RC 1

Directions for questions 31 to 34: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose

the most appropriate answer to each question.

Three judgments by the Supreme Court in the month of July mark a sharp departure from pedantic legalism

and point to the possibilities of a transformative constitutionalism that sustains and elaborates the idea of

constitutional morality developed in the Naz Foundation judgment of the Delhi High Court in 2009. The

three cases are also very different pieces that speak to different realities in similar fashion: Ram Jethmalani

v Union of India (SIT); Nandini Sundar and Others v State of Chhattisgarh (SJ); and Delhi Jal Board v

National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers (DJB). It might be argued, and

rightly too, that radical jurisprudence by the Supreme Court is not a recent phenomenon — it has an older

history rooted in struggles for civil and political rights. While that is the genealogy of this jurisprudence, we

need yet to celebrate each signpost in the development of deliberative jurisprudence that responds not

merely to the manifestations of a case, narrowly construed, but sees the larger socio-political context as

an inextricable part of the bare facts, so to speak.

The guarantee of public goods — security, infrastructure for governance, law making and enforcement,

provision of material and cultural goods especially for classes that lack the power, privilege and status to

secure these for themselves — is state obligation. Neither markets (which cater to self-centered activities

of individuals and groups) nor purely private social action can be expected to stand in for the state and

provide public goods. Central to the delineation of the problem in these cases is the opening out of the idea

of constitutionalism to include a broader idea of justice that enables the mapping of injustice in all its

complexity. Tracing the link between the existence of perennial channels for unaccounted monies abroad

and the erosion of developmental goals of the state, the Supreme Court contextualizes the need to reign in

cash flows and ensure total accountability with reference to the structure of a neo-liberal economy. Gunnar

Myrdal's caution about the dangers of a "soft state" that spawns the "unholy nexus between the law maker,

the law keeper, and the law breaker" is immediately relevant.

"Carried away by the ideology of neo-liberalism, it is entirely possible that the agents of the State entrusted

with the task of supervising the economic and social activities may err more on the side of extreme

caution, whereby signals of wrongdoing may be ignored even when they are strong. Instances of the

powers that be ignoring publicly visible stock market scams, or turning a blind eye to large-scale illegal

mining have become all too familiar, and may be readily cited."

The framework of justice by this token stretches illimitably beyond the narrow confines of constitutional law

and decided cases to the letter and spirit of the constitution.

"Modern constitutionalism posits that no wielder of power should be allowed to claim the right to perpetrate

state's violence against anyone, much less its own citizens, unchecked by law, and notions of innate

human dignity of every individual."

31. Which of the following options correctly sums up the areas that the author seeks to cover through

the passage?

(a) Jurisprudence, Justice and the Constitution

(b) Jurisprudence, Neo-liberalism and Politics

(c) Society, Politics and Jurisprudence

(d) The Constitution, Jurisprudence and Enforcement of justice

32. "Central to the delineation of the problem in these cases is the opening out of the idea of

constitutionalism to include a broader idea of justice that enables the mapping of injustice in all its

complexity." Which of the following statements would correctly paraphrase the above line?

(a) The main way to define the problem is to merge the understanding of constitutionalism and

justice so that all aspects of injustice are covered.

(b) The essential way to define the problem is to include the understanding of constitutionalism and

justice with all aspects of injustice.

(c) The crucial aspect of defining the problem is to broaden the understanding of constitutionalism

and hence justice to include aspects of injustice.

(d) The crucial aspect of defining the problem is to widen the understanding of constitutionalism and

hence justice so that all complexities of injustice are covered

.

33. How does the author develop the central idea?

(a) By making a reference to three cases which form the core of the discussion.

(b) By making a reference to the Naz foundation judgment which forms the base for the core of the

discussion.

(c) By making a reference to recent judicial developments and referring to the lineage of jurisprudence

that includes the socio-political context.

(d) By making a reference to recent judicial developments and referring to the lineage of jurisprudence

in the context of neo-liberalism.

34. It can be inferred that the tone of the author in the third paragraph is  (quotes  )
(a) critical (b) forgiving (c) objective (d) disparaging