The Hindu - 1 (News Based RC) | Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension (VARC) - CAT PDF Download

We've prepared a reading exercise based on an editorial from The Hindu, a respected Indian newspaper known for its insightful analysis of current affairs. After reading, questions test your understanding, inference, and critical thinking—ideal for CAT-level RC practice. Editorials enhance quick comprehension of complex arguments, nuanced viewpoints, and socio-political vocabulary, sharpening analytical skills on issues like free speech and governance.

Reading Comprehension

In urging the Union government to work on guidelines to regulate speech on social media, the Supreme Court of India is seeking to empower an executive that is already weaponising the legal limits on freedom of expression. In response to a petition by a non-profit assailing derogatory remarks by online figures against disabled persons, the Court issued instructions that further a problematic trend of the judiciary egging on the state to encroach on legal grey areas with statutory restrictions that undermine constitutionally guaranteed rights. To regard distasteful humour, however disturbing it might be, as a problem to be solved through the courts and by executive rulemaking is to fall into a deceptive trap of imagined righteousness that progressive democracies should avoid. There are always unpleasant consequences in expanding powers to police speech: partisans wield their powers to ferociously monitor what is or is not appropriate, instrumentalising agencies of the state to suppress art and political speech they do not like; citizens find themselves constantly looking over their shoulder before expressing themselves. Under the overbearing atmosphere of censored expression, truths and ideas that must be reckoned with for a functioning democracy are stifled. People should not have to constantly look against asterisks that set terms and conditions for fundamental liberties. Film producers and directors have been pushed away from exploring subject matters that would help India progress socially, and journalists have been dealing with first information reports for carrying out their professional duties.

In recent years, the Union government has, formally and informally, expanded its control of online speech, with the problematic Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and an amendment to those Rules that would allow social media companies to be proceeded against for content posted by users that has been flagged by the government. Monday’s (August 25, 2025) instructions seem set to expand those ambitions, which are themselves under challenge with the Supreme Court. Hate speech and speech inciting violence against minorities are criminalised in India, giving disadvantaged groups powerful avenues of recourse when they are legitimately wronged. Handing an executive, which already has a record of mala fide weaponisation of media and speech regulations, more powers would be dangerous in the extreme. At a fundamental level, such judicial pronouncements, which cite “misuse of freedom of speech” as a ground, seem to misperceive the framework of their institutional role: that of a protector of rights under a clear constitutional framework, and not of an unchallenged lord in a feudal society.

Q1: The phrase "deceptive trap of imagined righteousness" primarily critiques:
(a) The executive's partisan suppression of dissent under ethical pretexts
(b) The judiciary's moral posturing in treating distasteful humor as a regulatory "problem"
(c) Citizens' perceptual illusion of self-censorship in democratic societies
(d) The non-profit petitioner's overreliance on court-mandated apologies
Ans: (b)
Explanation: The editorial uses the phrase to highlight the seductive false morality of judicially empowering executive intervention in "distasteful humour," a trap progressive democracies avoid, as it leads to broader speech suppression rather than genuine protection.

Q2: Which would most weaken the editorial's argument against the Supreme Court's directive?
(a) Existing hate speech laws are frequently weaponized against political opponents
(b) The 2021 IT Rules have been judicially upheld without eroding free expression
(c) Social media apologies effectively deter derogatory content without executive expansion
(d) Film producers continue exploring progressive themes despite regulatory fears
Ans: (c)
Explanation: The core thesis warns of executive overreach enabling censorship; proven efficacy of apologies without broader powers would undermine the claimed "dangerous" risks of empowering the state, as it suggests targeted recourse suffices.

Q3: The editorial's reference to the judiciary "not of an unchallenged lord in a feudal society" implies:
(a) A call for paternalistic judicial protection of liberties in hierarchical terms
(b) Satire of the Court's directives mimicking executive fiat, contra constitutional limits
(c) Equivalence between executive weaponization and pre-colonial absolutism
(d) Advocacy for clarifying legal grey areas through judicial precedent alone
Ans: (b)
Explanation: It contrasts the judiciary's rights-protecting role under constitutionalism with feudal unchecked power, critiquing the directive as overreach that "eggs on" state encroachment rather than safeguarding against it.

Q4: The "overbearing atmosphere of censored expression" is said to stifle "truths and ideas" essential for democracy by:
(a) Diverting judicial focus to trivial petitions over core duties
(b) Instrumentalizing state agencies to suppress art and political speech via partisanship
(c) Increasing platform compliance costs under IT Rules amendments
(d) Eroding the criminal efficacy of hate speech laws against minorities
Ans: (b)
Explanation: The text explicitly links expanded policing powers to partisans "ferociously monitor[ing]" and suppressing disliked art/politics, fostering self-censorship where citizens "look over their shoulder," thus choking democratic discourse.