921 / 927
The Karnataka government's decision to file an appeal against the acquittal of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, is bound to be welcomed by all those who value probity in public life and believe that the courts are the right forums to take forward issues relating to corruption in high places. The Congress dispensation in Karnataka understandably took its time to arrive at a decision on whether to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. It has gone by sound legal principles by examining the recommendations of the Special Public Prosecutor, the State's Advocate-General and the Law Department. The primary question it had to contend with was raised by the legal wing of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee itself: what is Karnataka's interest in the outcome of the case? The argument was that the State had already discharged its duty by hosting the trial in Bengaluru, appointing a Special Judge and Special Public Prosecutor, obtaining a conviction in the trial stage and seeing it overturned by the High Court. Should the State go beyond this specified administrative function by filing an appeal in the Supreme Court, taking on the role of an aggrieved party? The question may appear valid, but to abandon a legal process midway is also untenable. The Supreme Court has made it clear that Karnataka is now playing the role of the prosecuting State and has stepped into the shoes of Tamil Nadu. Its duty now includes taking up the mantle of the aggrieved party and pursuing the legal process to its logical end.
Moreover, the Karnataka High Court judgment acquitting the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister is widely seen as flawed in many respects, especially in the computation of the quantum of 'disproportionate assets' that ultimately formed the basis of her acquittal. Special Public Prosecutor B.V. Acharya has said the arithmetical errors are glaringly obvious. Some aspects of the High Court's reasoning are controversial: it has included cash gifts of high value as legitimate income and given credence to a newspaper subscription scheme that had been termed fake by the trial court. It has gone zealously by a 1976 Supreme Court ruling that unexplained assets up to the value of 10 per cent of known income is acceptable, even though the anti-corruption law has since been amended to make disclosure as per statutory requirements the standard to assess legitimate income. The prosecution believes revisiting the computation itself will propel the quantum of 'disproportionate assets' beyond this 10 per cent limit. Overall, it will be in the public interest to have an authoritative pronouncement by the highest court on whether the trial court or the High Court was right in appreciating all the evidence. It will also be in Ms. Jayalalithaa's own interest that her exoneration if she succeeds in sustaining it is a vindication that clears her political path rather than one that depends on a conclusion seen to be perennially under dispute and in the realms of legal debate.
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.4/10: Which of the following is not the synonym of the word "acquittal"?
AVerbose
BVenal
CConviction
DDifference
ENone of the above
Answer: Option C
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
922 / 927
The Karnataka government's decision to file an appeal against the acquittal of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, is bound to be welcomed by all those who value probity in public life and believe that the courts are the right forums to take forward issues relating to corruption in high places. The Congress dispensation in Karnataka understandably took its time to arrive at a decision on whether to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. It has gone by sound legal principles by examining the recommendations of the Special Public Prosecutor, the State's Advocate-General and the Law Department. The primary question it had to contend with was raised by the legal wing of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee itself: what is Karnataka's interest in the outcome of the case? The argument was that the State had already discharged its duty by hosting the trial in Bengaluru, appointing a Special Judge and Special Public Prosecutor, obtaining a conviction in the trial stage and seeing it overturned by the High Court. Should the State go beyond this specified administrative function by filing an appeal in the Supreme Court, taking on the role of an aggrieved party? The question may appear valid, but to abandon a legal process midway is also untenable. The Supreme Court has made it clear that Karnataka is now playing the role of the prosecuting State and has stepped into the shoes of Tamil Nadu. Its duty now includes taking up the mantle of the aggrieved party and pursuing the legal process to its logical end.
Moreover, the Karnataka High Court judgment acquitting the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister is widely seen as flawed in many respects, especially in the computation of the quantum of 'disproportionate assets' that ultimately formed the basis of her acquittal. Special Public Prosecutor B.V. Acharya has said the arithmetical errors are glaringly obvious. Some aspects of the High Court's reasoning are controversial: it has included cash gifts of high value as legitimate income and given credence to a newspaper subscription scheme that had been termed fake by the trial court. It has gone zealously by a 1976 Supreme Court ruling that unexplained assets up to the value of 10 per cent of known income is acceptable, even though the anti-corruption law has since been amended to make disclosure as per statutory requirements the standard to assess legitimate income. The prosecution believes revisiting the computation itself will propel the quantum of 'disproportionate assets' beyond this 10 per cent limit. Overall, it will be in the public interest to have an authoritative pronouncement by the highest court on whether the trial court or the High Court was right in appreciating all the evidence. It will also be in Ms. Jayalalithaa's own interest that her exoneration if she succeeds in sustaining it is a vindication that clears her political path rather than one that depends on a conclusion seen to be perennially under dispute and in the realms of legal debate.
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.5/10: Which of the following is not the synonym of the word "probity"?
ADishonest
BWistful
CGuile
DPathos
ENone of the above
Answer: Option A
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
923 / 927
The Karnataka government's decision to file an appeal against the acquittal of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, is bound to be welcomed by all those who value probity in public life and believe that the courts are the right forums to take forward issues relating to corruption in high places. The Congress dispensation in Karnataka understandably took its time to arrive at a decision on whether to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. It has gone by sound legal principles by examining the recommendations of the Special Public Prosecutor, the State's Advocate-General and the Law Department. The primary question it had to contend with was raised by the legal wing of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee itself: what is Karnataka's interest in the outcome of the case? The argument was that the State had already discharged its duty by hosting the trial in Bengaluru, appointing a Special Judge and Special Public Prosecutor, obtaining a conviction in the trial stage and seeing it overturned by the High Court. Should the State go beyond this specified administrative function by filing an appeal in the Supreme Court, taking on the role of an aggrieved party? The question may appear valid, but to abandon a legal process midway is also untenable. The Supreme Court has made it clear that Karnataka is now playing the role of the prosecuting State and has stepped into the shoes of Tamil Nadu. Its duty now includes taking up the mantle of the aggrieved party and pursuing the legal process to its logical end.
Moreover, the Karnataka High Court judgment acquitting the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister is widely seen as flawed in many respects, especially in the computation of the quantum of 'disproportionate assets' that ultimately formed the basis of her acquittal. Special Public Prosecutor B.V. Acharya has said the arithmetical errors are glaringly obvious. Some aspects of the High Court's reasoning are controversial: it has included cash gifts of high value as legitimate income and given credence to a newspaper subscription scheme that had been termed fake by the trial court. It has gone zealously by a 1976 Supreme Court ruling that unexplained assets up to the value of 10 per cent of known income is acceptable, even though the anti-corruption law has since been amended to make disclosure as per statutory requirements the standard to assess legitimate income. The prosecution believes revisiting the computation itself will propel the quantum of 'disproportionate assets' beyond this 10 per cent limit. Overall, it will be in the public interest to have an authoritative pronouncement by the highest court on whether the trial court or the High Court was right in appreciating all the evidence. It will also be in Ms. Jayalalithaa's own interest that her exoneration if she succeeds in sustaining it is a vindication that clears her political path rather than one that depends on a conclusion seen to be perennially under dispute and in the realms of legal debate.
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.6/10: What does the author mean by the phrase "abandon a legal process midway is also untenable"?
ALeave the party strangled.
BLeave a legal process without any judgment.
CLeave a legal process in the middle of controversy
DLeft the box open for others.
ENone of the above
Answer: Option C
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
924 / 927
The Karnataka government's decision to file an appeal against the acquittal of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, is bound to be welcomed by all those who value probity in public life and believe that the courts are the right forums to take forward issues relating to corruption in high places. The Congress dispensation in Karnataka understandably took its time to arrive at a decision on whether to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. It has gone by sound legal principles by examining the recommendations of the Special Public Prosecutor, the State's Advocate-General and the Law Department. The primary question it had to contend with was raised by the legal wing of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee itself: what is Karnataka's interest in the outcome of the case? The argument was that the State had already discharged its duty by hosting the trial in Bengaluru, appointing a Special Judge and Special Public Prosecutor, obtaining a conviction in the trial stage and seeing it overturned by the High Court. Should the State go beyond this specified administrative function by filing an appeal in the Supreme Court, taking on the role of an aggrieved party? The question may appear valid, but to abandon a legal process midway is also untenable. The Supreme Court has made it clear that Karnataka is now playing the role of the prosecuting State and has stepped into the shoes of Tamil Nadu. Its duty now includes taking up the mantle of the aggrieved party and pursuing the legal process to its logical end.
Moreover, the Karnataka High Court judgment acquitting the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister is widely seen as flawed in many respects, especially in the computation of the quantum of 'disproportionate assets' that ultimately formed the basis of her acquittal. Special Public Prosecutor B.V. Acharya has said the arithmetical errors are glaringly obvious. Some aspects of the High Court's reasoning are controversial: it has included cash gifts of high value as legitimate income and given credence to a newspaper subscription scheme that had been termed fake by the trial court. It has gone zealously by a 1976 Supreme Court ruling that unexplained assets up to the value of 10 per cent of known income is acceptable, even though the anti-corruption law has since been amended to make disclosure as per statutory requirements the standard to assess legitimate income. The prosecution believes revisiting the computation itself will propel the quantum of 'disproportionate assets' beyond this 10 per cent limit. Overall, it will be in the public interest to have an authoritative pronouncement by the highest court on whether the trial court or the High Court was right in appreciating all the evidence. It will also be in Ms. Jayalalithaa's own interest that her exoneration if she succeeds in sustaining it is a vindication that clears her political path rather than one that depends on a conclusion seen to be perennially under dispute and in the realms of legal debate.
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.7/10: Which of the following is not true according to the passage?
A) Should the State go beyond this specified administrative function by filing an appeal in the Supreme Court, taking on the role of an aggrieved party
B) It will be in the public interest to have an authoritative pronouncement by the highest court on whether the trial court or the High Court was right in appreciating all the evidence.
C) Some aspects of the High Court's reasoning are controversial.
AOnly A
BOnly B
COnly C
DAll A, B and C
ENone of the above
Answer: Option E
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
925 / 927
The Karnataka government's decision to file an appeal against the acquittal of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, is bound to be welcomed by all those who value probity in public life and believe that the courts are the right forums to take forward issues relating to corruption in high places. The Congress dispensation in Karnataka understandably took its time to arrive at a decision on whether to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. It has gone by sound legal principles by examining the recommendations of the Special Public Prosecutor, the State's Advocate-General and the Law Department. The primary question it had to contend with was raised by the legal wing of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee itself: what is Karnataka's interest in the outcome of the case? The argument was that the State had already discharged its duty by hosting the trial in Bengaluru, appointing a Special Judge and Special Public Prosecutor, obtaining a conviction in the trial stage and seeing it overturned by the High Court. Should the State go beyond this specified administrative function by filing an appeal in the Supreme Court, taking on the role of an aggrieved party? The question may appear valid, but to abandon a legal process midway is also untenable. The Supreme Court has made it clear that Karnataka is now playing the role of the prosecuting State and has stepped into the shoes of Tamil Nadu. Its duty now includes taking up the mantle of the aggrieved party and pursuing the legal process to its logical end.
Moreover, the Karnataka High Court judgment acquitting the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister is widely seen as flawed in many respects, especially in the computation of the quantum of 'disproportionate assets' that ultimately formed the basis of her acquittal. Special Public Prosecutor B.V. Acharya has said the arithmetical errors are glaringly obvious. Some aspects of the High Court's reasoning are controversial: it has included cash gifts of high value as legitimate income and given credence to a newspaper subscription scheme that had been termed fake by the trial court. It has gone zealously by a 1976 Supreme Court ruling that unexplained assets up to the value of 10 per cent of known income is acceptable, even though the anti-corruption law has since been amended to make disclosure as per statutory requirements the standard to assess legitimate income. The prosecution believes revisiting the computation itself will propel the quantum of 'disproportionate assets' beyond this 10 per cent limit. Overall, it will be in the public interest to have an authoritative pronouncement by the highest court on whether the trial court or the High Court was right in appreciating all the evidence. It will also be in Ms. Jayalalithaa's own interest that her exoneration if she succeeds in sustaining it is a vindication that clears her political path rather than one that depends on a conclusion seen to be perennially under dispute and in the realms of legal debate.
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.8/10: What is the reason that acquittal of Jaylalitha is considered to be flawed?
AIts because such decision came from one of the Apex Court
BIt is due to the computation of the quantum of 'disproportionate assets' that ultimately formed the basis of her acquittal.
CThe court's decision that she should be acquitted
DAn Apex court is always considered to be unbiasesd and decide in fovour of public.
ENone of the above
Answer: Option B
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
926 / 927
The Karnataka government's decision to file an appeal against the acquittal of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, is bound to be welcomed by all those who value probity in public life and believe that the courts are the right forums to take forward issues relating to corruption in high places. The Congress dispensation in Karnataka understandably took its time to arrive at a decision on whether to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. It has gone by sound legal principles by examining the recommendations of the Special Public Prosecutor, the State's Advocate-General and the Law Department. The primary question it had to contend with was raised by the legal wing of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee itself: what is Karnataka's interest in the outcome of the case? The argument was that the State had already discharged its duty by hosting the trial in Bengaluru, appointing a Special Judge and Special Public Prosecutor, obtaining a conviction in the trial stage and seeing it overturned by the High Court. Should the State go beyond this specified administrative function by filing an appeal in the Supreme Court, taking on the role of an aggrieved party? The question may appear valid, but to abandon a legal process midway is also untenable. The Supreme Court has made it clear that Karnataka is now playing the role of the prosecuting State and has stepped into the shoes of Tamil Nadu. Its duty now includes taking up the mantle of the aggrieved party and pursuing the legal process to its logical end.
Moreover, the Karnataka High Court judgment acquitting the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister is widely seen as flawed in many respects, especially in the computation of the quantum of 'disproportionate assets' that ultimately formed the basis of her acquittal. Special Public Prosecutor B.V. Acharya has said the arithmetical errors are glaringly obvious. Some aspects of the High Court's reasoning are controversial: it has included cash gifts of high value as legitimate income and given credence to a newspaper subscription scheme that had been termed fake by the trial court. It has gone zealously by a 1976 Supreme Court ruling that unexplained assets up to the value of 10 per cent of known income is acceptable, even though the anti-corruption law has since been amended to make disclosure as per statutory requirements the standard to assess legitimate income. The prosecution believes revisiting the computation itself will propel the quantum of 'disproportionate assets' beyond this 10 per cent limit. Overall, it will be in the public interest to have an authoritative pronouncement by the highest court on whether the trial court or the High Court was right in appreciating all the evidence. It will also be in Ms. Jayalalithaa's own interest that her exoneration if she succeeds in sustaining it is a vindication that clears her political path rather than one that depends on a conclusion seen to be perennially under dispute and in the realms of legal debate.
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.9/10: Which of the following is true according to the passage?
A) Special Public Prosecutor B.V. Acharya has said the arithmetical errors are glaringly obvious.
B) The Supreme Court has made it clear that Karnataka is now playing the role of the prosecuting State and has stepped into the shoes of Tamil Nadu.
C) The Karnataka High Court judgment acquitting the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister is widely seen as unflawed in many respects.
AOnly C and A
BOnly B and C
COnly A and B
DAll A, B and C
ENone of these
Answer: Option C
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
927 / 927
The Karnataka government's decision to file an appeal against the acquittal of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, is bound to be welcomed by all those who value probity in public life and believe that the courts are the right forums to take forward issues relating to corruption in high places. The Congress dispensation in Karnataka understandably took its time to arrive at a decision on whether to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. It has gone by sound legal principles by examining the recommendations of the Special Public Prosecutor, the State's Advocate-General and the Law Department. The primary question it had to contend with was raised by the legal wing of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee itself: what is Karnataka's interest in the outcome of the case? The argument was that the State had already discharged its duty by hosting the trial in Bengaluru, appointing a Special Judge and Special Public Prosecutor, obtaining a conviction in the trial stage and seeing it overturned by the High Court. Should the State go beyond this specified administrative function by filing an appeal in the Supreme Court, taking on the role of an aggrieved party? The question may appear valid, but to abandon a legal process midway is also untenable. The Supreme Court has made it clear that Karnataka is now playing the role of the prosecuting State and has stepped into the shoes of Tamil Nadu. Its duty now includes taking up the mantle of the aggrieved party and pursuing the legal process to its logical end.
Moreover, the Karnataka High Court judgment acquitting the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister is widely seen as flawed in many respects, especially in the computation of the quantum of 'disproportionate assets' that ultimately formed the basis of her acquittal. Special Public Prosecutor B.V. Acharya has said the arithmetical errors are glaringly obvious. Some aspects of the High Court's reasoning are controversial: it has included cash gifts of high value as legitimate income and given credence to a newspaper subscription scheme that had been termed fake by the trial court. It has gone zealously by a 1976 Supreme Court ruling that unexplained assets up to the value of 10 per cent of known income is acceptable, even though the anti-corruption law has since been amended to make disclosure as per statutory requirements the standard to assess legitimate income. The prosecution believes revisiting the computation itself will propel the quantum of 'disproportionate assets' beyond this 10 per cent limit. Overall, it will be in the public interest to have an authoritative pronouncement by the highest court on whether the trial court or the High Court was right in appreciating all the evidence. It will also be in Ms. Jayalalithaa's own interest that her exoneration if she succeeds in sustaining it is a vindication that clears her political path rather than one that depends on a conclusion seen to be perennially under dispute and in the realms of legal debate.
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.10/10: Choose an appropriate title for the passage ____________
AThe Right Decision
BDecision That Prevailed
CFrom Corruption to Judiciary
DHanging Decision
EDecision Without Message
Answer: Option A
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
Companies take reading comprehension test to check the reading and grasping skills of the candidates. It also helps the companies to understand the pressure handling skills of the candidates. You can take mock verbal ability and reading comprehension test to master this skill and crack the job interviews easily.
You can search the set of questions by company (Please click on a company box under the tag cloud box) to filter the questions easily. You can also view the answer to understand the explanation or use the workspace for practice purpose. So, improve your verbal ability and reading comprehension skills today and crack the job interview comfortable with flying colors!
In this practice section, you can practice Verbal Ability Questions based on "Reading Comprehension" and improve your skills in order to face the interview, competitive examination, IT companies Written exam, and various other entrance tests (CAT, GATE, GRE, MAT, Bank Exam, Railway Exam etc.) with full confidence.
Q4Interview provides you lots of fully solved Verbal Ability (Reading Comprehension) questions and answers with Explanation. Solved examples with detailed answer description, explanation are given and it would be easy to understand. You can download Verbal Ability Reading Comprehension quiz questions with answers as PDF files and eBooks.
Here you can find objective type Verbal Ability Reading Comprehension questions and answers for interview and entrance examination. Multiple choice and true or false type questions are also provided.