Quiz: Quiz on Reading Comprehension for NTA UGC NET Paper 1 (12 DEC 2020)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.

The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.

A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.

“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.
Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.

The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government’s proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.

Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.

“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the ‘claims and objections’ stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.

Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.
To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.

“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.

To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. “Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.

The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.

Which among the following is true regarding the new move of the Government regarding the National Register of Citizens in Assam?
असम में राष्ट्रीय नागरिकों के राष्ट्रीय रजिस्टर के बारे में सरकार के नए कदम के बारे में निम्नलिखित में से कौन सा सही है?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.

The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.

A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.

“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.
Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.

The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government’s proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.

Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.

“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the ‘claims and objections’ stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.

Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.
To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.

“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.

To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. “Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.

The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.

Which among the following is true regarding the view of the Supreme Court regarding the Standard Operating Procedure announced by the government?
सरकार द्वारा घोषित मानक संचालन प्रक्रिया के बारे में सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के दृष्टिकोण के बारे में निम्नलिखित में से कौन सा सही है?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.
 
The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.
 
A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.
 
“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.
Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.
 
The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government’s proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.

Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.
 
“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the ‘claims and objections’ stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.
 
Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.
To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.
 
“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.
 
To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. “Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.
 
The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.

Which among the following substantiates the observation of the Supreme Court that the government is contradicting its own stand in the issue of National Register of Citizens?
निम्नलिखित में से कौन सुप्रीम कोर्ट के अवलोकन की पुष्टि करता है कि सरकार नेशनल रजिस्टर ऑफ़ सिटिज़न्स के मुद्दे पर अपने स्वयं के रुख का विरोध कर रही है?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.
 
The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.
 
A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.
 
“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.
Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.
 
The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government’s proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.

Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.
 
“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the ‘claims and objections’ stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.
 
Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.
To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.
 
“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.
 
To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. “Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.
 
The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.

Which among the following is a possible consequence of the new standard operating procedure adopted by the Government regarding the National Register of Citizens?
निम्नलिखित में से कौन सा राष्ट्रीय नागरिक रजिस्टर के बारे में सरकार द्वारा अपनाई गई नई मानक संचालन प्रक्रिया का एक संभावित परिणाम है?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.
 
The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.
 
A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.
 
“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.
Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.
 
The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government’s proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.

Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.
 
“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the ‘claims and objections’ stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.
 
Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.
To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.
 
“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.
 
To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. “Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.
 
The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.

Why has the Supreme Court observed that the new move by the government will actually make the government redo the whole exercise?
सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने यह क्यों माना है कि सरकार के नए कदम से वास्तव में सरकार पूरी कवायद फिर से करेगी?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.
 
The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.
 
A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.
 
“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.
Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.
 
The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government’s proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.

Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.
 
“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the ‘claims and objections’ stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.
 
Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.
To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.
 
“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.
 
To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. “Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.
 
The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.

Which among the following is the course of action that has been taken by the Supreme Court regarding re-verification drive of the government under the aegis of National Register of Citizens?
निम्नलिखित में से कौन सी कार्रवाई राष्ट्रीय नागरिक रजिस्टर के तत्वावधान में सरकार के पुन: सत्यापन अभियान के संबंध में सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा की गई कार्रवाई है?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.
 
The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.
 
A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.
 
“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.
Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.
 
The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government’s proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.

Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.
 
“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the ‘claims and objections’ stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.
 
Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.
To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.
 
“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.
 
To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. “Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.
 
The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.

Which among the following is true regarding the directions given by the Supreme Court to the NRC Coordinator of Assam regarding the new SOP of the Union Government?
I. Mr Hajela will need to be present before the court on the next date of hearing and on every date of hearing thereafter
II. Mr. Hajela will need to submit a report regarding the possible consequences of the new move by the Union Government regarding the National Register of Citizens
III. Mr. Hajela will look forward to his advocate to defend him since the SC has asked him to appoint an advocate in the personal capacity from the next date of hearing
केंद्र सरकार के नए एसओपी के बारे में असम के NRC समन्वयक को सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा दिए गए निर्देशों के बारे में निम्नलिखित में से कौन सा सही है?
I. श्री हजेला को सुनवाई की अगली तारीख और उसके बाद सुनवाई की हर तारीख पर अदालत के समक्ष उपस्थित होने की आवश्यकता होगी
द्वितीय। श्री हजेला को राष्ट्रीय नागरिकों के राष्ट्रीय रजिस्टर के बारे में केंद्र सरकार द्वारा नए कदम के संभावित परिणामों के बारे में एक रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत करने की आवश्यकता होगी
तृतीय। श्री हजेला अपने बचाव के लिए अपने अधिवक्ता का इंतजार करेंगे क्योंकि SC ने उन्हें सुनवाई की अगली तारीख से व्यक्तिगत क्षमता में एक वकील नियुक्त करने के लिए कहा है

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.
 
The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.
 
A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.
 
“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.
Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.
 
The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government’s proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.

Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.
 
“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the ‘claims and objections’ stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.
 
Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.
To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.
 
“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.
 
To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. “Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.
 
The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.

Which among the following prompted the Supreme Court to ask the NRC Coordinator to submit a report within a time frame regarding the time required for re-verification on sampling basis?
निम्नलिखित में से किसने उच्चतम न्यायालय को एनआरसी समन्वयक से नमूने के आधार पर पुन: सत्यापन के लिए आवश्यक समय सीमा के भीतर एक रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत करने के लिए कहा?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.
 
The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.
 
A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.
 
“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.
Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.
 
The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government’s proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.

Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.
 
“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the ‘claims and objections’ stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.
 
Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.
To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.
 
“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.
 
To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. “Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.
 
The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.

Which among the following is similar in meaning to the word Ramifications as used in the passage?
निम्नलिखित में से कौन सा शब्द शब्दावलियों के अर्थ में समान है जैसा कि गद्यांश में प्रयुक्त हुआ है?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a “second chance” to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.
 
The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to “change his legacy” by submitting additional documents at the ‘claims and objections’ stage. The court asked whether this would amount to “re-doing the claims” of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30.
 
A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to “tinkering with the family tree” and re-doing the verification process.
 
“You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant’s siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?”, Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.
Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. “Are you not contradicting yourself here?” Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.
 
The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government’s proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing.

Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28.
 
“Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the ‘claims and objections’ stage, will upset the apple cart,” Justice Nariman observed.
 
Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights”.
To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with “human problems of a huge magnitude”.
 
“Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?” Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation.
 
To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of “trading of legacies or meeting of minds”. “Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,” he said.
 
The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.

Which among the following is opposite in meaning to the word deferred as used in the passage?
निम्नलिखित में से कौन सा मार्ग में प्रयुक्त शब्द के रूप में आस्थगित है?