English Language Quiz For IBPS | RBI | SBI | NABARD | 19-06-2022

 

Dear Readers,

Mahendras has started special quizzes for  IBPS  | RBI  | SBI  | NABARD   so that you can practice more and more to crack the examination. This  IBPS  | RBI  | SBI  | NABARD    Exam special quiz series will mold your preparations in the right direction and the regular practice of these quizzes will be really very helpful in scoring good marks in the Examination. Here we are providing you the important question of reasoning ability for the  IBPS  | RBI  | SBI  | NABARD  .

Q1-10 Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been given in bold to help you locate them while answering some questions.

At the dawn of the 17th century, Englishmen were in the habit of challenging each other to violent duels in order to avenge personal insults. Public disorder was frequent and the authorities decided to step in. To obviate the need for duels, they began to prosecute defamation as a criminal offence. So was born the notorious “criminal libel”. Truth was no defence since a true defamatory statement was as likely to lead to a breach of peace as a false one. There was even a saying, “the greater the truth, the greater the libel.” Two hundred and fifty years later, in 1860, the British imported their idea of criminal libel into the newly-minted Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 499 of the IPC criminalised intentionally defamatory statements. True statements were not exempted, unless they also happened to be made for the “public good”.

So much for history. In the 400 years after the origin of criminal defamation in England, and in the 150 years after the drafting of the IPC, the world has moved on. There are no more duels. In 2009, the United Kingdom abolished criminal defamation altogether. More recently, the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe struck it down as an unconstitutional restriction upon the freedom of speech. The apex courts of the United States, Canada and South Africa have transformed criminal defamation out of all recognition, adding defences that make it far more protective of the freedom of speech and expression. There has been a growing recognition all over the world that criminal defamation is a powerful tool in the hands of politicians and corporations to stifle and suffocate inconvenient speech.

On Friday, however, none of this seemed to matter to the Indian Supreme Court. Dismissing a petition filed by A person challenging the constitutionality of Section 499 of the IPC the court kept the 1860 provision, with its 17th century roots, entirely intact. In order to keep such an onerous offence on the statute books, the court had to construct novel arguments which will have serious and unfortunate implications for the freedom of speech and expression in the coming years.

First, it held that the right to “reputation” was protected under Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees “life and personal liberty”. Now, Article 21 only protects the individual’s life and liberty against interference by the state. Notwithstanding this minor textual hurdle, the Supreme Court declared that the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) had to be “balanced” against the right to “reputation” under Article 21. The court never explained how this balancing exercise was to be carried out, but simply asserted that since reputation could not be “crucified” at the altar of free speech, criminal defamation was constitutional.

The two moves that the court made — the first, to elevate “reputation” to the level of a fundamental right, and second, to have it prevail over free speech — have no basis in either the text or the structure of the Constitution. They are also dangerous moves. Over the last 30 years, along with its PIL jurisdiction, the court has radically expanded the scope of the right to “life and personal liberty” under Article 21. Article 21 has been held to include the right to sleep, and the right to a pollution-free environment, among other things. For the most part, the court has used this expanded definition to force the state to undertake various “social justice” and welfare measures for the benefit of citizens. But, the court did something else. Instead of using Article 21 as a shield to protect the individual against State persecution or indifference, it used it as a sword to cut down the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. There have been hints of this before in the court’s jurisprudence, but on Friday, this new doctrine of “death by Article 21” emerged as a serious threat to the future of constitutional rights. Article 21 has now become so vast, that if its use as a sword becomes a regular feature, then it will likely soon swallow up the rest of the fundamental rights chapter.

The court’s second argument was to invoke something that it called “constitutional fraternity”. It held that criminal defamation law protected the feeling of fraternity — or solidarity — between members of a society. While this may sound fair enough, there is a slight problem. “Constitutional fraternity” is not a part of Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which specifically limits the circumstances under which the state can restrict speech to eight enumerated categories. It is also nowhere in the fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution, so the question of “balancing” free speech against constitutional fraternity does not arise. The word “fraternity” is mentioned in the Constitution’s preamble, as an aspirational goal for the newly independent Indian Republic, alongside “liberty” and “equality” — the three great slogans that originated with the French Revolution. And it was always meant to be that — an abstract concept and a rallying cry, signifying a dream and a utopia. It was never meant to become a tool to broaden the scope of restrictions upon fundamental rights.

Q1 What was the main motive of the section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?

01. criminalised intentionally defamatory statements

02. the right to “life and personal liberty”

03. balancing right to information and freedom to speech

04. to abolish criminal defamation

05. All of the above

Q2 Which of the following options is most similar in meaning to the word ‘fraternity’ as given in the passage?

01. Brotherhood

02. Sorority

03. Hostility

04. Separation

05. Betrothal

Q3 Which of the following options is most similar in meaning to the word ‘crucified’ as given in the passage?

01. Martyr

02. Laud

03. Execute

04. Casuality

05. Mortality

Q4 Which of the following options is most opposite in meaning to the word ‘defamation’ as given in the passage?

01. Libel

02. Obloquy

03. Curse

04. Piety

05. Commendation

Q5 Which of the following options is most opposite in meaning to the word ‘utopia’ as given in the passage?

01. Eden’s Garden

02. Paradise

03. Labyrinth

04. Hell

05. Woods

Q6 Which of the following word is/are originated from the French revolution?

A. Fraternity

B. Balancing

C. Liberty

D. Equality

01. Both A and B

02. Only C

03. All except B

04. Both C and D

05. Only D

Q7 Which of the following country/ies have transformed criminal defamation out of all recognition?

01. United States

02. Canada

03. Zimbabwe

04. South Africa

05. All except 3

Q8 What is/are The move/s that the court made to avoid criminal defamation?

01. to elevate reputation to the level of a fundamental right, and second, to

02. to prevail reputation over free speech

03. Both 1 And 2

04. Constitutional fraternity

05. All of the above

Q9 Which of the following sentence/s is/are TRUE in context to the passage?

01. the court kept the 1860 provision, with its 17th century roots, entirely intact.

02. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees “life and personal liberty”

03. The court’s argument was to invoke something that it called “constitutional fraternity"

04. Article 21 only protects the individual’s life and liberty against interference by the state

05. All of the above

Q10 Which of the following has/ have been included in the article 21?

01. the right to stand

02. the right to a pollution-free environment

03. the right to property

04. the right to freedom

05. the right to Information

Answers;-

Q.1 (1)

Q.2 (1)

Q.3 (3)

Q.4 (5)

Q.5 (4)

Q.6 (3)

Q.7 (5)

Q.8 (3)

Q.9 (5)

Q.10 (2)