QUIZ – 2017: Insights Current Affairs Quiz, 29 August 2017

Solution: c.
Article 30(1) [Statement 1] could seem to be in contradiction to Article 29(2) [Statement 2]. While the Constitution goes well beyond just a formal notion of equality, the question does often arise whether Article 30(1) is an absolute right or one which is somewhat circumscribed.
• The 11-judge constitution Bench judgment in TMA Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors (2002) — which was about reading the right to establish and administer minority institutions versus Article 29(2) — made several points.
• The six-judge majority judgment, with another judge concurring through a separate judgment, laid down that minority status must be decided with reference to the state, and not nationally.
• The question of whether a group could claim minority status in a state even if they were the majority in that state, was not answered.
• The judgment seemed to suggest that while the right of minorities to set up and establish institutions should be enjoyed fully, it would be subject to some regulation, especially if they were state-aided to any degree. In case of unaided institutions too, it sought to invoke larger principles which minority institutions ought to go by.
http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/jamia-millia-islamia-jmi-aligarh-muslim-university-amu-simply-put-over-the-years-major-questions-on-institutions-of-minority-education-4818207/;
Indian Polity by M Laxmikanth;
—

Solution: b.
“..India and China must revert to the spirit of the Border Defence Cooperation Agreement of 2013, which laid down specific guidelines on tackling future developments along the 3,488-km boundary the two countries share. The past two and a half months are also a lesson that India cannot be unprepared for “another Doklam”, as Chief of the Army Staff Bipin Rawat said on Sunday..”

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/agreeing-to-disagree/article19576684.ece
From 2013: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=100178;
—

Solution: b.
Section 8 of the RTI Act lists the matters relating to which information can be exempted from being disclosed.
• http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/diary-of-an-unusual-year/article19578324.ece: It is unclear what the RBI’s role in demonetisation was: of a bystander or a participant. All information related to demonetisation is being withheld on grounds of national security. The government has blocked all queries related to demonetisation, including from the press, RTIs and parliamentary committees.
http://rti.gov.in/webactrti.htm;

Solution: b.
• Fossils dating back a couple of hundred million years ago in remote villages of Lahaul and Spiti valley of Himachal Pradesh are being mined and sold as cheap tourist souvenirs, destroying key links in the ancient geological history of the Indian subcontinent. Rising tourism has contributed to the erosion in Spiti valley, which paleontologists say is the “museum of Indian Geology”.
• Additional Information: The stone production industry is unscientifically mined and managed, is generally outside the pale of public scrutiny, and remains unregulated. Weak environmental laws govern it. The area under stone mining operations exceeds more than 10% of the total area of India and if these activities are allowed to go on unchecked, especially in the context of current developmental interests, India’s topography and geological heritage stand to be lost forever. We need sustainable conservation approaches to safeguard our natural geological heritage as has been done in the area of biodiversity.
• Geological diversity includes rocks, minerals, fossils, and landscapes that have evolved over billions of years. India’s tumultuous geological past is recorded in its rocks and landscapes and should be considered as our non-cultural heritage. Unfortunately, geological conservation is an ignored subject in the country.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-stories-rocks-tell/article19576654.ece;
Improvisation: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/himalayas-losing-rare-fossils-to-souvenir-hunters/article19482098.ece?homepage=true;

Solution: b.
A person appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court, before entering upon his Office, has to make and subscribe an oath or affirmation before the President, or some person appointed by him for this purpose. In his oath, a judge of the Supreme Court swears:
• to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India;
• to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India;
• to duly and faithfully and to the best of his ability, knowledge and judgement perform the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will; and
• to uphold the Constitution and the laws.

Indian Polity by M Laxmikanth;
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/justice-dipak-misra-sworn-in-as-cji/article19574485.ece