Critical Reasoning for CLAT, Passage- Chinese intrusion

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2021

The Bhima Koregaon cases also throw a spotlight on so many state institutions. The UAPA, and its ubiquitous use is a travesty in a liberal democracy. The lawyer, Abhinav Sekhri, has, in a recent article (“How the UAPA is perverting the Idea of Justice”, pointed out two basic issues with the law. The law is designed in a way that it makes the question of innocence or guilt almost irrelevant. It can, in effect, inflict punishment without guilt. The idea that people like Teltumbde or the exemplary Bharadwaj cannot even get bail underscores this point. And second, the safeguards of our criminal justice process work unevenly at the best of times. But in the case of the UAPA, the courts have often, practically, suspended serious scrutiny of the state. What legitimises this conduct of the court is two things: The broader ideological construction of the “Left” as an existential threat. And the impatience of society with procedural safeguards. The UAPA has in some senses become the judicial version of the encounter — where the suspension of the normal meaning of the rule of law is itself seen as a kind of justice.

The state has been going after Varavara Rao for his entire life. He is a complicated figure. He is an extraordinarily powerful poet who made visible the exploitative skeins of Indian society; his poetry, even in translation, cannot fail to move you out of a complacent slumber. He was formidable in consciousness raising. Of this group, his ideological excusing of horrendous Maoist excesses, has been indefensible and disturbing. His moral stance once promoted a deeply meditative critique on the morality of revolutionary violence by Apoorvanand (“‘Our’ Violence Versus ‘Their’ Violence”,

But the farce that the Indian state is enacting in pursuing Varavara Rao in the Bhima Koregaon prosecutions is proving him correct in two ways. First, in his insistence that what is known as bourgeois law is a sham in its own terms; the rule of law indeed is rule by law. And second, that repression and degradation is indeed the argument of a despotic state. Where does one turn when law, political parties and the state turn their back on justice?

Source with edits and revisions:


1. Which of the following can be validly inferred from the passage?
a. The UAPA law is the only law which makes the makes the question of innocence or guilt almost irrelevant
b. The UAPA act is being used by the judiciary to suppress resistance to the state.
c. The Judiciary is complicit with the government to repress and discredit any voice against the state.
d. Laws like UAPA protect meticulous scrutiny of the state’s actions and claim in the court.

2. Which of the following is the author most likely to disagree with?
a. Laws like UAPA can’t be suspended with as they serve a bigger purpose.
b. Sometime innocents have to suffer the excesses of the government for just saying truth.
c. Varavara Rao’s detention exposes the truth about the claim of India being a liberal democracy.
d. Individual often finds they are alone if the state machineries start undermining justice.

3. Which of the following is the main point of the passage?
a. Varavara Rao is a complicated Left figure in India.
b. Varavar Rao, and others like him are being harassed by the Indian state for their ideological beliefs.
c. There is no justice to be found in India.
d. Courts and Political Parties are complicit in repressing any dissent in the country.

4. Which of the following explains the claim made by the author about the UAPA being the judicial version of the encounter?
a. In a police encounter the accused never gets a chance to prove his innocence however under UAPA the court favours the state thereby causing judicial encounter.
b. An encounter is never questioned by the courts giving police the green signal to undermine the rule of law.
c. Judicial encounter under UAPA and police encounter are same as the accused rights gets violated in both the cases
d. Rule of law is designed in a way that no accused gets a fair trial in India

5. Which of the following, if true, would further prove Varavara Rao’s claim that Indian state has become despotic?
a. Varavara Rao was not granted a leave from the detention even after he got infected from covid-19, though he received all the medical attention required, in his cell only.
b. A group of reporters were not allowed to enter into the area where the Chinese incursion happened at the border.
c. The UAPA law doesn’t provide an exhaustive list of unlawful activities, that the legislation aims to prohibit.
d. The Government of India put a ban on publication of any news related to India-China border dispute.




CLAT Gurukul

1. D
2. A
3. B
4. C
5. D