Developing a solid foundation in English will not only help you to increase your knowledge but will also help you to score better in the exam. English is a major section in exams which candidate fears a lot. To boost your preparation, MahendraGuru is providing English Quiz for SBI Clerk, RBI Assistant, IBPS Clerk and IBPS SO Exams exams.
With Mahendra Guru, be the first to know the changes in Grammar which keep you updated through its Practice sets.These practice sets will give you power in building your bright career.
Q.1-10. Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some questions.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in a case, upholding the constitutionality of criminal defamation will be remembered more for its obscurely colourful language than for its progressive values. The court has again bent the arc of jurisprudence towards fear and paternalism, rather than liberty and rights. The arguments striking down Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code are now familiar: These restrictions have a chilling effect on freedom of speech; they create an anomaly whereby the threshold for criminal prosecution for defamation is now possibly lower than the threshold for civil damages; they provide public remedies for essentially private wrongs; they go against the global trend of decriminalising defamation, and so forth. These arguments provide good grounds to think that this judgment is an atrocious blow against freedom of expression. But there is reason to think that this judgment is not just an idiosyncratic pathology of one bench. If we are interested in a defence of liberalism, we need to go beyond doctrine, and the deep roots of these pathological judgments.
There is one preliminary technical matter. Many lawyers have argued that damage to reputation is a private wrong. This use of the public-private distinction is not actually as self-evident as liberals make it out to be. What is a public or a private wrong is always a function of law; it is not given antecedent to it. The issue at stake is where the line should be drawn. Saying that damage to reputation is by definition a private wrong; or that damage to reputation is not as serious a matter as minor physical assault, is actually begging the question. That defamation is a private crime is not a fact as liberals assume; it is a conclusion that needs to be argued. They would be better off arguing that even if it is not a purely private crime, the costs of dealing with it with criminal remedies far outweigh the benefits. The fact that allegations can be refuted in an open society; the fact that there are civil remedies should be enough to address concerns.
The moral charge of the judgment actually comes from taking damage to reputation as a serious public issue. Liberals do themselves disservice by not taking this concern seriously. And here we are, as always, more in the realm of moral psychology, than law. Law often depends on an underlying picture of what a society should fear more. The judges look at Indian society and regard those who are worried about freedom of expression, as someone crying fire in Noah’s flood. They implicitly weighed the risk to society from an unfettered culture of allegation-mongering more heavily than the risk of misusing criminal law to harass journalists. The judges are probably wrong about this: The dozens of defamation cases filed in Tamil Nadu to silence journalists, the fact that powerful politicians are using this as a weapon against each other, should have been a sign to the judges that criminal defamation can fetter democratic accountability. In fact, the democratic accountability argument is a stronger argument for decriminalising defamation than a pure free speech argument.
But the really troubling issue is this. In the evolution of law, the trend is usually towards decriminalisation of more crimes and the institution of civil remedies. India seems to be moving in an opposite direction. More and more crimes, from trademark violations to drinking and eating, are becoming criminal violations. We prefer penal over civil remedies. Why is this? Underlying these punitive responses is the large fact of institutional decay and incapacity. As it has been pointed out in a brilliant article, India is extraordinary in the degree to which it has an underdeveloped tort system. So everything becomes a matter of public rather than private law. The justice system disincentivises the claims; it is far easier to get the state involved. Second, in the actual functioning of courts, civil remedies take an inordinately long time; civil defamation cases can last decades. So judges implicitly don’t see it as a remedy. Our punitive impulses are an expression of deep institutional failure.
Q.1. Towards which of the following has the arc of jurisprudence has been bent?
01. Liberalism
02. Fear and paternalism
03. Liberty and rights
04. Freedom of speech
05. All of the above
Q.2. The Supreme Court’s judgment upholding the constitutionality of criminal defamation is a blow against freedom of expression’ which of the following arguments suggest the same?
(A) the threshold for criminal prosecution for defamation is lower than the threshold for civil damages
(B) provides public remedies for essentially private wrongs
(C) Goes against the global trend of decriminalising defamation.
(D) the judgment is not just an idiosyncratic pathology of one bench
01. Only A
02. Only B
03. Only C
04. All except D
05. Only D
Q.3. Why does everything in India become a matter of public rather than private law?
01. India has an underdeveloped tort system
02. It is far more difficult to get the state involved.
03. Civil remedies take an inordinately short time.
04. Civil defamation cases can last centuries.
05. All of the above
Q.4. Which of the following sentence is NOT TRUE in context of the given passage?
01. Damage to reputation is a private wrong
02. Civil remedies take an inordinately long time
03. Indians prefer penal over civil remedies
04. Decriminalizing defamation is a national trend
05. All of the above
Q.5. Indians prefer penal remedies over civil remedies, why?
01. Civil defamation cases can last decades
02. Every matter in India is a public issue
03. India has a well-developed jurisdiction
04. Only A and C
05. All of the above
Q.6. In the evolution of law, the trend is usually towards-
01. Decriminalisation of more crimes and the institution of civil remedies.
02. Decriminalisation of less crimes and the institution of civil remedies.
03. Decriminalisation of civil remedies and the institution of less crimes.
04. Decriminalisation of civil remedies and the institution of more crimes.
05. Decriminalisation of more crimes and the institution of foreign remedies.
Q.7. Choose the word most SIMILAR in meaning to the word printed in bold, as used in the passage.
Idiosyncratic
01. Dirt
02. Detraction
03. Obloquy
04. Peculiar
05. Vilification
Q.8. Choose the word most SIMILAR in meaning to the word printed in bold, as used in the passage.
Defamation
01. Slander
02. Compliment
03. Praise
04. Flattery
05. Exaltation
Q.9. Choose the word which is most nearly the OPPOSITE in meaning as the word printed in bold as used in the passage.
Tort
01. Right
02. Delve
03. Shovel
04. Grub
05. Spade
Q.10. Choose the word which is most nearly the OPPOSITE in meaning as the word printed in bold as used in the passage.
Disservice
01. Injustice
02. Hurt
03. Disfavour
04. Outrage
05. Assistance
ANSWERS
Q.1. (2)
Q.2. (4)
Q.3. (1)
Q.4. (4)
Q.5. (1)
Q.6. (1)
Q.7. (4)
Q.8. (1)
Q.9. (1)
Q.10. (5)
.jpg)