PASSAGE 1 | Logical reasoning

Rajasthan Governor Kalraj Mishra could have sought a floor test in the State Assembly to ensure
that the government of Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot has a majority, as soon as a rebellion in the
ruling Congress cast a shadow on it. Far from that, Mr. Mishra now appears to be bending over
backwards to delay a trust vote. The Governor has cited six reasons for his procrastination in
calling an Assembly session. But the Supreme Court has settled that the Governor has no
discretionary powers in summoning a session of the Assembly, and he or she is bound to act
according to the aid and advice of the CM and the Council of Ministers. The Governor can require
the CM and the Council of Ministers to seek a trust vote if he or she has reasons to believe that
they have lost the confidence of the Assembly. Either way, the only appropriate way forward for
Mr. Mishra is to convene the session and allow the democratic process to take its course. Now
that the State cabinet has reiterated its demand for a session, specifying a date and an agenda as
demanded by the Governor, he should not look for more excuses and bring embarrassment to
the high office he holds.

The CM has said the Governor is acting under pressure from the Centre, as he took the battle to
the streets. Congress MLAs supporting the CM held a dharna at the Governor’s residence, and a
public protest is to be held on Monday. It is instructive to compare Mr. Mishra’s conduct with that
of Lalji Tandon, the former Governor of Madhya Pradesh, when similar sabotage brought down
the Congress government led by Kamal Nath in March. Mr. Nath had said Congress MLAs were
held captive, and the voting could be vitiated, but the Governor declared that the failure to take
an immediate floor test would be presumed as a lack of majority. Mr. Mishra wants to ensure
that all MLAs are free to move around before a session could take place, though there is no
public knowledge of anyone complaining to him being restrained. He requires the government to
take into consideration the spread of the novel coronavirus, but in Madhya Pradesh, the
reasoning was the opposite — the Governor did not want any delay on account of the pandemic.
These arguments of two Governors four months apart in two States certainly appear
contradictory, but also partisan in favour of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The BJP’s imprint is
unmistakable in the crisis in Rajasthan, its denial apart. The Raj Bhavan should not be a tool of
the BJP to dislodge and install governments as and when it wants. Mr. Mishra too has a test to
pass, of constitutional morality.

Q. Which of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?

A. Governors should act on their own conscience.
B. Governors should act in the favour of the party who appointed it.
C. Governors should not act at the behest of the party ruling at the Centre.
D. Governors should act at the behest of the party ruling in the State.

Q.Which of the following is the author most likely to agree with?

A. Governor should hinder the democratic process in taking it course.
B. Governor should let the democratic process take it course.
C. Governor should improvise the democratic process to favour the political party they are
affiliated to.
D. Governor should favour the CM and his Council of Ministers instead of following the
democratic process.

Q. Which of the following argument is same as that of the two governors in the passage?
A. Rahul loves Vanilla whereas Rohit loves Strawberry but of different brands.
B. Ayush likes Kohli whereas Ankit likes Dhoni, but they both only support India.
C. Rajni prefer tea whereas Amitabh prefers coffee.
D. Ramesh is Rani’s best friend whereas Piyush is Ankita’s best friend but they both are enemies.

Q. Which of the following is the author most likely to disagree with?

A. Governor have no discretionary power in summoning a session of the assembly.
B. Governor have no discretionary power in summoning a session of the assembly and he or she
is bound to act on the aid & advice of the CM & the Council of Ministers.
C. Governor has the discretionary power to summon a session of the assembly based on the aid
and advice of the CM & the Council of Ministers.
D. Governor has discretionary power in summoning a session of the assembly.

Q. Which of the following must be true about BJP based on the opinion of the author in the
passage?
A. BJP is the ruling party at the Centre.
B. BJP uses Governors as a tool to dislodge and install governments against the democratic
process.
C. BJP brought down the Congress government led by Kamal Nath in March using democratic
process.
D. Only A & B.

PASSAGE 2 | Logical reasoning

Justice, slow but sure: On Rajasthan ex-royal murder case

Conviction of police for passing off murder as an ‘encounter’ is welcome, though delayed

It is not often that policemen involved in shooting people dead and seeking to cover up the
incident as an armed encounter are convicted for murder. The verdict of the Sessions Court in
Mathura sentencing 11 police personnel, including a DSP, to life for murdering Raja Man Singh,
the head of the princely state of Bharatpur in Rajasthan, and two of his associates, in 1985, is one
such rare instance. While welcoming this rare blow for accountability and justice, it is inevitable
that one must lament the tardiness of the criminal justice system. Even accounting for the usual
or expected delay in prosecuting police personnel, the 35 years that it took for the case to
complete the trial stage is further evidence that justice moves in slow motion in this country.
There are several long-delayed trials that spanned generations. The trial of the men who
assassinated Railway Minister L.N. Mishra in January 1975 ended in conviction in 2014, a good 39
years later. The Hashimpura case, in which nearly 40 Muslims were massacred in 1987, ended
with an en masse acquittal in 2015, but the Delhi High Court restored some faith in the judicial
process by slapping lifelong prison terms on 16 men three years later. While convictions in
heinous crimes ought to be welcomed regardless of the long delay, those administering criminal
law will have to explain how far finding old and infirm people guilty after letting them enjoy
decades of impunity really serves the cause of justice. Fortunately, the delay did not affect the
outcome in this case, but it does not mean there is no truth in the old axiom that delay amounts
to denial of justice.

The election-time murder of Raja Man Singh at Deeg on February 21, 1985, was initially sought to
be passed off as an ‘encounter’. The previous day, the titular head, a seven-time independent
legislator, had apparently felt insulted on hearing that his family flag had been damaged by
Congress supporters. In a fit of rage, he drove his jeep into the stage put up for then Congress
Chief Minister Shiv Charan Mathur’s rally, and went on to damage a helicopter used by the Chief
Minister. The next day, as the Raja was on his way to surrender, his jeep was surrounded by a
party led by the DSP and others. Eye-witnesses said they fired at the vehicle’s occupants, killing
Man Singh and his two elderly associates. Later, top police officials admitted the former ruler was
not armed. The then Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, asked Chief Minister Mathur to step down.
The investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Later, the Supreme Court
shifted the trial to Mathura in Uttar Pradesh. It may not be known if Congress leaders conspired
with the police, but the incident remains a blot on the party’s record in the 1980s.

Q. Which of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?

A. Conviction of police for passing off murder as an ‘encounter’ is welcome, though delayed.
B. Police should not be convicted for murder as this will encourage the confidence of criminals.
C. Conviction of police for passing off murder as an ‘encounter’ will deter other police personnel
to not commit fake encounters.
D. It should be the Congress leaders not the police officers who should be convicted of murder.

Q. Which of the following if true, strengthens author’s argument?

A. Justice requires time and patience.
B. Justice calls for serving both parties of a case equally.
C. Delay in justice defeats the whole purpose of gaining it.
D. Encounter cases rarely end up in conviction of the police.

Q. Which of the following is the assumption on which the argument of the author depends?
A. Justice delayed is justice denied.
B. Justice hurried is justice buried.
C. Justice, no matter how much it is delayed, must be served.
D. Law is a fact but justice is an opinion.

Q. Which of the following is the author least likely to disagree with?

A. Our criminal justice system is remarkably slow.
B. Justice is punctually served in our country.
C. Long delayed trials are exceptional cases in our country.
D. It serves more to the cause of justice to punish people when they become old and infirm than
when they are young.

Q. Which of the following is the author least likely to agree with?

A. Justice moves in slow motion in this country.
B. It is usual for police to be convicted in case of fake encounters.
C. Delay in justice can be tolerated until the justice is served righteously in the end.
D. Only A & C.

PASSAGE 3 | Logical reasoning

A glass ceiling was shattered on Thursday when the Ministry of Defence issued a formal letter
granting permanent commission to women officers in the Indian Army. The uphill battle to break
a gender stereotype and provide equal opportunities for women in the Army had to be fought
right up to the highest level, in the Supreme Court. Even so, the MoD’s Government Sanction
Letter specifying the grant of permanent commission to Short Service Commission (SSC) women
officers in all the 10 streams in which they presently serve is a cause for celebration. It will go a
long way in ending a prejudice associated with the Army. True, the fight was far from easy. It was
long and protracted, as the government initially glossed over a Delhi High Court ruling in the
litigants’ favour 10 years ago. Then in the Supreme Court, just what the litigants were up against
became clear from the views of the government. A written note to the Court pointed at
“physiological limitations” of women officers, saying that these were great challenges for women
officers to meet the exigencies of service. In February, the Supreme Court read the government
the riot act, asking it to abide by its own policy on granting permanent commission to women in
the SSC and giving them command postings in all services other than combat.

The misogyny was called out in a 54-page judgment. The Supreme Court noted that women
officers of the Indian Army had brought laurels to the force. “The time has come for a realisation
that women officers in the Army are not adjuncts to a male dominated establishment whose
presence must be ‘tolerated’ within narrow confines,” it said. The Army is often seen as the
preserve of men, but enough women have fought heroic battles to bust that myth, from Rani of
Jhansi in the past to Squadron Leader Minty Agarwal of the Indian Air Force, who last year “was
part of the team that guided Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman during the Balakot
airstrike carried out by the IAF”. The irony is that of the 40,825 officers serving in the Army, a
mere 1,653 are women, as the top court noted. The overall percentage of women at all levels of
the armed forces needs to be increased. To usher in a change in a regressive mindset, which
mirrors society, a lot more must be done on gender sensitisation. Elsewhere in the world, in
countries such as the United States and Israel, women are allowed in active combat. Here, the
Supreme Court had to forcefully nudge the government to make women’s role in the Army more
inclusive. A gender barrier may have fallen, but the war against inequity is far from over.

Q. Which of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?

A. Physiological limitations of women officers pose a great challenge for them to meet the
exigencies of service.
B. There are more male officers in Army than female officers.
C. Indian Army is a male dominated society.
D. After a long battle, women officers overcome the gender barrier in the Indian Army, but there
is long way up to go.

Q. Which of the following if true, would weaken the author’s argument?

A. The overall percentage of women at all levels of the armed forces needs to be increased.
B. There are more men than women who have sacrificed their life for our country.
C. Women have only served as nurses & care takers and therefore are not suited for other big
responsibilities.
D. Women can develop physical capabilities same as em when trained.

Q. Which of the following could be logically assumed from the arguments of the author?
A. Women should be favoured more than men.
B. Men & women should be treated equally.
C. Our society is male dominated.
D. Our society treats both men & women equally.

Q. Which of the following is the author most likely to agree with?

A. Women are physically weak and therefore can be easily defeated in combat.
B. The representation of women in Indian Armed forces is same as men.
C. Women are not suited to work in Indian Armed forces.
D. Women are weak and therefore can’t fight battles is a myth.

Q. Which of the following is the author not likely to agree with?

A. The number of female officers in Indian Armed forces is very less compared to those of male
officers and therefore it should be increased proportionately.
B. Women are not allowed in active combat anywhere in the world.
C. Women are proved their mettle and brought laurels to our defence forces enough to at least
treated equally as male officers.
D. Our society needs gender sensitisation to redefine gender roles to kill regressive mindset
existing in our society.

PASSAGE 4 | Logical reasoning

Scandalising as contempt: On proceedings against Prashant Bhushan

Time to revisit the idea of ‘scandalising’ in contempt law, usher in judicial accountability

The initiation of proceedings for criminal contempt of court against lawyer-activist Prashant
Bhushan has once again brought under focus the necessity for retaining the law of contempt as it
stands today. In an era in which social media are full of critics, commentators and observers who
deem it necessary to air their views in many unrestrained and uninhibited ways, the higher
judiciary should not really be expending its time and energy invoking its power to punish for
contempt of itself. While it may not be reasonable to expect that the courts should ignore every
allegation or innuendo, and every piece of scurrility, there is much wisdom in giving a wide
latitude to publicly voiced criticism and strident questioning of the court’s ways and decisions.
Mr. Bhushan is no stranger to the art of testing the limits of the judiciary’s tolerance of criticism.
He has made allegations of corruption against judges in the past, and has been hauled up for it.
The latest proceedings concern two tweets by him, one a general comment on the role of some
Chief Justices of India in the last six years, and another targeting the current CJI based on a
photograph. How sensitive should the country’s highest court be to its outspoken critics? What
would be more judicious — ignoring adverse remarks or seeking to make an example of some
principal authors of such criticism to protect the institution? The origin of this dilemma lies in the
part of contempt law that criminalises anything that “scandalises or tends to scandalise” the
judiciary or “lowers the court’s authority”. It may be time to revisit this clause.

Few would disagree that contempt power is needed to punish wilful disobedience to court orders
(civil contempt), as well as interference in the administration of justice and overt threats to
judges. The reason why the concept of contempt exists is to insulate the institution from unfair
attacks and prevent a sudden fall in the judiciary’s reputation in the public eye. However, it has
been recognised by jurists that each time the offence of ‘scandalising’ the court or lowering the
court’s authority is invoked, some tend to believe that the court has something to hide. It was
believed in 18th century England that it was necessary “to be impartial and universally thought
so”, so that the “blaze of glory” around judges would stay undiminished. However, the contempt
doctrine fell into disuse, and England abolished the offence of “scandalising the court” in 2013. In
contemporary times, it is more important that courts are seen to be concerned about
accountability, that allegations are scotched by impartial probes rather than threats of contempt
action, and processes are transparent. Unfortunately, in a system in which judges are not
expected to disclose the reason for recusing themselves, and even charges of sexual harassment
are not credibly investigated, it is only the fear of scandalising the judiciary that restrains much of
the media and the public from a more rigorous examination of the functioning of the judiciary.