Remedial English Test Series 84

Remedial English Test Series 84

Identify  the ONE mistake in each line and make corrections    (1 mark for each correct answer. Total score   ___ )  

        

01 the Supreme Court has grappled with the question whether a provision in electoral law that make  it a
02 corrupt practice to use religion, race, caste or language as a ground for canvass  votes in an election is
03 a bar limited to the groups to which candidates or their rival belong, or whether it is a general prohibition
04 on sectarian appeals. Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amend in 1961,
05 gave rise to this doubt. By a four-three majority, a seven-members  Bench has ruled that it is a general
06 prohibition of the used of religion or any other communal or sectarian value in the electoral arena.  The
07 minority favoured limit the ambit of the sub-section to cover only candidates who sought votes on
08 such grounds, or the rivals they want  the voters not to back on similar grounds. That secularism is the
09 bedrock of our democracy is undispute. That the electoral process ought not to permit appeals to the
10 electorate on these narrow grounds is equal  beyond doubt. Against this backdrop, it is only logical that
11 the Supreme Court should decides  that it is a “corrupt practice” for candidates to use any caste or
12 communal parameters to canvassed  for votes or to discredit a rival, regardless of whether the candidates
13 themselves belong to such religious, communal or linguistics groups. It is interesting that the dispute
14 turned on a single pronoun, ‘his’, that was introduce  in the 1961 amendment. The majority opinion
15 favours a ‘purposive interpretation’, hold  that it covered the candidates as well as the voter. It finds
16 support in legislative history and our constitution ethos. The purpose of the amendment was to widen
17 the scope of the particular corrupt practice. Given that secular  is a basic feature of the Constitution, it
18 has been interpret in the light of Parliament’s intention to prohibit any religious or sectarian appeal  for
19 votes. There is a justify  worry that a wider interpretation may lead to eliminating from the poll
20 discourse politic  issues that turn on religion, caste or language. After all, this is a country in which
21 sections of society suffer deprive  and historical injustices based on religious or caste identity. But the
22 overall message is clear. It is left to the wisdom of judges deal  with election cases to draw the line
23 between what is permissible and what is not, and look at the context in which some statement are made
24 before decide whether they constitute a corrupt practice. The majority verdict will find resonance with all
25 those who swear by the primacy of secularism in the public domain. The minority view nuance  this with a
26 reminder that legal issues needs  to be seen in their social context (The Hindu 4 Jan 2016).

 KEY TO Remedial English Test Series 84   Note the  UNDERLINED correct answers below

01 the Supreme Court has grappled with the question whether a provision in electoral law that makes it a
02 corrupt practice to use religion, race, caste or language as a ground for canvassing votes in an election is
03 a bar limited to the groups to which candidates or their rivals belong, or whether it is a general prohibition
04 on sectarian appeals. Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended in 1961,
05 gave rise to this doubt. By a four-three majority, a seven-member Bench has ruled that it is a general
06 prohibition of the use of religion or any other communal or sectarian value in the electoral arena.  The
07 minority favoured limiting the ambit of the sub-section to cover only candidates who sought votes on
08 such grounds, or the rivals they wanted the voters not to back on similar grounds. That secularism is the
09 bedrock of our democracy is undisputed. That the electoral process ought not to permit appeals to the
10 electorate on these narrow grounds is equally beyond doubt. Against this backdrop, it is only logical that
11 the Supreme Court should decide that it is a “corrupt practice” for candidates to use any caste or
12 communal parameters to canvass for votes or to discredit a rival, regardless of whether the candidates
13 themselves belong to such religious, communal or linguistic groups. It is interesting that the dispute
14 turned on a single pronoun, ‘his’, that was introduced in the 1961 amendment. The majority opinion
15 favours a ‘purposive interpretation’, holding that it covered the candidates as well as the voter. It finds
16 support in legislative history and our constitutional ethos. The purpose of the amendment was to widen
17 the scope of the particular corrupt practice. Given that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution, it
18 has been interpreted in the light of Parliament’s intention to prohibit any religious or sectarian appeal  for
19 votes. There is a justifiable worry that a wider interpretation may lead to eliminating from the poll
20 discourse political issues that turn on religion, caste or language. After all, this is a country in which
21 sections of society suffer deprivation and historical injustices based on religious or caste identity. But the
22 overall message is clear. It is left to the wisdom of judges dealing with election cases to draw the line
23 between what is permissible and what is not, and look at the context in which some statements are made
24 before deciding whether they constitute a corrupt practice. The majority verdict will find resonance with all
25 those who swear by the primacy of secularism in the public domain. The minority view nuances this with a
26 reminder that legal issues need to be seen in their social context (The Hindu 4 Jan 2016).