Time Left - 10:00 mins
English Language II Reading Comprehension Quiz || 20.07.2020
Attempt now to get your rank among 260 students!
Question 1
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/ Phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
As per this article, what were the two issues before the high court regarding the rivers Ganga and Yamuna?
(A) Removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun
(B) Division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand
(C) To find out ways of cleaning the rivers
(A) Removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun
(B) Division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand
(C) To find out ways of cleaning the rivers
Question 2
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/ Phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
As per this article, what is the meaning of loco parentis.
(A) Persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’
(B) Local guardian
(C) Parent of the country
(D) Parent of the Rivers
(A) Persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’
(B) Local guardian
(C) Parent of the country
(D) Parent of the Rivers
Question 3
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/ Phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
As per this article, why was the constitution of the Ganga Management Board necessary?
(A) To look after issues of irrigation, water supply and power generation
(B) To give legal status to the rivers as living persons
(C) For stopping illegal Mining on the banks of Ganga
(D) For resource allocation between UP and Uttarakhand
(A) To look after issues of irrigation, water supply and power generation
(B) To give legal status to the rivers as living persons
(C) For stopping illegal Mining on the banks of Ganga
(D) For resource allocation between UP and Uttarakhand
Question 4
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/ Phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
What are the duties of the loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers?
(A) To act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation.
(B) To uphold the status of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being.
(C) To clean the rivers themselves and ensure these resources are not misused
(A) To act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation.
(B) To uphold the status of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being.
(C) To clean the rivers themselves and ensure these resources are not misused
Question 5
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/ Phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
The power to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction has been used by the court in which of the following incidents?
(A) In the Bhopal Gas tragedy case
(B) To provide legal status to the rivers Ganga and Yamuna
(C) In granting legal status to the Whanganui river
(A) In the Bhopal Gas tragedy case
(B) To provide legal status to the rivers Ganga and Yamuna
(C) In granting legal status to the Whanganui river
Question 6
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/ Phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
Which are the entities that have been declared as legal or juridical persons?
(A) Rivers Ganga and Yamuna
(B) All Rivers flowing in the Indian Mainland
(C) Temple deities, religious books, corporations
(D)Tributaries, streams, and every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently off the Ganga and the Yamuna rivers.
(A) Rivers Ganga and Yamuna
(B) All Rivers flowing in the Indian Mainland
(C) Temple deities, religious books, corporations
(D)Tributaries, streams, and every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently off the Ganga and the Yamuna rivers.
Question 7
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/ Phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
Choose the word/group of words which is most similar in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in passage.
Dredged
Dredged
Question 8
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/ Phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
Choose the word/group of words which is most similar in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in passage.
Sovereign
Sovereign
Question 9
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/ Phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
Choose the word/group of words which is most opposite in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in passage.
Sustenance
Sustenance
Question 10
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/ Phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
In a recent judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Yamuna and Ganga as legal or juridical persons, enjoying all the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. Indian courts have granted this status to temple deities, religious books, corporations, etc., but it is for the first time that an element of the natural environment has been declared a legal person. And it is not just the two rivers — all their tributaries, streams, every natural water body flowing continuously or intermittently of[f] these rivers will enjoy this status. The two issues before the High Court were: removal of illegal constructions on the banks of a canal in Dehradun, and the division of water resources between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which had not been resolved since the formation of the new State). In December 2016, the High Court directed the removal of the constructions. It also directed the constitution of the Ganga Management Board (a statutory body under the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000), and prohibited mining of the Ganga riverbed and its highest flood plain area. On the issue of resource division, the court directed the Central government to notify the settlement reached by the two States in a time-bound manner. Three months later, when the matter came up before the court once again, the encroachments were still there, the settlement between the States was yet to take place, and the board had not been constituted. The court issued directions for time-bound action. But separately, it took three logical leaps. First, for the court, an ‘extraordinary situation’ had been created which required extraordinary measures for the protection of the Ganga and the Yamuna. From what was a clear breach of statutory duties under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, and the regrettable, though scarcely unprecedented, inability of the State to remove encroachments, the case became one concerning the protection of the health and well-being of the two rivers. The issue may have been elaborated upon in court, but the judgment, unfortunately, does not tell us more. Second, the court recorded how the rivers provide ‘physical and spiritual sustenance’ to half the Indian population. It found the constitution of the board to be necessary for various purposes including irrigation, water supply, and power generation. And then, curiously, found it expedient to give legal status to the rivers as living persons. Third, the court decides to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the rivers and all their tributaries, etc. as living persons. Parens patriae, literally ‘parent of the country’, is an inherent power of the sovereign, and not the courts, to provide protection to persons unable to take care of themselves. It was (in)famously deployed by the Indian government in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case to represent the claims of the victims. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand have been appointed as the persons in loco parentis — persons who will act ‘in the place of parents’ for the two rivers. These officers are now expected to act on behalf of the rivers for their protection and conservation. They are ‘bound to uphold the status’ of the rivers and also to promote their health and well-being. The judgment comes close on the heels of New Zealand granting legal status to the Whanganui river. But unlike the comprehensive Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament recognising rights and settling claims, the High Court’s declaration is terse, and raises several questions. In the eyes of the law, living persons such as companies, associations, deities etc., have rights and duties — primary among these being the right to sue and the capacity to be sued. Which implies that from now on, the rivers can sue persons acting against their interests. But what for? Do they have a right not to be a receptacle for tons of sewage? Can they demand minimum ecological flows? A right not to be dammed, dredged, or diverted? If yes, who will sue whom? Can the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand now sue a Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar for the discharge of effluents downstream? Or will the Director, Namami Gange, sue the Central government for approving another hydro-power project on the river? Do other riparian State governments now have less of a role in the protection of the rivers as they are not the identified ‘custodians’? And what are rivers’ duties?
Choose the word/group of words which is most opposite in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in passage.
Breach
Breach
- 260 attempts
- 3 upvotes
- 7 comments
Tags :
CLAT UGEnglish LanguageJul 20CLAT UG
