Logical Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 56

The gulf between legality and political legitimacy can be quite substantial. The Supreme Court verdict upholding the constitution of a Delimitation Commission for Jammu and Kashmir and the subsequent delimitation exercise is indeed in line with the law, especially the constitutional provisions that empower Parliament to form new States, alter existing ones, and change their status and boundaries, as well as the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. However, it will be wrong to see it as granting judicial imprimatur to the political import of the redrawing of constituencies in the Union Territory.

Most political parties in J&K, which was downgraded to Union Territory status in August 2019, have opposed the Commission’s report that added six seats in Jammu division and one in Kashmir division to take the total number of seats to 90. The parties see in the exercise an attempt to weaken the Muslim majority region’s political and electoral significance and boost the prospects of parties with a base in Jammu.

They consider this as an extension of the project to strip J&K of its status and privileges and repurpose its politics to the advantage of the ruling party. This question of legitimacy can be answered by the outcome of an election, if and when one is held, to the territorial legislature. However, the readjustment of boundaries may by itself cast a shadow on that process too.

The petition that challenged the formation of the Delimitation Commission was a belated one, as it was filed after the panel published its draft order. The Court brushed aside its key contention that the delimitation has been frozen throughout the country until after the first Census held after 2026, noting that Article 170, which deals with this, applies only to States, and not Union Territories. It has also noted that J&K will be governed by its own reorganisation law, which allows the 2011 Census to be the basis for its delimitation, unlike the rest of the country, where the 2001 census was the basis for the last redrawing of constituency boundaries.

It also rejected arguments rooted in the idea that some provisions of the Reorganisation Act were not consistent with the Constitution, noting that these provisions had not been specifically challenged. While the Court may be right in upholding the formation of the delimitation panel, the extensions given to it, and its decision based on laws currently assumed to be valid, the impression is inescapable that the people of J&K are being presented with a fait accompli on matters concerning their political destiny, as long as the core question — the validity of the withdrawal of its statehood and special status in 2019 — remains undecided.

Questions:

1. Which among the following best represents the central message of the author in penning this passage?
(a) The Supreme Court’s verdict on the Delimitation Commission in J&K is a landmark judgement for the political future of the region.
(b) The people of J&K are likely to face a challenging political situation due to the delimitation exercise and the redrawing of constituencies in the Union Territory.
(c) The formation of the Delimitation Commission for J&K has been met with strong opposition from most political parties in the region.
(d) The legal and political legitimacy of the Delimitation Commission’s exercise in J&K is subject to debate.

2. What can be inferred from the given passage about the political parties in Jammu and Kashmir?
(a) They fully support the formation of the Delimitation Commission and the subsequent delimitation exercise.
(b) They see the delimitation exercise as a means to empower the Muslim majority region.
(c) They believe that the delimitation exercise is an attempt to weaken the political and electoral significance of the Muslim majority region and favor parties with a base in Jammu.
(d) They have not expressed any opinion on the Delimitation Commission and the subsequent delimitation exercise.

3. Which of the following could weaken the arguments presented in the given passage?
(a) A survey indicating that the majority of people in Jammu and Kashmir support the Delimitation Commission’s report.
(b) A court ruling invalidating the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.
(c) A statement from the ruling party indicating that the delimitation exercise was carried out with the intention of empowering the Muslim majority region.
(d) The Supreme Court ruling that the delimitation exercise is in line with the constitutional provisions that empower Parliament to form new States, alter existing ones, and change their status and boundaries.

4. Which of the following is the author most likely to disagree with?
(a) The Supreme Court’s verdict upholding the formation of the Delimitation Commission for Jammu and Kashmir is necessary to maintain law and order in the Union Territory.
(b) Most political parties in J&K are wrong to see the delimitation exercise as an attempt to weaken the Muslim majority region’s political and electoral significance.
(c) The outcome of an election can provide a definitive answer to the question of legitimacy arising from the readjustment of boundaries.
(d) The people of J&K are being presented with a fait accompli on matters concerning their political destiny.

5. In the context of the passage, what role does public opinion play in determining the political legitimacy of the redrawing of constituencies in J&K?
(a) Public opinion is irrelevant in determining the political legitimacy of the redrawing of constituencies in J&K.
(b) Public opinion is the sole determinant of the political legitimacy of the redrawing of constituencies in J&K.
(c) Public opinion is a factor in determining the political legitimacy of the redrawing of constituencies in J&K, but not the only factor.
(d) The passage does not discuss the role of public opinion in determining the political legitimacy of the redrawing of constituencies in J&K.

6. Which among the following best represents a flaw in the author’s arguments?
(a) The author fails to consider the impact of social media on political discourse in J&K.
(b) The author’s arguments are too focused on legal technicalities, and fail to take into account the human impact of the redrawing of constituencies in J&K.
(c) The author’s arguments rely too heavily on anecdotal evidence, and fail to provide sufficient statistical data to support their claims.
(d) The passage does not contain any flaws in the author’s arguments.