All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   In his historic address to the Parliament of... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
In his historic address to the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893, Swami Vivekananda declared, "I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth." It is ironical that a political party which conspicuously proclaims its allegiance to Swami Vivekananda has restricted by law, about 127 years later, citizenship to people on the grounds of both religion and nation.
Looking back, it is pertinent to ask why Jawaharlal Nehru, an international statesperson and a leading moral voice in the community of nations, refused to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
Scholars suggest that whereas he was committed to the principles enshrined in the Convention, he was unwilling to legally bind the country to its obligations.
The Convention first defines refugees as persons fleeing persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. Refugees get legal rights, most important of which are "non-refoulement", which prevents states from sending back refugees to persecution in their home countries. They also get secondary rights, such as to education, work and property.
India needs to bring in a refugee law which conforms to international conventions. This would, first, recognise eligible undocumented immigrants as refugees, based on evidence determined by due process of their persecution in their home countries. This would also assure them a set of binding rights. The most important of these is the guarantee that they would not be forced to return to the conditions of persecution, threatening their lives and liberty, which they escaped. The second is that they would be assured lives of dignity within India, with education, health care and livelihoods. Only then would India become the country which Swami Vivekananda was so proud of: a haven to the persecuted of the world, untainted by discrimination based on religion or nation.
Q. Every Citizen has the right to settle and reside in any part of the territory of India. A civil war occurred in Sri Lanka where the local Tamilians were being lynched and massacred. In order to save their life they migrated to the Indian state of Tamil Nadu to seek refuge. The state government passed a law to oust these immigrants. The order was challenged to be unconstitutional. Decide
  • a)
    The order is unconstitutional because right to life is available to every person irrespective of nationality
  • b)
    The order is constitutional because right to settle and reside is available only to Indian citizens
  • c)
    The order is constitutional because letting in migrants will increase the burden of population
  • d)
    Both (b) and (c)
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
In his historic address to the Parliament of the World's Religions in...
Correct Answer is b
The right is only available to citizens' of India and so the order is constitutional.
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.Q. It is commonly observed that even after a law is declared unconstitutional, law remains a part of statute repository published on India Code. Based on the author's reasoning, which of the following would be most correct

The demand for speedy retributive justice in the recent heinous crime done against a veterinarian has brought into light the question of extra-constitutional killings. The public sentiments, political demand of public lynching of rapists inter-alia have raised the debate whether a democratic country should follow the constitutional norms and adhere to the due process of law or shall it adopt the measures of retributive justice to bring instant and speedy justice to the victim.Retributive justice is a system of criminal justice based on thepunishment of offenders rather than on rehabilitation where as in REFORMATIVE THEORY the object of punishment should be the reform of the criminal, through the method of individualization. It is based on the humanistic principle that even if an offender commits a crime, he does not cease to be a human being.From protests on the ground, to the commentary on social media, to MPs in Parliament, the demand for the instant killing of the accused from all corners created the public opinion for theabandonment of the rule of lawthat appears to have led to the incident.Justice in any civilised society is not just about retribution, but also about deterrence, and in less serious crimes,rehabilitationof the offenders.There is a procedure prescribed by the law for criminal investigation which is embedded in constitutional principles.Article21of the Constitution (which is fundamental and non-derogabl e) states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.Also in theSalwa Judum case in 2011a core constitutional precept was set out that in modern constitutionalism no wielder of power can be allowed to claim the right to perpetrate state’s violence against anyone. This is also the touchstone of the constitutionally prescribed rule of law(Article 14).Hence,it is the responsibility of the police, being the officers of government, to follow the Constitutional principles and uphold the Right to Lifeof every individual whether an innocent one or a criminal.According toDr. B.R. Ambedkar,the pathways of justice are not linear nor without obstacles. But we have, as a people, chosen the route of democracy and the Constitution, so we really have no option but to school ourselves in constitutional morality that with time must replace public moralityQ.What does the author mean by Retributive Justice?

The Constitution which lays down the basic structure of a nation's polity is built on the foundations of certain fundamental values. The vision of socio-economic change through the Constitution is reflected in its lofty Preamble.The Preamble expresses the ideals and aspirations of a renascent India. By the year 1949, the Constituent Assembly had completed the drafting of the Fundamental Rights Chapter. Fundamental Rights are constitutional guarantees for the human rights of our people. These rights were one of the persistent demands of our leaders throughout the freedom struggle. The founding fathers were conscious of the fact that mere political democracy, i.e., getting the right to vote once in five years or so was meaningless unless it was accompanied by social and economic democracy. Dr. Ambedkar had said:"We do not want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people to come and capture power. The Constitution also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would be forming the government. That ideal is of economic democracy."Our founding fathers, however, were far-sighted people therefore they consolidated the principles of good governance as Directive Principles contradistinguished from issues of rights, government and politics.That is how the vision of our founding fathers and the aims and objectives which they wanted to achieve through the Constitution are contained in the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. These three may be described as the soul of the Constitution and the testament of the founding fathers to the succeeding generations together with the later Part on Fundamental Duties.Q. It is fundamental right of every citizen not to be discriminated on the ground of religion, race, sex, place of birth or any of them. However, nothing in the fundamental rights shall prevent the state from making any special provision for women, children or elderly. State of XYZ enacted a law granting reservation of 50% in National Law School XYZ - to the native students scoring more than 75% percent in XII Examination. Based on the essence of the passage, decide whether the move of reservation is constitutional or not

The Constitution which lays down the basic structure of a nation's polity is built on the foundations of certain fundamental values. The vision of socio-economic change through the Constitution is reflected in its lofty Preamble. The Preamble expresses the ideals and aspirations of a renascent India. By the year 1949, the Constituent Assembly had completed the drafting of the Fundamental Rights Chapter. Fundamental Rights are constitutional guarantees for the human rights of our people. These rights were one of the persistent demands of our leaders throughout the freedom struggle. The founding fathers were conscious of the fact that mere political democracy, i.e., getting the right to vote once in five years or so was meaningless unless it was accompanied by social and economic democracy. Dr. Ambedkar had said:"We do not want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people to come and capture power. The Constitution also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would be forming the government. That ideal is of economic democracy.""Our founding fathers, however, were far-sighted people therefore they consolidated the principles of good governance as Directive Principles contradistinguished from issues of rights, government and politics.That is how the vision of our founding fathers and the aims and objectives which they wanted to achieve through the Constitution are contained in the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. These three may be described as the soul of the Constitution and the testament of the founding fathers to the succeeding generations together with the later Part on Fundamental Duties.It is fundamental right of every citizen not to be discriminated on the ground of religion, race, sex, place of birth or any of them. However, nothing in the fundamental rights shall prevent the state from making any special provision for women, children or elderly. State of XYZ enacted a law granting reservation of 50% in National Law School XYZ - to the native students scoring more than 75% percent in XII Examination. Based on the essence of the passage, decide whether the move of reservation is constitutional or not

In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. That decision, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was heaped with praise by domestic and foreign media alike. But none of this stopped the police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, from arresting and detaining 18-year-old Tyagi in October 2017, for allegedly committing a crime under Section 66A - for posting some comments on Facebook. Mr. Tyagi's case is not alone.Media outlets have reported other instances where Section 66A has been invoked by the police, all of which points to an obvious, and serious, concern: what is the point of that landmark decision if the police still jail persons under unconstitutional laws?From police stations, to trial courts, and all the way up to the High Courts, we found Section 66A was still in vogue throughout the legal system. Equally disturbing was the discovery that this issue of applying unconstitutional penal laws long preceded Shreya Singhal and Section 66A. Before the recent decisions that held provisions in the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional (in whole or in part), the Supreme Court had famously done this, in 1983, by striking down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code in Mithu v. State of Punjab.In 2012, years after Section 303 had been struck down, the Rajasthan High Court intervened to save a person from being hanged for being convicted under that offence.We argue that a primary reason for poor enforcement of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality is signal failures between different branches of government. Commonly, in this context one thinks of active non-compliance that can undermine the work of courts - for instance, the aftermath of the Sabarimala verdict. But these publicised acts of defiance have hidden what is a systemic problem within the Indian legal system: there exists no official method for sharing information about such decisions, even those of constitutional import such as Shreya Singhal. We found that there is no formal system on information sharing in the hierarchical set-up of the Indian judiciary.Thus, enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money. But more importantly, until this basic flaw within is addressed, certain persons will remain exposed to denial of their right to life and personal liberty in the worst possible way imaginable. They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.Q. A Bill is introduced in the Parliament obliging the Constitutional Courts and the Superior Judiciary to issue circulars to subordinate courts apprising about the recent orders and judgments. In such a situation, according to the author

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

In his historic address to the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893, Swami Vivekananda declared, "I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth." It is ironical that a political party which conspicuously proclaims its allegiance to Swami Vivekananda has restricted by law, about 127 years later, citizenship to people on the grounds of both religion and nation.Looking back, it is pertinent to ask why Jawaharlal Nehru, an international statesperson and a leading moral voice in the community of nations, refused to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.Scholars suggest that whereas he was committed to the principles enshrined in the Convention, he was unwilling to legally bind the country to its obligations.The Convention first defines refugees as persons fleeing persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. Refugees get legal rights, most important of which are "non-refoulement", which prevents states from sending back refugees to persecution in their home countries. They also get secondary rights, such as to education, work and property.India needs to bring in a refugee law which conforms to international conventions. This would, first, recognise eligible undocumented immigrants as refugees, based on evidence determined by due process of their persecution in their home countries. This would also assure them a set of binding rights. The most important of these is the guarantee that they would not be forced to return to the conditions of persecution, threatening their lives and liberty, which they escaped. The second is that they would be assured lives of dignity within India, with education, health care and livelihoods. Only then would India become the country which Swami Vivekananda was so proud of: a haven to the persecuted of the world, untainted by discrimination based on religion or nation.Q. Every Citizen has the right to settle and reside in any part of the territory of India. A civil war occurred in Sri Lanka where the local Tamilians were being lynched and massacred. In order to save their life they migrated to the Indian state of Tamil Nadu to seek refuge. The state government passed a law to oust these immigrants. The order was challenged to be unconstitutional. Decidea)The order is unconstitutional because right to life is available to every person irrespective of nationalityb)The order is constitutional because right to settle and reside is available only to Indian citizensc)The order is constitutional because letting in migrants will increase the burden of populationd)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
In his historic address to the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893, Swami Vivekananda declared, "I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth." It is ironical that a political party which conspicuously proclaims its allegiance to Swami Vivekananda has restricted by law, about 127 years later, citizenship to people on the grounds of both religion and nation.Looking back, it is pertinent to ask why Jawaharlal Nehru, an international statesperson and a leading moral voice in the community of nations, refused to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.Scholars suggest that whereas he was committed to the principles enshrined in the Convention, he was unwilling to legally bind the country to its obligations.The Convention first defines refugees as persons fleeing persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. Refugees get legal rights, most important of which are "non-refoulement", which prevents states from sending back refugees to persecution in their home countries. They also get secondary rights, such as to education, work and property.India needs to bring in a refugee law which conforms to international conventions. This would, first, recognise eligible undocumented immigrants as refugees, based on evidence determined by due process of their persecution in their home countries. This would also assure them a set of binding rights. The most important of these is the guarantee that they would not be forced to return to the conditions of persecution, threatening their lives and liberty, which they escaped. The second is that they would be assured lives of dignity within India, with education, health care and livelihoods. Only then would India become the country which Swami Vivekananda was so proud of: a haven to the persecuted of the world, untainted by discrimination based on religion or nation.Q. Every Citizen has the right to settle and reside in any part of the territory of India. A civil war occurred in Sri Lanka where the local Tamilians were being lynched and massacred. In order to save their life they migrated to the Indian state of Tamil Nadu to seek refuge. The state government passed a law to oust these immigrants. The order was challenged to be unconstitutional. Decidea)The order is unconstitutional because right to life is available to every person irrespective of nationalityb)The order is constitutional because right to settle and reside is available only to Indian citizensc)The order is constitutional because letting in migrants will increase the burden of populationd)Both (b) and (c)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 In his historic address to the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893, Swami Vivekananda declared, "I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth." It is ironical that a political party which conspicuously proclaims its allegiance to Swami Vivekananda has restricted by law, about 127 years later, citizenship to people on the grounds of both religion and nation.Looking back, it is pertinent to ask why Jawaharlal Nehru, an international statesperson and a leading moral voice in the community of nations, refused to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.Scholars suggest that whereas he was committed to the principles enshrined in the Convention, he was unwilling to legally bind the country to its obligations.The Convention first defines refugees as persons fleeing persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. Refugees get legal rights, most important of which are "non-refoulement", which prevents states from sending back refugees to persecution in their home countries. They also get secondary rights, such as to education, work and property.India needs to bring in a refugee law which conforms to international conventions. This would, first, recognise eligible undocumented immigrants as refugees, based on evidence determined by due process of their persecution in their home countries. This would also assure them a set of binding rights. The most important of these is the guarantee that they would not be forced to return to the conditions of persecution, threatening their lives and liberty, which they escaped. The second is that they would be assured lives of dignity within India, with education, health care and livelihoods. Only then would India become the country which Swami Vivekananda was so proud of: a haven to the persecuted of the world, untainted by discrimination based on religion or nation.Q. Every Citizen has the right to settle and reside in any part of the territory of India. A civil war occurred in Sri Lanka where the local Tamilians were being lynched and massacred. In order to save their life they migrated to the Indian state of Tamil Nadu to seek refuge. The state government passed a law to oust these immigrants. The order was challenged to be unconstitutional. Decidea)The order is unconstitutional because right to life is available to every person irrespective of nationalityb)The order is constitutional because right to settle and reside is available only to Indian citizensc)The order is constitutional because letting in migrants will increase the burden of populationd)Both (b) and (c)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 In his historic address to the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893, Swami Vivekananda declared, "I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth." It is ironical that a political party which conspicuously proclaims its allegiance to Swami Vivekananda has restricted by law, about 127 years later, citizenship to people on the grounds of both religion and nation.Looking back, it is pertinent to ask why Jawaharlal Nehru, an international statesperson and a leading moral voice in the community of nations, refused to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.Scholars suggest that whereas he was committed to the principles enshrined in the Convention, he was unwilling to legally bind the country to its obligations.The Convention first defines refugees as persons fleeing persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. Refugees get legal rights, most important of which are "non-refoulement", which prevents states from sending back refugees to persecution in their home countries. They also get secondary rights, such as to education, work and property.India needs to bring in a refugee law which conforms to international conventions. This would, first, recognise eligible undocumented immigrants as refugees, based on evidence determined by due process of their persecution in their home countries. This would also assure them a set of binding rights. The most important of these is the guarantee that they would not be forced to return to the conditions of persecution, threatening their lives and liberty, which they escaped. The second is that they would be assured lives of dignity within India, with education, health care and livelihoods. Only then would India become the country which Swami Vivekananda was so proud of: a haven to the persecuted of the world, untainted by discrimination based on religion or nation.Q. Every Citizen has the right to settle and reside in any part of the territory of India. A civil war occurred in Sri Lanka where the local Tamilians were being lynched and massacred. In order to save their life they migrated to the Indian state of Tamil Nadu to seek refuge. The state government passed a law to oust these immigrants. The order was challenged to be unconstitutional. Decidea)The order is unconstitutional because right to life is available to every person irrespective of nationalityb)The order is constitutional because right to settle and reside is available only to Indian citizensc)The order is constitutional because letting in migrants will increase the burden of populationd)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for In his historic address to the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893, Swami Vivekananda declared, "I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth." It is ironical that a political party which conspicuously proclaims its allegiance to Swami Vivekananda has restricted by law, about 127 years later, citizenship to people on the grounds of both religion and nation.Looking back, it is pertinent to ask why Jawaharlal Nehru, an international statesperson and a leading moral voice in the community of nations, refused to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.Scholars suggest that whereas he was committed to the principles enshrined in the Convention, he was unwilling to legally bind the country to its obligations.The Convention first defines refugees as persons fleeing persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. Refugees get legal rights, most important of which are "non-refoulement", which prevents states from sending back refugees to persecution in their home countries. They also get secondary rights, such as to education, work and property.India needs to bring in a refugee law which conforms to international conventions. This would, first, recognise eligible undocumented immigrants as refugees, based on evidence determined by due process of their persecution in their home countries. This would also assure them a set of binding rights. The most important of these is the guarantee that they would not be forced to return to the conditions of persecution, threatening their lives and liberty, which they escaped. The second is that they would be assured lives of dignity within India, with education, health care and livelihoods. Only then would India become the country which Swami Vivekananda was so proud of: a haven to the persecuted of the world, untainted by discrimination based on religion or nation.Q. Every Citizen has the right to settle and reside in any part of the territory of India. A civil war occurred in Sri Lanka where the local Tamilians were being lynched and massacred. In order to save their life they migrated to the Indian state of Tamil Nadu to seek refuge. The state government passed a law to oust these immigrants. The order was challenged to be unconstitutional. Decidea)The order is unconstitutional because right to life is available to every person irrespective of nationalityb)The order is constitutional because right to settle and reside is available only to Indian citizensc)The order is constitutional because letting in migrants will increase the burden of populationd)Both (b) and (c)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 In his historic address to the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893, Swami Vivekananda declared, "I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth." It is ironical that a political party which conspicuously proclaims its allegiance to Swami Vivekananda has restricted by law, about 127 years later, citizenship to people on the grounds of both religion and nation.Looking back, it is pertinent to ask why Jawaharlal Nehru, an international statesperson and a leading moral voice in the community of nations, refused to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.Scholars suggest that whereas he was committed to the principles enshrined in the Convention, he was unwilling to legally bind the country to its obligations.The Convention first defines refugees as persons fleeing persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. Refugees get legal rights, most important of which are "non-refoulement", which prevents states from sending back refugees to persecution in their home countries. They also get secondary rights, such as to education, work and property.India needs to bring in a refugee law which conforms to international conventions. This would, first, recognise eligible undocumented immigrants as refugees, based on evidence determined by due process of their persecution in their home countries. This would also assure them a set of binding rights. The most important of these is the guarantee that they would not be forced to return to the conditions of persecution, threatening their lives and liberty, which they escaped. The second is that they would be assured lives of dignity within India, with education, health care and livelihoods. Only then would India become the country which Swami Vivekananda was so proud of: a haven to the persecuted of the world, untainted by discrimination based on religion or nation.Q. Every Citizen has the right to settle and reside in any part of the territory of India. A civil war occurred in Sri Lanka where the local Tamilians were being lynched and massacred. In order to save their life they migrated to the Indian state of Tamil Nadu to seek refuge. The state government passed a law to oust these immigrants. The order was challenged to be unconstitutional. Decidea)The order is unconstitutional because right to life is available to every person irrespective of nationalityb)The order is constitutional because right to settle and reside is available only to Indian citizensc)The order is constitutional because letting in migrants will increase the burden of populationd)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of In his historic address to the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893, Swami Vivekananda declared, "I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth." It is ironical that a political party which conspicuously proclaims its allegiance to Swami Vivekananda has restricted by law, about 127 years later, citizenship to people on the grounds of both religion and nation.Looking back, it is pertinent to ask why Jawaharlal Nehru, an international statesperson and a leading moral voice in the community of nations, refused to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.Scholars suggest that whereas he was committed to the principles enshrined in the Convention, he was unwilling to legally bind the country to its obligations.The Convention first defines refugees as persons fleeing persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. Refugees get legal rights, most important of which are "non-refoulement", which prevents states from sending back refugees to persecution in their home countries. They also get secondary rights, such as to education, work and property.India needs to bring in a refugee law which conforms to international conventions. This would, first, recognise eligible undocumented immigrants as refugees, based on evidence determined by due process of their persecution in their home countries. This would also assure them a set of binding rights. The most important of these is the guarantee that they would not be forced to return to the conditions of persecution, threatening their lives and liberty, which they escaped. The second is that they would be assured lives of dignity within India, with education, health care and livelihoods. Only then would India become the country which Swami Vivekananda was so proud of: a haven to the persecuted of the world, untainted by discrimination based on religion or nation.Q. Every Citizen has the right to settle and reside in any part of the territory of India. A civil war occurred in Sri Lanka where the local Tamilians were being lynched and massacred. In order to save their life they migrated to the Indian state of Tamil Nadu to seek refuge. The state government passed a law to oust these immigrants. The order was challenged to be unconstitutional. Decidea)The order is unconstitutional because right to life is available to every person irrespective of nationalityb)The order is constitutional because right to settle and reside is available only to Indian citizensc)The order is constitutional because letting in migrants will increase the burden of populationd)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for In his historic address to the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893, Swami Vivekananda declared, "I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth." It is ironical that a political party which conspicuously proclaims its allegiance to Swami Vivekananda has restricted by law, about 127 years later, citizenship to people on the grounds of both religion and nation.Looking back, it is pertinent to ask why Jawaharlal Nehru, an international statesperson and a leading moral voice in the community of nations, refused to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.Scholars suggest that whereas he was committed to the principles enshrined in the Convention, he was unwilling to legally bind the country to its obligations.The Convention first defines refugees as persons fleeing persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. Refugees get legal rights, most important of which are "non-refoulement", which prevents states from sending back refugees to persecution in their home countries. They also get secondary rights, such as to education, work and property.India needs to bring in a refugee law which conforms to international conventions. This would, first, recognise eligible undocumented immigrants as refugees, based on evidence determined by due process of their persecution in their home countries. This would also assure them a set of binding rights. The most important of these is the guarantee that they would not be forced to return to the conditions of persecution, threatening their lives and liberty, which they escaped. The second is that they would be assured lives of dignity within India, with education, health care and livelihoods. Only then would India become the country which Swami Vivekananda was so proud of: a haven to the persecuted of the world, untainted by discrimination based on religion or nation.Q. Every Citizen has the right to settle and reside in any part of the territory of India. A civil war occurred in Sri Lanka where the local Tamilians were being lynched and massacred. In order to save their life they migrated to the Indian state of Tamil Nadu to seek refuge. The state government passed a law to oust these immigrants. The order was challenged to be unconstitutional. Decidea)The order is unconstitutional because right to life is available to every person irrespective of nationalityb)The order is constitutional because right to settle and reside is available only to Indian citizensc)The order is constitutional because letting in migrants will increase the burden of populationd)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of In his historic address to the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893, Swami Vivekananda declared, "I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth." It is ironical that a political party which conspicuously proclaims its allegiance to Swami Vivekananda has restricted by law, about 127 years later, citizenship to people on the grounds of both religion and nation.Looking back, it is pertinent to ask why Jawaharlal Nehru, an international statesperson and a leading moral voice in the community of nations, refused to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.Scholars suggest that whereas he was committed to the principles enshrined in the Convention, he was unwilling to legally bind the country to its obligations.The Convention first defines refugees as persons fleeing persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. Refugees get legal rights, most important of which are "non-refoulement", which prevents states from sending back refugees to persecution in their home countries. They also get secondary rights, such as to education, work and property.India needs to bring in a refugee law which conforms to international conventions. This would, first, recognise eligible undocumented immigrants as refugees, based on evidence determined by due process of their persecution in their home countries. This would also assure them a set of binding rights. The most important of these is the guarantee that they would not be forced to return to the conditions of persecution, threatening their lives and liberty, which they escaped. The second is that they would be assured lives of dignity within India, with education, health care and livelihoods. Only then would India become the country which Swami Vivekananda was so proud of: a haven to the persecuted of the world, untainted by discrimination based on religion or nation.Q. Every Citizen has the right to settle and reside in any part of the territory of India. A civil war occurred in Sri Lanka where the local Tamilians were being lynched and massacred. In order to save their life they migrated to the Indian state of Tamil Nadu to seek refuge. The state government passed a law to oust these immigrants. The order was challenged to be unconstitutional. Decidea)The order is unconstitutional because right to life is available to every person irrespective of nationalityb)The order is constitutional because right to settle and reside is available only to Indian citizensc)The order is constitutional because letting in migrants will increase the burden of populationd)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice In his historic address to the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893, Swami Vivekananda declared, "I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth." It is ironical that a political party which conspicuously proclaims its allegiance to Swami Vivekananda has restricted by law, about 127 years later, citizenship to people on the grounds of both religion and nation.Looking back, it is pertinent to ask why Jawaharlal Nehru, an international statesperson and a leading moral voice in the community of nations, refused to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.Scholars suggest that whereas he was committed to the principles enshrined in the Convention, he was unwilling to legally bind the country to its obligations.The Convention first defines refugees as persons fleeing persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. Refugees get legal rights, most important of which are "non-refoulement", which prevents states from sending back refugees to persecution in their home countries. They also get secondary rights, such as to education, work and property.India needs to bring in a refugee law which conforms to international conventions. This would, first, recognise eligible undocumented immigrants as refugees, based on evidence determined by due process of their persecution in their home countries. This would also assure them a set of binding rights. The most important of these is the guarantee that they would not be forced to return to the conditions of persecution, threatening their lives and liberty, which they escaped. The second is that they would be assured lives of dignity within India, with education, health care and livelihoods. Only then would India become the country which Swami Vivekananda was so proud of: a haven to the persecuted of the world, untainted by discrimination based on religion or nation.Q. Every Citizen has the right to settle and reside in any part of the territory of India. A civil war occurred in Sri Lanka where the local Tamilians were being lynched and massacred. In order to save their life they migrated to the Indian state of Tamil Nadu to seek refuge. The state government passed a law to oust these immigrants. The order was challenged to be unconstitutional. Decidea)The order is unconstitutional because right to life is available to every person irrespective of nationalityb)The order is constitutional because right to settle and reside is available only to Indian citizensc)The order is constitutional because letting in migrants will increase the burden of populationd)Both (b) and (c)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

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
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup