Legal Reasoning

Each set of questions in this section is based on the reasoning and

arguments set out in the preceding passage. Please answer each
question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the
corresponding passage. In some instances, more than one option
may be the answer to the question; in such a case, please choose
the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the
question.

1. During the lockdown, Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the
“IPC”) has been widely invoked against those not following it. In a
communication to the states on March 24, the Home Ministry said
persons violating the containment measures will be punished under
provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (the “DMA”), besides
Section 188 of the IPC. A look at these and related provisions: Section
188 of the IPC punishes those who disobey an order passed by a public
servant, and provides for imprisonment ranging from one to six months.
For those violating orders passed under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
(the “EDA”), Section 188 of the IPC is the provision under which
punishment is awarded. Section 51 of the DMA provides for punishment
for two kinds of offences: obstructing any officer or employee of the
government or person authorised by any authority under the DMA in the
discharge of their functions; and refusing to comply with any direction
given by the authorities under the DMA. Punishment can extend to one
year on conviction, or two years if the refusal leads to loss of lives or any
imminent danger. Section 505 of the IPC provides for imprisonment of
three years or fine, or both, for those who publish or circulate anything
which is likely to cause fear or alarm. Section 54 of the DMA provides
for imprisonment, extending to one year, for those who make or circulate
a false alarm or warning regarding a disaster or its severity or magnitude.
Under Section 52 of the DMA, whoever makes a false claim for obtaining
“any relief, assistance, repair, reconstruction or other benefits” from any
official authority can be sentenced to a maximum of two years’
imprisonment, and a fine will be imposed on the person. Any authority
under the DMA can requisition resources like persons and material
resources, premises like land or building, or sheds and vehicles for rescue
operations. Though there is a provision for compensation under the
DMA, any person who disobeys such an order can be sentenced to
imprisonment up to one year.

1.1 Akram has been stuck at his home, under lockdown for weeks, and is
getting bored because he has had nothing to do for a long time – his
school-leaving exams are over, and the entrance examinations he has
been preparing for have been postponed. He decides to have some
fun, and manipulates an image on his computer; the manipulated
image shows Akram’s school building in ruins. Akram then circulates
the image to his friends on their WhatsApp group, with the caption:
“This is what our school will look like in five hundred years!” Jyoti,
one of Akram’s friends on the WhatsApp group where he circulated
the image, overlooks the caption, and thinks their school building has
been destroyed. She gets very frightened, and her parents complain to
the police, who wish to file a case under Section 505 of the IPC
against Akram. Will the police case succeed?

(a) Yes, since Akram circulated something that was likely to cause
fear among his
schoolmates.
(b) Yes, since Akram should have acted in a more mature manner in
difficult times like
the lockdown.
(c) No, since Akram had only sent the image to his friends, and had
not ‘circulated’ it.
(d) No, since the image along with the caption were not likely to
cause fear or alarm.

1.2 Once the incident involving the image had been resolved, Akram took
to spending an hour standing in his balcony every evening, looking
out at his neighbourhood. One day, he noticed a few medical workers
in protective equipment knocking at his neighbour, Mr. Mishra’s
door. The workers had come there to collect a sample from Mr.
Mishra for a Covid-19 test, since Mr. Mishra had reported certain
Covid-19-like symptoms. The workers were employees at the local
government hospital, and were acting under the orders of their
superior, an authority under the DMA. Mr. Mishra, however, refused
to open his door, and the workers had to go back. Later in the day, the
police told Mr. Mishra that if he did not cooperate and provide a
sample for testing, they would file a case against him under Section
51 of the DMA. Has Mr. Mishra violated Section 51 of the DMA?

(a) No, since Mr. Mishra is not a government employee.

 (b) Yes, Mr. Mishra had obstructed government employees from
performing their functions.
(c) Yes, since Mr. Mishra was bound to provide a sample once he had
reported symptoms.
(d) No, since the orders of the DMA authority applied to the medical
workers, and not to Mr. Mishra

1.3 Mr. Mishra refused to provide a sample even after the police told him
they might take action against him under Section 51 of the DMA. In
the greater interest of obtaining a sample so as to ensure there was no
outbreak in Mr. Mishra’s neighbourhood, the police decided to speak
with him again, and this time, they told him that they would also file a
case against him under Section 188 of the IPC (in addition to a case
under Section 51 of the DMA). Has Mr. Mishra violated both, Section
188 of the IPC, as well as Section 51 of the DMA?

(a) No, one cannot be prosecuted and punished for the same crime
under two different sections of the law.
(b) No, since Section 188 of the IPC only applies to the wrongdoings
of a public servant. (c) Yes, by refusing to provide a sample, Mr.
Mishra had violated both, Section 51 of the DMA as well as Section
188 of the IPC.
(d) No, Mr. Mishra has violated neither Section 51 of the DMA nor
Section 188 of the IPC.

1.4 Eventually, Mr. Mishra agrees to provide a sample, and is told that his
results would be available in 24 hours. While he is awaiting the
results, Mr. Mishra gets agitated, and writes a letter to the local
District Magistrate, claiming his family has been badly affected by
the Covid-19 pandemic, and since he was suffering from the illness
himself, his family should be provided compensation. Thankfully
however, Mr. Mishra’s test results are negative for the illness. The
police are now very upset with Mr. Mishra, and wish to file a case
against him for violating Section 52 of the DMA. Has Mr. Mishra
violated Section 52 of the DMA?

(a) No, since he was worried about his test results, and was justified
in claiming compensation.
(b) Yes, since he had filed a false claim for compensation with the
District Magistrate.
(c) Yes, since he had initially refused to provide a sample to the
medical workers.
(d) No, since his test results were negative.
 1.5 Some days after the incidents described in the previous questions, Mr.
Mishra receives a phone call from one of his employees. The
employee tells Mr. Mishra that the warehouse where he stocked the
goods he traded in had been flooded because of a recent storm. Mr.
Mishra is very upset at hearing this, and immediately runs across to
Akram’s house. Akram’s father, Mr. Chagla, also works for Mr.
Mishra, and Mr. Mishra tells Mr. Chagla that he must hand over the
keys to his car to Mr. Mishra immediately, since he wanted to use it
to rescue the goods from the warehouse. Mr. Mishra also tells Mr.
Chagla that since Mr. Chagla worked for him, Mr. Mishra was an
‘authority’, and could therefore requisition the car from Mr. Chagla
under the DMA. Is Mr. Mishra correct?

(a) No, the power to requisition resources under the DMA is only
available to an authority under the DMA, not to an employer.
(b) No, the power to requisition resources under the DMA is only
available in order to rescue people, not goods.
(c) Yes, an employer is an ‘authority’ in relation to an employee, and
so, Mr. Chagla must give Mr. Mishra the keys to his car.
(d) Yes, since the loss of the goods would mean that even Mr.
Chagla’s livelihood would be affected badly.

2. A student of mathematics in Delhi University can now choose to

simultaneously pursue any other degree course, say English Literature
from IGNOU or any other institution. In a move to improve their career
prospects, the University Grants Commission (the "UGC") has approved
a proposal to allow students to pursue two degree programmes at the
same time. One of the degrees has to be in the regular (that is, non-
distance or online) mode and the other either in distance learning or
online mode. However, this does not mean that a student can enrol in a
Master’s, Doctorate, or other advanced programme before completing
their undergraduate programme. A student can pursue two degrees in
different streams as well as from different institutions. They may also opt
for the same institution, provided it offers multiple modes of learning. As
per the UGC, since there is a minimum attendance criteria attached to
regular degree programmes, the second degree has to be through distance
or online mode.

2.1 Madhav is currently enrolled in the third year of a five-year

undergraduate law programme at a National Law University (an
 “NLU”). He wishes to work in the field of corporate laws after he
graduates, and decides to add to his credentials. Madhav therefore
enrols in two separate certificate programmes, one provided by the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (the “ICAI”) and one
provided by the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (the
“ICSI”), and decides that he will complete these simultaneously with
his law degree. When the Registrar of Madhav’s NLU comes to hear
of this, he tells Madhav that he cannot pursue all three programmes
simultaneously, and that he must cancel his enrolment in one of the
three programmes. Is the Registrar correct?

(a) Yes, since the proposal approved by the UGC permits a student to
enrol in only two programmes at a time.
(b) No, since there is no limit on the number of degree programmes a
student can be enrolled in simultaneously.
(c) Yes, since the UGC’s relaxation of rules clearly states that one of
the programmes has to be provided in an online or distance mode.
(d) No, since the programmes provided by the ICAI and the ICSI are
certificate programmes and not degree programmes.

2.2 When Madhav’s NLU classmate Sarala hears about Madhav having
enrolled in additional programmes apart from the five-year law
programme, she too decides to gain additional qualifications so as to
boost her job prospects on graduating. She therefore enrols in a
Bachelor of Commerce (“BCom”) programme at a college in the city.
Since the classes for the BCom programme are conducted in the
evenings, Sarala feels confident of being able to attend her NLU law
classes in the morning, and the BCom classes in the evening.
Although the BCom classes are conducted on the college’s campus, in
the regular (that is, nondistance or online) mode, the campus is quite
close to that of Sarala’s NLU. However, the Registrar of the NLU
tells Sarala that she cannot be enrolled in that BCom programme
while she is still enrolled in the fiveyear law programme. Does Sarala
have to cancel her enrolment in the BCom programme?

(a) Yes, since a student can only enrol in two different degree
programmes if they are in the same stream.
(b) Yes, since a student in a regular degree programme can only enrol
for a second degree programme if the second programme is provided
in online or distance mode.
(c) No, since the UGC has now permitted students to enrol in two
degree programmes simultaneously.
 (d) No, since the same rule that was applied in Madhav’s case should
also be applied in Sarala’s case.

2.3 Hamsa, who is also in the same batch at the same NLU as Madhav
and Sarala, decides that she too must enhance her employability, and
so, decides to enrol in a Master’s in Commercial Law degree
programme (“MCL”) that her NLU provides in an online mode. The
Registrar of the NLU, who has decided to keep a close eye on the
students in Madhav’s batch by now, decides that this cannot be
allowed. He therefore tells Hamsa that she cannot enrol in the MCL
until she completes her five-year law programme. Is the Registrar
wrong?

(a) Yes, since the MCL is provided through the online mode.
(b) No, since a student can only enrol in a second degree programme
if it is provided by another institution.
(c) No, since Hamsa cannot enrol in the MCL until she completes her
undergraduate degree programme.
(d) Yes, the UGC has now permitted a student to enrol in two degree
programmes simultaneously.

2.4 Komalika is in the same batch as Madhav, Sarala, and Hamsa at the
NLU. Since she has a wide variety of interests in addition to her law
studies, she decides to study Physics along with her law programme.
She therefore enrols in an online Bachelor’s in Physics programme
provided by a famous overseas university. When Sarala hears about
this, she brings it to the attention of the Registrar of the NLU, and
argues that Komalika should not be allowed to enrol in the Physics
programme since it has no relation to her law studies, and Komalika’s
enrolment in the Physics programme violates UGC rules. Is Sarala
correct?

(a) No, since Komalika alone can decide where her interests lie and
what she wishes to study.
(b) No, since the UGC rules do not place any restrictions on what
stream the second degree programme a student wishes to enrol for,
relates to.
(c) Yes, since studying for the Physics programme would only
distract Komalika from her law studies.
(d) Yes, since Physics and Law are completely unrelated subjects.

2.5 The Registrar of the NLU where Madhav, Sarala, Hamsa, and
Komalika are all studying, is inspired by the students’ efforts towards
 obtaining additional qualifications, and decides that he too should
explore new areas. He therefore starts teaching in three different
degree programmes, all provided by the same NLU in the ‘regular’
mode, simultaneously. Since the Registrar has complete his doctorate
many years ago, and since he is not enrolled as a student in any of
these three programmes, he claims that there is no obstacle to his
teaching in a Bachelor’s, Degree, and Doctorate programme
simultaneously. The NLU administration, however, tells the Registrar
that his teaching three different degree programmes in the ‘regular’
mode exceeds the limit of two degree programmes set down by the
UGC, as described in the passage above. Has the Registrar exceeded
this limit?

(a) Yes, since the Registrar is teaching in three different degree

programmes simultaneously.
(b) Yes, since the UGC has set down a limit of two degree
programmes.
(c) No, since the Registrar has already completed his doctorate many
years ago.
(d) No, since the limit described in the passage relates to the number
of degree programmes a student can enrol in simultaneously, and not
the number of programmes that one can teach simultaneously.

3. The IT Minister said in Parliament that, just as when there is provocative

writing in newspapers, the newspaper cannot say that it is not responsible,
if there is ―fake news‖ on social media, then social media platforms are
also responsible.

The Minister said that social media platforms must ensure that they have
a physical office in India, in order for them to be regulated as ‗online
intermediaries‘ under Indian law.

The Minister said that ―All social media platforms must base their
grievance officer in India who could act as the point of contact for all
grievances about fake news. The duty of such grievance officer should
cover not only to receive grievances about fake news on a real-time basis,
but also to inform law enforcement agencies.‖

It‘s important here to note how the Minister defined ‗fake news‘. He
said:

―Fake news is a type of propaganda that consists of deliberate

misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news
media or online social media. It can include text, visual, audio, data
report, etc. Fake news is written and published with the intent to mislead
in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, or gain financially or
politically, create disturbance and unrest, often using sensational,
dishonest, or outright fabricated headlines to increase readership, online
sharing, and Internet click revenue.

3.1 Suhail is a computer programmer who created and launched his own
app, a social networking platform called Critter‘. Since Critter is very
new, he wishes to attract users to it, and in order to do so, starts
posting messages on a rival social media platform called PikPok‘,
saying the PikPok is anti-national, and that its users should tear down
PikPok‘s offices and switch to Critter. PikPok‘s CEO, Rajesh, sees
Suhail‘s posts, but does not take them seriously, and does not delete
them. The authorities claim that PikPok is guilty of permitting fake
news‘ on PikPok. Are they correct?

(a) No, since it was Suhail who posted the messages, and not Rajesh.
(b) No, since the messages were directed against PikPok, and so,
PikPok was the victim in this case.
(c) Yes, since Suhail‘s posts on PikPok contained deliberate
misinformation and were intended to damage PikPok.
(d) Yes, since Rajesh did not take Critter as a serious threat.

3.2 Upset at the incident with Suhail and Critter, Rajesh decides to
appoint an employee of PikPok, Roger, as PikPok‘s grievance officer.
Roger is based in PikPok‘s office in Bengaluru, and handles all
grievances that PikPok receives. While he was on a week-long
holiday to Sri Lanka, he checked his email continuously, and noticed
that Suhail had sent him an email with a grievance in which he
claimed that some messages criticising Critter had been posted on
PikPok, and that these messages were fake news‘. Roger answered the
email, and when he got back to office, removed the messages. When
Suhail discovered that Roger had answered his email from Sri Lanka,
he complained to the authorities that PikPok‘s grievance officer was
not based in India. Is he right?

(a) No, since Roger was located in PikPok‘s Bengaluru office, and
had only gone out of the country on a week-long holiday.
(b) Yes, since Roger was not in India when he responded to Suhail‘s
grievance.
(c) No, since Roger had handled Suhail‘s grievance on a real-time
basis.
 (d) Yes, since Roger had only deleted the messages after coming
back to India.

3.3 Suhail makes a second complaint to the authorities against PikPok,

claiming that Roger had failed in his duties, since he had only deleted
the messages that Suhail had complained about after coming back to
India, and so, had not responded to Suhail‘s grievance on a real-time
basis. Is Suhail right?

(a) Yes, since Roger had allowed the fake news to continue to be
available on PikPok.
(b) No, since Roger had received his grievance on a real-time basis.
(c) No, since Roger had eventually deleted the messages that Suhail
had complained about.
(d) Yes, since there was a delay between Suhail‘s grievance and
Roger deleting the messages.

3.4 Prakash is a PikPok user, and often uses the platform to post
messages about people he does not like. He posts a message about
Reena, who stays in his apartment complex, saying the she was very
unfriendly. Upset at this, Reena complains that Prakash has posted
fake news. Does Prakash‘s message about Reena constitute fake
news?

(a) Yes, since the message was misleading, sensational, and intended
to create a disturbance.
(b) Yes, since the message was intended to cause harm to Reena.
(c) No, since Prakash‘s message did not contain any intentional
misinformation.
(d) No, since Reena did complain, showing that she was in fact
unfriendly.

3.5 Reena is an investigative journalist, and often writes articles exposing

corruption in government agencies. Upset at the way the authorities
treated her complaint against Prakash, she decides to investigate the
IT department of the state government, and then writes an article in a
newspaper on the basis of some facts that she discovered in the course
of her investigation, describing how various officials in the IT
department would take bribes to resolve complaints about fake news.
Is Reena‘s article fake news?

(a) Yes, since Reena‘s article was intended to cause harm to the IT
department.
 (b) No, since Reena‘s article was published in a newspaper, and not
on a social media platform.
(c) Yes, since she wrote the article as she was upset about the manner
in which her complaint had been handled.
(d) No, since it was based on facts, and did not contain deliberate
misinformation.

Answer Key

1.1 D 1.2 B 1.3 C 1.4 B 1.5 A

2.1 D 2.2 B 2.3 C 2.4 B 2.5 D

3.1 C 3.2 A 3.3 B 3.4 C 3.5 D

Explanation
1.1 The correct answer is (d) - no, since the image along with the
caption were not likely to cause fear or alarm. Anyone who read
the caption accompanying the image would have known that the
image was fictional and imaginary, and thus, it cannot be said that
the image Akram circulated was ‘likely to cause fear or alarm’.
Given this, option (a) cannot be the correct answer. Option (b) is
irrelevant to the question, and so, it cannot be the correct answer.
As long as something is likely to cause fear or alarm, it is
irrelevant to whom that thing is sent; furthermore, sharing an
image on a WhatsApp group would amount to ‘circulation’, and
so, option (c) cannot be the correct answer.

1.2 The correct answer is (b) - yes, Mr. Mishra had obstructed
government employees from performing their functions. Since
Mr. Mishra refused to open his door and provide a sample to the
medical workers, who were only trying to discharge their
responsibilities, he had violated Section 51 of the DMA. Section
51 of the DMA seeks to punish anyone who obstructs a
 government officer or employee, or any person authorised by a
DMA authority, from discharging their functions; as such, it is
irrelevant whether Mr. Mishra is a government employee, and so,
option (a) is incorrect. For similar reasons, option (d), too, cannot
be the correct answer. Option (c) is irrelevant to the question, and
so, it cannot be the correct answer.

1.3 The correct answer is (c) - yes, by refusing to provide a sample,

Mr. Mishra had violated both, Section 51 of the DMA as well as
Section 188 of the IPC. The passage tells us that Section 188 of
the IPC punishes anyone who disobeys the orders of a public
servant. Since Mr. Mishra had refused to obey the orders of the
medical workers, and indirectly, their superior, all of whom are
public servants, Mr. Mishra had violated Section 188 of the IPC.
As we have seen in the rationale for the answer to Question 1.2,
he had also violated Section 51 of the DMA. Given this, option
(d) cannot be the correct answer. While the statement in option (a)
may be true, there is nothing in the information supplied to us in
the passage to support it, and so, it cannot be the correct answer.
Option (b) is wrong – Section 188 of the IPC punishes anyone
who disobeys the orders of a public servant - it is not limited only
to the wrongdoings of a public servant; therefore, option (b)
cannot be the correct answer.

1.4 The correct answer is (b) - yes, since he had filed a false claim for
compensation with the District Magistrate. Mr. Mishra claimed
compensation even before his test results were available, and
eventually, it turned out that he did not, in fact, have the illness.
Given this, his claim for compensation was false. While it is
understandable that Mr. Mishra was worried about his test results,
his claim was, nonetheless, false; therefore, option (a) cannot be
the correct answer. Options (c) and (d) are both irrelevant to the
question of whether Mr. Mishra had violated Section 52 of the
DMA, and therefore, neither option (c) nor option (d) can be the
correct answer.

1.5 The correct answer is (a) - no, the power to requisition resources
under the DMA is only available to an authority under the DMA,
not to an employer. The last paragraph of the passage clearly
provides that the power to requisition resources is available to any
“authority under the DMA”. Since this is the case, option (c)
cannot be the correct answer. There is nothing in the passage to
suggest that the ‘rescue’ must be in relation only to persons, and
 not in relation to goods, and so, option (b) cannot be the correct
answer. Option (d) is irrelevant to the question, and so, it cannot
be the correct answer.

2 .
2.1 The correct answer is (d) - no, since the programmes provided by
the ICAI and the ICSI are certificate programmes and not degree
programmes. The passage tells us that the UGC has now
permitted students to enrol in up to two degree programmes
simultaneously (provided they satisfy the additional conditions set
out in the passage). Since the additional programmes that Madhav
has enrolled in are not degree programmes, he would not be
violating this limit. Given this, option (a) cannot be the correct
answer. Option (b) is wrong, since the passage tells us that there is
indeed a limit of two degree programmes that one can be enrolled
in simultaneously. Option (c) is irrelevant to the question, and so,
it cannot be the correct answer.

2.2 The correct answer is (b) – yes, since a student in a regular degree
programme can only enrol for a second degree programme if the
second programme is provided in online or distance mode. This
rule is clearly set out in the second and third paragraphs of the
passage. Since the BCom programme was being provided in the
‘regular’ mode, Sarala would have to cancel her enrolment in that
programme. Option (a) is wrong – the passage tells us that there is
no restriction on which stream the second degree programme must
relate to; thus, it cannot be the correct answer. Option (c) does not
address the matter of the second programme having to be in the
online or distance mode, and so, it cannot be the correct answer.
Option (d) is irrelevant to the question, and so, it cannot be the
correct answer.

2.3 The correct answer is (c) – no, since Hamsa cannot enrol in the
MCL until she completes her undergraduate degree programme.
The passage tells us clearly that a student cannot enrol in a
Master’s, Doctorate, or other advanced programme before
completing their undergraduate programme; since Hamsa is only
in the third year of the five-year undergraduate law programme,
she cannot enrol in the MCL at this time. While option (a) may be
right about the fact that the MCL is provided in an online mode, it
does not address the fact that Hamsa is still completing her
undergraduate programme, and so, it cannot be the correct answer.
Option (b) is wrong – the passage tells us that a student may enrol
 in a second degree programme in either the same, or a different
institution, and so, it cannot be the correct answer. Option (d) does
not address the fact that a student cannot enrol in a Master’s
programme before completing their undergraduate programme,
and so, it cannot be the correct answer either.

2.4 The correct answer is (b) – no, since the UGC rules do not place
any restrictions on what stream the second degree programme a
student wishes to enrol for, relates to. The passage tells us clearly
that “A student can pursue two degrees in different streams as
well as from different institutions.” Given this, there is no bar on
Komalika pursuing an online Physics degree programme while
she is enrolled in the law programme at the NLU. Options (a), (b),
and (c) all set out subjective statements that may or may not be
right; however, none of them address the question of whether
Komalika’s enrolment in the Physics programme violates UGC
rules, and therefore, none of them can be the correct answer.

2.5 The correct answer is (d) – no, since the limit described in the
passage relates to the number of degree programmes a student can
enrol in simultaneously, and not the number of programmes that
one can teach simultaneously. Since the Registrar is teaching
these different programmes, and is not enrolled as a student in any
of them, the UGC’s limit, as described in the passage above, does
not relate to the Registrar. Given this, neither option (a) nor option
(b) can be the correct answer. Option (c) is irrelevant to the
question, and so, it cannot be the correct answer.

3 .
3.1 The correct answer is (c) - yes, since Suhail‘s posts on PikPok
contained deliberate misinformation and were intended to damage
PikPok. Suhail‘s messages were intended to cause damage to
PikPok, to try and create a gain for Critter, and they encouraged
people to indulge in violent activities against PikPok, and so, were
fake news. Since Rajesh saw these messages and decided not to
delete them, he has permitted fake news to be posted on PikPok.
While options (a) and (b) may be true, they do not address the
point that fake news was posted on PikPok, and that PikPok chose
not to do anything about it, and so, PikPok was responsible. While
option (d) may be true, it does not relate to whether the messages
were fake news, and so, (d) cannot be the correct answer.
3.2 The correct answer is (a) – no, since Roger was located in
PikPok‘s Bengaluru office, and had only gone out of the country
on a week-long holiday. The facts tell us that Roger was based in
PikPok‘s office in Bengaluru, and that he had only gone out of
India on a week-long holiday. Merely leaving the country for a
short holiday would not mean that Roger was not based in India,
and so, Suhail is not correct. While option (b) may be true, the
Minister‘s statements in the passage above require that the
grievance officer should be based in India, not that the grievance
officer could never leave the country or respond to grievances
while away from the country, and so, (b) cannot be the correct
answer. Similarly, while options (c) and (d) may or may not be
true, they do not address the point about where Roger was based,
and so, neither (c) nor (d) can be the correct answer.

3.3 The correct answer is (b) – no, since Roger had received his
grievance on a real-time basis. The Minister‘s statements in the
passage tell us that the grievance officer‘s duties include ―to
receive grievances on a real-time basis‖, and not to resolve such
grievances on a real-time basis. Therefore, Suhail‘s complaint is
not valid. Given this, neither option (a) nor option (d) can be the
correct answer. Option (c) also does not address whether Roger
had violated his duties, and so, (c) cannot be the correct answer.

3.4 The correct answer is (c) – no, since Prakash‘s message did not
contain any intentional misinformation. Prakash‘s message was a
matter of opinion – there is nothing in the facts to indicate that he
intended to cause harm to anyone, or that his message would lead
to any disturbances or violent incidents, or that it otherwise fell
within the definition of ‗fake news‘ provided in the passage.
Given this, option (b) cannot be the correct answer. While Prakash
used PikPok to post messages about people he did not like, there
is nothing in the facts to indicate that he intended to cause any
harm to them, and so, option (a) cannot be the correct answer.
Option (d) is irrelevant to the question, and so, (d) cannot be the
correct answer either.

3.5 The correct answer is (d) – no, since it was based on facts, and did
not contain deliberate misinformation. The facts tell us that
Reena‘s article was written ―on the basis of some facts that she
discovered in the course of her investigation‖. As such, it does not
fall within the definition of fake news provided in the passage.
While option (a) may or may not be true, the point remains that
Reena‘s article was not fake news for the reason that option (d) is
the correct answer, and so, (a) cannot be the correct answer.
Option (b) is incorrect because the definition of fake news in the
passage would include information published in traditional print
media like a newspaper, and so, (b) cannot be the correct answer.
While option (c) may be true, it does not address the point that the
article was based on facts, and so, was not fake news; therefore,
(c) cannot be the correct answer.