gist of the allegations is their using foreign funds to encourage litigation that will stall existing and prospective coal-fired plants in India. While the sourcing of foreign funds and use is certainly something to keep an eye on, any criminalising of the act of opposition to coal plants, when pursued via legal means, is an absurd stance for a government to adopt. As a signatory to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and various key agreements, India has undertaken to gradually reduce its reliance on fossil fuel sources and be 'net zero', or source almost all power from non-fossil fuel sources by 2070. India has also consistently endorsed reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that speak of the urgency of ensuring global temperatures do not exceed 1.5°C of pre-industrial times, necessitating that global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. However, under principles of 'Common and Differentiated Responsibility', India has maintained its right to rely on coal plants in the interim as it is still a developing economy.
(Extracted with edits and reviews from "The right to litigate: On limiting the industrial exploitation of nature" The Hindu, April 26, 2023)
Q. Why was a case registered against Ritwick Dutta and his organization under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA)?
  • a)
    For opposing coal plants via legal means
  • b)
    For violating environmental regulations
  • c)
    For using foreign funds to encourage litigation against coal plants
  • d)
    For advocating for fossil fuel sources
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Verified Answer
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Cen...
A case was registered against Ritwick Dutta and his organization under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) because they were accused of using foreign funds to encourage litigation against coal-fired plants in India. The passage mentions that the gist of the allegations against them is that they used foreign funds for this purpose. While the sourcing and use of foreign funds should be monitored, the core accusation was related to their activities in opposing coal plants through legal means, which the government considered a violation of FCRA provisions.
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Cen...
Overview of the Case Against Ritwick Dutta
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case against environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta and his organization, Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, primarily for their alleged misuse of foreign funds.
Key Allegations
- The main allegation is that Dutta and his organization used foreign contributions to promote litigation aimed at stalling coal-fired power plants in India.
- This action is framed as a violation of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), which regulates the acceptance of foreign funds by non-governmental organizations in India.
Legal vs. Illegal Opposition
- The act of opposing coal plants through legal means should not be criminalized, as it aligns with environmental advocacy and is supported by international climate agreements.
- Dutta’s organization argues that their actions are necessary to ensure compliance with India's commitments to reduce fossil fuel reliance and combat climate change.
Government's Stance
- The government’s decision to pursue legal action can be seen as an overreach, especially in a context where India has acknowledged the need for a transition to non-fossil fuel sources.
- This situation raises concerns about the right to litigate against industrial exploitation of natural resources, which is crucial for environmental protection.
Conclusion
- The correct answer to the question regarding the registration of the case is option 'C': "For using foreign funds to encourage litigation against coal plants."
- This case highlights the tension between environmental advocacy and regulatory frameworks governing foreign contributions in India.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following is not the appropriate cause-and-effect relationship in the passages context?

Top Courses for CLAT

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seems to have been overzealous in registering a case against environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta and his organisation, Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, for violating Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) provisions. The gist of the allegations is their using foreign funds to encourage litigation that will stall existing and prospective coal-fired plants in India. While the sourcing of foreign funds and use is certainly something to keep an eye on, any criminalising of the act of opposition to coal plants, when pursued via legal means, is an absurd stance for a government to adopt. As a signatory to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and various key agreements, India has undertaken to gradually reduce its reliance on fossil fuel sources and be net zero, or source almost all power from non-fossil fuel sources by 2070. India has also consistently endorsed reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that speak of the urgency of ensuring global temperatures do not exceed 1.5°C of pre-industrial times, necessitating that global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. However, under principles of Common and Differentiated Responsibility, India has maintained its right to rely on coal plants in the interim as it is still a developing economy.(Extracted with edits and reviews from "The right to litigate: On limiting the industrial exploitation of nature" The Hindu, April 26, 2023)Q.Why was a case registered against Ritwick Dutta and his organization under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA)?a)For opposing coal plants via legal meansb)For violating environmental regulationsc)For using foreign funds to encourage litigation against coal plantsd)For advocating for fossil fuel sourcesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seems to have been overzealous in registering a case against environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta and his organisation, Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, for violating Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) provisions. The gist of the allegations is their using foreign funds to encourage litigation that will stall existing and prospective coal-fired plants in India. While the sourcing of foreign funds and use is certainly something to keep an eye on, any criminalising of the act of opposition to coal plants, when pursued via legal means, is an absurd stance for a government to adopt. As a signatory to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and various key agreements, India has undertaken to gradually reduce its reliance on fossil fuel sources and be net zero, or source almost all power from non-fossil fuel sources by 2070. India has also consistently endorsed reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that speak of the urgency of ensuring global temperatures do not exceed 1.5°C of pre-industrial times, necessitating that global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. However, under principles of Common and Differentiated Responsibility, India has maintained its right to rely on coal plants in the interim as it is still a developing economy.(Extracted with edits and reviews from "The right to litigate: On limiting the industrial exploitation of nature" The Hindu, April 26, 2023)Q.Why was a case registered against Ritwick Dutta and his organization under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA)?a)For opposing coal plants via legal meansb)For violating environmental regulationsc)For using foreign funds to encourage litigation against coal plantsd)For advocating for fossil fuel sourcesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 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.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seems to have been overzealous in registering a case against environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta and his organisation, Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, for violating Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) provisions. The gist of the allegations is their using foreign funds to encourage litigation that will stall existing and prospective coal-fired plants in India. While the sourcing of foreign funds and use is certainly something to keep an eye on, any criminalising of the act of opposition to coal plants, when pursued via legal means, is an absurd stance for a government to adopt. As a signatory to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and various key agreements, India has undertaken to gradually reduce its reliance on fossil fuel sources and be net zero, or source almost all power from non-fossil fuel sources by 2070. India has also consistently endorsed reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that speak of the urgency of ensuring global temperatures do not exceed 1.5°C of pre-industrial times, necessitating that global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. However, under principles of Common and Differentiated Responsibility, India has maintained its right to rely on coal plants in the interim as it is still a developing economy.(Extracted with edits and reviews from "The right to litigate: On limiting the industrial exploitation of nature" The Hindu, April 26, 2023)Q.Why was a case registered against Ritwick Dutta and his organization under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA)?a)For opposing coal plants via legal meansb)For violating environmental regulationsc)For using foreign funds to encourage litigation against coal plantsd)For advocating for fossil fuel sourcesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seems to have been overzealous in registering a case against environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta and his organisation, Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, for violating Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) provisions. The gist of the allegations is their using foreign funds to encourage litigation that will stall existing and prospective coal-fired plants in India. While the sourcing of foreign funds and use is certainly something to keep an eye on, any criminalising of the act of opposition to coal plants, when pursued via legal means, is an absurd stance for a government to adopt. As a signatory to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and various key agreements, India has undertaken to gradually reduce its reliance on fossil fuel sources and be net zero, or source almost all power from non-fossil fuel sources by 2070. India has also consistently endorsed reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that speak of the urgency of ensuring global temperatures do not exceed 1.5°C of pre-industrial times, necessitating that global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. However, under principles of Common and Differentiated Responsibility, India has maintained its right to rely on coal plants in the interim as it is still a developing economy.(Extracted with edits and reviews from "The right to litigate: On limiting the industrial exploitation of nature" The Hindu, April 26, 2023)Q.Why was a case registered against Ritwick Dutta and his organization under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA)?a)For opposing coal plants via legal meansb)For violating environmental regulationsc)For using foreign funds to encourage litigation against coal plantsd)For advocating for fossil fuel sourcesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seems to have been overzealous in registering a case against environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta and his organisation, Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, for violating Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) provisions. The gist of the allegations is their using foreign funds to encourage litigation that will stall existing and prospective coal-fired plants in India. While the sourcing of foreign funds and use is certainly something to keep an eye on, any criminalising of the act of opposition to coal plants, when pursued via legal means, is an absurd stance for a government to adopt. As a signatory to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and various key agreements, India has undertaken to gradually reduce its reliance on fossil fuel sources and be net zero, or source almost all power from non-fossil fuel sources by 2070. India has also consistently endorsed reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that speak of the urgency of ensuring global temperatures do not exceed 1.5°C of pre-industrial times, necessitating that global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. However, under principles of Common and Differentiated Responsibility, India has maintained its right to rely on coal plants in the interim as it is still a developing economy.(Extracted with edits and reviews from "The right to litigate: On limiting the industrial exploitation of nature" The Hindu, April 26, 2023)Q.Why was a case registered against Ritwick Dutta and his organization under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA)?a)For opposing coal plants via legal meansb)For violating environmental regulationsc)For using foreign funds to encourage litigation against coal plantsd)For advocating for fossil fuel sourcesCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seems to have been overzealous in registering a case against environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta and his organisation, Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, for violating Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) provisions. The gist of the allegations is their using foreign funds to encourage litigation that will stall existing and prospective coal-fired plants in India. While the sourcing of foreign funds and use is certainly something to keep an eye on, any criminalising of the act of opposition to coal plants, when pursued via legal means, is an absurd stance for a government to adopt. As a signatory to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and various key agreements, India has undertaken to gradually reduce its reliance on fossil fuel sources and be net zero, or source almost all power from non-fossil fuel sources by 2070. India has also consistently endorsed reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that speak of the urgency of ensuring global temperatures do not exceed 1.5°C of pre-industrial times, necessitating that global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. However, under principles of Common and Differentiated Responsibility, India has maintained its right to rely on coal plants in the interim as it is still a developing economy.(Extracted with edits and reviews from "The right to litigate: On limiting the industrial exploitation of nature" The Hindu, April 26, 2023)Q.Why was a case registered against Ritwick Dutta and his organization under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA)?a)For opposing coal plants via legal meansb)For violating environmental regulationsc)For using foreign funds to encourage litigation against coal plantsd)For advocating for fossil fuel sourcesCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seems to have been overzealous in registering a case against environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta and his organisation, Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, for violating Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) provisions. The gist of the allegations is their using foreign funds to encourage litigation that will stall existing and prospective coal-fired plants in India. While the sourcing of foreign funds and use is certainly something to keep an eye on, any criminalising of the act of opposition to coal plants, when pursued via legal means, is an absurd stance for a government to adopt. As a signatory to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and various key agreements, India has undertaken to gradually reduce its reliance on fossil fuel sources and be net zero, or source almost all power from non-fossil fuel sources by 2070. India has also consistently endorsed reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that speak of the urgency of ensuring global temperatures do not exceed 1.5°C of pre-industrial times, necessitating that global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. However, under principles of Common and Differentiated Responsibility, India has maintained its right to rely on coal plants in the interim as it is still a developing economy.(Extracted with edits and reviews from "The right to litigate: On limiting the industrial exploitation of nature" The Hindu, April 26, 2023)Q.Why was a case registered against Ritwick Dutta and his organization under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA)?a)For opposing coal plants via legal meansb)For violating environmental regulationsc)For using foreign funds to encourage litigation against coal plantsd)For advocating for fossil fuel sourcesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seems to have been overzealous in registering a case against environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta and his organisation, Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, for violating Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) provisions. The gist of the allegations is their using foreign funds to encourage litigation that will stall existing and prospective coal-fired plants in India. While the sourcing of foreign funds and use is certainly something to keep an eye on, any criminalising of the act of opposition to coal plants, when pursued via legal means, is an absurd stance for a government to adopt. As a signatory to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and various key agreements, India has undertaken to gradually reduce its reliance on fossil fuel sources and be net zero, or source almost all power from non-fossil fuel sources by 2070. India has also consistently endorsed reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that speak of the urgency of ensuring global temperatures do not exceed 1.5°C of pre-industrial times, necessitating that global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. However, under principles of Common and Differentiated Responsibility, India has maintained its right to rely on coal plants in the interim as it is still a developing economy.(Extracted with edits and reviews from "The right to litigate: On limiting the industrial exploitation of nature" The Hindu, April 26, 2023)Q.Why was a case registered against Ritwick Dutta and his organization under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA)?a)For opposing coal plants via legal meansb)For violating environmental regulationsc)For using foreign funds to encourage litigation against coal plantsd)For advocating for fossil fuel sourcesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seems to have been overzealous in registering a case against environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta and his organisation, Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, for violating Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) provisions. The gist of the allegations is their using foreign funds to encourage litigation that will stall existing and prospective coal-fired plants in India. While the sourcing of foreign funds and use is certainly something to keep an eye on, any criminalising of the act of opposition to coal plants, when pursued via legal means, is an absurd stance for a government to adopt. As a signatory to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and various key agreements, India has undertaken to gradually reduce its reliance on fossil fuel sources and be net zero, or source almost all power from non-fossil fuel sources by 2070. India has also consistently endorsed reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that speak of the urgency of ensuring global temperatures do not exceed 1.5°C of pre-industrial times, necessitating that global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. However, under principles of Common and Differentiated Responsibility, India has maintained its right to rely on coal plants in the interim as it is still a developing economy.(Extracted with edits and reviews from "The right to litigate: On limiting the industrial exploitation of nature" The Hindu, April 26, 2023)Q.Why was a case registered against Ritwick Dutta and his organization under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA)?a)For opposing coal plants via legal meansb)For violating environmental regulationsc)For using foreign funds to encourage litigation against coal plantsd)For advocating for fossil fuel sourcesCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seems to have been overzealous in registering a case against environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta and his organisation, Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, for violating Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) provisions. The gist of the allegations is their using foreign funds to encourage litigation that will stall existing and prospective coal-fired plants in India. While the sourcing of foreign funds and use is certainly something to keep an eye on, any criminalising of the act of opposition to coal plants, when pursued via legal means, is an absurd stance for a government to adopt. As a signatory to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and various key agreements, India has undertaken to gradually reduce its reliance on fossil fuel sources and be net zero, or source almost all power from non-fossil fuel sources by 2070. India has also consistently endorsed reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that speak of the urgency of ensuring global temperatures do not exceed 1.5°C of pre-industrial times, necessitating that global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. However, under principles of Common and Differentiated Responsibility, India has maintained its right to rely on coal plants in the interim as it is still a developing economy.(Extracted with edits and reviews from "The right to litigate: On limiting the industrial exploitation of nature" The Hindu, April 26, 2023)Q.Why was a case registered against Ritwick Dutta and his organization under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA)?a)For opposing coal plants via legal meansb)For violating environmental regulationsc)For using foreign funds to encourage litigation against coal plantsd)For advocating for fossil fuel sourcesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev