Select Goal &
City
Select Goal
Explore
Comprehension
Until 2017, India did not have a codified law to order internet shut downs. A general power was vested in District Magistrates in this regard. The Magistrate could issue an order ordering a shut down if a ‘speedy remedy’ (extending to internet shut down) is desirable for ‘immediate prevention’ of an event. The Magistrate had to be satisfied that the order is ‘likely to prevent or tends to prevent obstruction, annoyance or injury to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of public tranquillity’. The Magistrate’s order cannot be for longer than two months.
In 2017, new rules to order internet shut downs were introduced taking the power away from the Magistrate. These rules — the Temporary Suspension Rules — state that internet shut downs can now only be ordered by the Home Secretary of the Union or State Governments. Only in “unavoidable circumstances” can the passing of orders be delegated to someone lower than the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India. And even in this case, the official must be authorised by the Centre or State Home Secretary. Shut downs can be ordered where ‘necessary’ or ‘unavoidable’ during a ‘public emergency’ or in the ‘interest of public safety’. Shut down orders must necessarily detail the reasons to shut down the internet. The orders must also be sent to a review committee under the state or central government within 24 hours. The committee must then review them within five working days. The rules state that apart from the Chief Secretary and Legal Secretary, the committee can comprise a secretary other than the home secretary.
In January 2020 the Supreme Court passed its judgement in the case of Anuradha Bhasin. The judgement in this case explicitly recognised two things: that the freedom to access information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India (which protects the freedom of speech and expression); and that the freedom to conduct your trade, profession or business over the internet is also a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India (which protects the freedom to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business). Every time the internet is suspended, it is quite obvious that it is a violation of these rights. These rights can only be curtailed in the interest of the ‘sovereignty and security of the state, integrity of the nation, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence’. The Supreme Court’s judgement in Anuradha Bhasin’s case had also underlined that shut down orders must clearly provide reasons for the shut down and they must be publicly available.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from “In India, are internet shut downs in accordance with law? Not always”, by Diksha Munjal, News Laundry]
In 2017, new rules to order internet shut downs were introduced taking the power away from the Magistrate. These rules — the Temporary Suspension Rules — state that internet shut downs can now only be ordered by the Home Secretary of the Union or State Governments. Only in “unavoidable circumstances” can the passing of orders be delegated to someone lower than the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India. And even in this case, the official must be authorised by the Centre or State Home Secretary. Shut downs can be ordered where ‘necessary’ or ‘unavoidable’ during a ‘public emergency’ or in the ‘interest of public safety’. Shut down orders must necessarily detail the reasons to shut down the internet. The orders must also be sent to a review committee under the state or central government within 24 hours. The committee must then review them within five working days. The rules state that apart from the Chief Secretary and Legal Secretary, the committee can comprise a secretary other than the home secretary.
In January 2020 the Supreme Court passed its judgement in the case of Anuradha Bhasin. The judgement in this case explicitly recognised two things: that the freedom to access information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India (which protects the freedom of speech and expression); and that the freedom to conduct your trade, profession or business over the internet is also a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India (which protects the freedom to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business). Every time the internet is suspended, it is quite obvious that it is a violation of these rights. These rights can only be curtailed in the interest of the ‘sovereignty and security of the state, integrity of the nation, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence’. The Supreme Court’s judgement in Anuradha Bhasin’s case had also underlined that shut down orders must clearly provide reasons for the shut down and they must be publicly available.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from “In India, are internet shut downs in accordance with law? Not always”, by Diksha Munjal, News Laundry]
Question: 1
In 2014, India was hit by a terrible pandemic. It was the first time the country was experiencing a pandemic. People panicked. WhatsApp and Facebook groups became common platforms for sharing information about the pandemic. Messages were forwarded from group to group. Many of these messages prescribed different remedies to prevent and cure the flu caused by the pandemic. In Merodha district, people following these remedies began to fall sick. The already overburdened public sector hospitals became even more full. The district administration requested people to stop sharing such misinformation. However, these requests were not heeded. The District Magistrate issued an indefinite order to shut down the internet to prevent the transmission of these messages. Is this order legal?
In 2014, India was hit by a terrible pandemic. It was the first time the country was experiencing a pandemic. People panicked. WhatsApp and Facebook groups became common platforms for sharing information about the pandemic. Messages were forwarded from group to group. Many of these messages prescribed different remedies to prevent and cure the flu caused by the pandemic. In Merodha district, people following these remedies began to fall sick. The already overburdened public sector hospitals became even more full. The district administration requested people to stop sharing such misinformation. However, these requests were not heeded. The District Magistrate issued an indefinite order to shut down the internet to prevent the transmission of these messages. Is this order legal?
Updated On: Jul 9, 2024
- Yes, because the District Magistrate has the power to issue a range of orders, which includes internet shut down orders.
- Yes, because the order was necessary on grounds of public health.
- Yes, because a speedy order was necessary to immediately prevent transmission of these messages.
- No, because the order was indefinite.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (D): No, because the order was indefinite.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
The Central government was preparing to conduct the National Medical Eligibility Test (“NMET”) on 25 October 2021. The exams were to be conducted in public schools around the country on computers provided by the government. In July 2021, there were rumours that several groups had hatched plans to share answers with the students taking the exam. A special chat application was developed. The student simply had to open the application on the browser of the computer on which they were taking the exam, allowing persons on the other end to send them the answers. The government was very concerned. If the rumours were true, the quality of doctors in training (who were selected through the NMET) would be severely affected. To prevent this public emergency, the government issued orders under the Temporary Suspension Rules to shut down internet countrywide on 25 October 2021. Many protested against this decision. They argued that the government could prevent cheating in the exams by shutting down the internet in the public schools where the exam was taking place. A nation-wide blanket shut down was not required for this purpose. Now, the issue is before the Supreme Court. What will the Court decide?
The Central government was preparing to conduct the National Medical Eligibility Test (“NMET”) on 25 October 2021. The exams were to be conducted in public schools around the country on computers provided by the government. In July 2021, there were rumours that several groups had hatched plans to share answers with the students taking the exam. A special chat application was developed. The student simply had to open the application on the browser of the computer on which they were taking the exam, allowing persons on the other end to send them the answers. The government was very concerned. If the rumours were true, the quality of doctors in training (who were selected through the NMET) would be severely affected. To prevent this public emergency, the government issued orders under the Temporary Suspension Rules to shut down internet countrywide on 25 October 2021. Many protested against this decision. They argued that the government could prevent cheating in the exams by shutting down the internet in the public schools where the exam was taking place. A nation-wide blanket shut down was not required for this purpose. Now, the issue is before the Supreme Court. What will the Court decide?
Updated On: Jul 9, 2024
- The government’s order is legal under the Temporary Suspension Rules because it prevents a public emergency by preserving the quality of doctors in India
- The government’s order is not legal under the Temporary Suspension Rules because the power belonged to the magistrate to issue orders under Section 144.
- The government’s order is not legal under the Temporary Suspension Rules because the nation-wide internet shut down order was not necessary or unavoidable.
- The government’s order is legal because it is the responsibility of the State to conduct exams in a fair manner.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (C): The government’s order is not legal under the Temporary Suspension Rules because the nation-wide internet shut down order was not necessary or unavoidable.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
In the above instance, the order was passed by the Communications Minister of the Indian Central Government. The Communications Minister is below the rank of Joint Secretary. The Home Secretary was away for a conference in Geneva and thus was not present in Delhi when the decision to pass the order was made. However, the Home Secretary could be contacted by phone or email. She had, in fact, explicitly said that she should be contacted if any need arises, however minor. As she had taken measures to make herself available virtually, the Home Secretary did not authorise any other official to exercise her functions. Against this, consider the following statements:
i. The Communications Minister had the power to pass the order under the 2017 Rules.
ii. The passing of the order by the Communications Minister was avoidable.
iii. The power to pass the order remained with the Home Secretary.
iv. The Communications Minister did not have the power to pass the order under the 2017 Rules.
Which of the following statements are false?
In the above instance, the order was passed by the Communications Minister of the Indian Central Government. The Communications Minister is below the rank of Joint Secretary. The Home Secretary was away for a conference in Geneva and thus was not present in Delhi when the decision to pass the order was made. However, the Home Secretary could be contacted by phone or email. She had, in fact, explicitly said that she should be contacted if any need arises, however minor. As she had taken measures to make herself available virtually, the Home Secretary did not authorise any other official to exercise her functions. Against this, consider the following statements:
i. The Communications Minister had the power to pass the order under the 2017 Rules.
ii. The passing of the order by the Communications Minister was avoidable.
iii. The power to pass the order remained with the Home Secretary.
iv. The Communications Minister did not have the power to pass the order under the 2017 Rules.
Which of the following statements are false?
i. The Communications Minister had the power to pass the order under the 2017 Rules.
ii. The passing of the order by the Communications Minister was avoidable.
iii. The power to pass the order remained with the Home Secretary.
iv. The Communications Minister did not have the power to pass the order under the 2017 Rules.
Which of the following statements are false?
Updated On: Jul 9, 2024
- Statement iv
- Statement i
- Statements ii and iii
- Statements ii and iv
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (B): Statement i.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
Assume that in the above instance, the Joint Secretary passed the order. The order stated: ‘By means of the discretion vested in me by the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules 2017, I suspend internet across all Indian States and Union Territories on October 25, 2021’. The order was passed on 15 October, 2021. The order was sent to the Central Government review committee within 8 hours of its passing. The committee reviewed and approved of the order on 22 October, 2021. Is the order legal?
Assume that in the above instance, the Joint Secretary passed the order. The order stated: ‘By means of the discretion vested in me by the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules 2017, I suspend internet across all Indian States and Union Territories on October 25, 2021’. The order was passed on 15 October, 2021. The order was sent to the Central Government review committee within 8 hours of its passing. The committee reviewed and approved of the order on 22 October, 2021. Is the order legal?
Updated On: Jul 9, 2024
- Yes, because it was passed under the 2017 rules.
- No, because the procedure under the 2017 rules was not followed.
- Yes, because the order was reviewed by the Central government review committee
- No, because the order was passed 10 days before it was to come into effect.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (B): No, because the procedure under the 2017 rules was not followed.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
In January 2022, communal riots were rife in five states in India, between two dominant communities, X and Y. The primary mode of communication amongst the rioters was Signal which could be accessed through the internet via mobile phones and computers. The State governments of the five States received information that some members of X group were planning to set the houses of members of Y group on fire. Through broad Signal broadcasts amongst all users, the leaders of X group were instigating members of their group to participate in this exercise, threatening public order. Creating or inciting threat to public order is a criminal offence under Section 163F of the Indian Penal Code. To prevent further communication between the leaders of X group and their members, the State shut Signal down. However, communication then shifted to other platforms. Realising that targeting isolated platforms would not work, the State governments issued an order shutting down internet completely in all the states. Two groups protested against this order. First, students whose education was being conducted online due to the riots. They argued that they were prevented from accessing vital information, central to their education. Second, business owners who conducted business on the internet. The State’s order read: ‘In the five Indian States listed below, internet will be suspended for a period of two months from 10 January 2022 to 10 March 2022’. The State’s order was not displayed anywhere (in print or virtually) from January to March 2022.
Consider the following statements:
i. The students’ right under Article 19(1)(a) was violated by the State order
ii. The business owners’ right under Article 19(1)(g) was violated by the State order.
iii. The State order validly restricted the said fundamental rights.
iv. The State’s order complied with the guidelines under Anuradha Bhasin. How many statements are true?
In January 2022, communal riots were rife in five states in India, between two dominant communities, X and Y. The primary mode of communication amongst the rioters was Signal which could be accessed through the internet via mobile phones and computers. The State governments of the five States received information that some members of X group were planning to set the houses of members of Y group on fire. Through broad Signal broadcasts amongst all users, the leaders of X group were instigating members of their group to participate in this exercise, threatening public order. Creating or inciting threat to public order is a criminal offence under Section 163F of the Indian Penal Code. To prevent further communication between the leaders of X group and their members, the State shut Signal down. However, communication then shifted to other platforms. Realising that targeting isolated platforms would not work, the State governments issued an order shutting down internet completely in all the states. Two groups protested against this order. First, students whose education was being conducted online due to the riots. They argued that they were prevented from accessing vital information, central to their education. Second, business owners who conducted business on the internet. The State’s order read: ‘In the five Indian States listed below, internet will be suspended for a period of two months from 10 January 2022 to 10 March 2022’. The State’s order was not displayed anywhere (in print or virtually) from January to March 2022.
Consider the following statements:
i. The students’ right under Article 19(1)(a) was violated by the State order
ii. The business owners’ right under Article 19(1)(g) was violated by the State order.
iii. The State order validly restricted the said fundamental rights.
iv. The State’s order complied with the guidelines under Anuradha Bhasin. How many statements are true?
Consider the following statements:
i. The students’ right under Article 19(1)(a) was violated by the State order
ii. The business owners’ right under Article 19(1)(g) was violated by the State order.
iii. The State order validly restricted the said fundamental rights.
iv. The State’s order complied with the guidelines under Anuradha Bhasin. How many statements are true?
Updated On: Jul 9, 2024
- One statement
- Two statements
- Three statements
- All four statements
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (C): Three statements.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Important Judgments
- An Ordinance which is promulgated by the Governor has (as clause 2 of Article 213 provides) the same force and effect as an Act of the legislature of the State assented to by the Governor. However - and this is a matter of crucial importance – clause 2 goes on to stipulate in the same vein significant constitutional conditions. These conditions have to be fulfilled before the ‘force and effect’ fiction comes into being. These conditions are prefaced by the expression “but every such Ordinance” which means that the constitutional fiction is subject to what is stipulated in sub-clauses (a) and (b). Sub-clause (a) provides that the Ordinance “shall be laid before the legislative assembly of the state” or before both the Houses in the case of a bi-cameral legislature. Is the requirement of laying an Ordinance before the state legislature mandatory? There can be no manner of doubt that it is. The expression “shall be laid” is a positive mandate which brooks no exceptions. That the word ‘shall’ in sub-clause (a) of clause 2 of Article 213 is mandatory, emerges from reading the provision in its entirety. As we have noted earlier, an Ordinance can be promulgated only when the legislature is not in session. Upon the completion of six weeks of the reassembling of the legislature, an Ordinance “shall cease to operate”.
Article 213(2)(a) postulates that an ordinance would cease to operate upon the expiry of a period of six weeks of the reassembly of the legislature. The Oxford English dictionary defines the expression “cease” as : “to stop, give over, discontinue, desist; to come to the end.” P Ramanatha Aiyar’s, The Major Law Lexicon defines the expression “cease” to mean “discontinue or put an end to”. Justice C K Thakker’s Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon defines the word “cease” as meaning: “to put an end to; to stop, to terminate or to discontinue”. The expression has been defined in similar terms in Black’s Law Dictionary.
The expression “cease to operate” in Article 213(2)(a) is attracted in two situations. The first is where a period of six weeks has expired since the reassembling of the legislature. The second situation is where a resolution has been passed by the legislature disapproving of an ordinance. Apart from these two situations that are contemplated by sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b) contemplates that an ordinance may be withdrawn at any time by the Governor. Upon its withdrawal the ordinance would cease to operate as well.
[Extracts from the judgment of majority judgment in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 5875 of 1994, decided on January 2, 2017 hereafter ‘KK Singh’]- CLAT PG - 2023
- Legal Studies
- Important Judgments
- Twitter’s lawyer on October 27, said before the Karnataka High Court that Union government orders to block certain Twitter handles and posts must contain reasons for the same that can be communicated to users of the microblogging site. He said this applies to all blocking orders sent to social media platforms. The lawyer representing Twitter said that reasons for the blocking order must be provided to users so they can determine whether or not they want to challenge the orders.
Challenging the blocking orders, Twitter’s July 5 petition contended that several blocking orders “demonstrate excessive use of powers and are disproportionate”. Such orders can only be issued by the Union government and not the state governments, he said, which increases the danger of such abuse. Twitter also claimed that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had sent it a letter threatening consequences for failing to comply with the blocking orders, such as criminal proceedings against the company’s chief compliance officer and the stripping away of Twitter’s safe harbour immunity, otherwise available to social media platforms under Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act (the “IT Act”). Note that the Government has the power to strip away such safe harbour immunity under the IT Act. Further, in a previous hearing, Twitter’s lawyer said that the company was asked to block entire accounts, although Section 69A of the IT Act does not permit blocking of the whole account. It only permits the blocking of information, or a particular tweet or post. It argued that the Union government’s direction to block whole accounts will affect its business, adding that several prominent persons have their accounts on the platform.
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “ ‘Government Must Provide Reasons for Blocking User Accounts,’ Twitter Tells Karnataka HC”, The Wire]- CLAT - 2023
- Legal Studies
- Important Judgments
- Assume that the statements in the passages are the applicable law.
Quashing a case of cruelty that was filed against a man by his wife, the Bombay High Court said that if a married lady is asked to do household work for the family, it cannot be said that she is treated “like a maid servant”. The Court was hearing an application by the husband and his parents seeking that proceedings against them are quashed. A First Information Report (“FIR”) was filed against the trio in September 2020, around nine months after the marriage, alleging that they hounded the woman for money to purchase a car, harassed her mentally and physically and treated her like a maid servant. Examining the evidence, the Court found that there was no merit to the woman’s allegations. The Court said that though the FIR says that she was treated properly for about a month and then “like a maid servant”, there are no details of what this meant. The Court added: “If a married lady is asked to do household work for the purpose of the family, it cannot be said that it is like a maid servant.” The Court held that the mere use of the word harassment “mentally and physically” in the FIR is not sufficient to constitute an offence Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”), which punishes the husband, or a relative of the husband of a woman who subjects her to cruelty in any way. It is interesting to note that Section 498A of the IPC also provides that if a married woman is actually treated like a ‘maid servant’, it would be an offence under that Section.
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “If Wife Is Asked To Do Household Work, Does Not Mean She Is Treated Like Maid: Bombay HC”, The Wire]- CLAT - 2023
- Legal Studies
- Important Judgments
- The Supreme Court of India observed that, while appreciating the existence of the right to peaceful protest against a legislation ……., we have to make it unequivocally clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent must be in designated places alone. The present case was not even one of protests taking place in an undesignated area but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters. We cannot accept the plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest.
- CLAT PG - 2022
- Legal Studies
- Important Judgments
- Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act, which need not be a long gap. To bring common intention into effect a pre-concert is not necessarily be proved, but it may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons and could be inferred from facts and circumstances of each case. For example A and B caught hold of C where only B stabbed C with a knife but A is also liable for murder as there was a pre concerted action. In the case Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, Supreme court emphasized on this point that prior concert need not be something always very much prior to the incident, but could well be something that may develop on the spot, on the spur of the moment.
Common Intention and Similar Intention
Common intention does not mean similar intention of several persons. To constitute common intention it is necessary that the intention of each one of them be known to the rest of them and shared by them. In the case of Dukhmochan Pandey v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court, held that: “Common intention which developed at the spur of the moment is different from the similar intention actuated a number of person at the same time….the distinction between a common intention and similar intention may be fine, but is nonetheless a real one and if overlooked, may lead to miscarriage of justice….” The mere presence of accused together is not sufficient to hold that they shared the common intention to commit the offence in question. It is necessary that the intention of each one of 'several persons‘ be known to each other for constituting common intention.- CLAT - 2020
- Legal Studies
- Important Judgments
View More Questions
Questions Asked in CLAT exam
- A survey was conducted about the population of a particular region having working population of three lacs and information was collected about self-employed persons, casual wage workers, regular salaries employees of both urban and rural areas of the region. Self-employment is a key source of income in both rural and urban areas but it is more prevalent in rural areas (56% of the rural population) than in urban areas (40% of the urban population). Rural population was 48% of the total population. Regular salaried workers in urban areas were 48% of the urban population whereas in rural areas, regular salaried workers constituted 12% of the rural population. During the survey, the casual wage workers were found to be more common in rural areas than in urban areas. Casual wage workers in rural areas were 32% of the rural population whereas it was 12% of the urban population in urban areas.
Based on the above information, answer the following questions- CLAT - 2024
- Percentage
- Automobiles are the most preferred mode of transport because they allow us to cover large distance quickly. Resultantly, vehicles have been developed that run on diesel, petrol and even on electricity, which is a remarkable innovative development. During a survey about the percentage wise distribution of cars in four different states, the information regarding ratio between the diesel engine cars, petrol engine cars and electric cars was collected. Total number of cars for which data was collected was 8000. Of these, State 1 had 15% of the total cars in the ratio of 3:4:1 (diesel, petrol and electric); State 2 had 20% of the total cars in the ratio of 5:3:2 (diesel, petrol and electric); State 3 had 30% of the total cars in the ratio of 4:5:3 (diesel, petrol and electric), and; State 4 had 35% of the total cars in the ratio of 7:5:2 (diesel, petrol and electric).
Based on the above information, answer the following questions.- CLAT - 2024
- Percentage
- In a world where aspirations for upward mobility are fervent, the opportunities for achieving such dreams remain limited. When one generation falls short, the mantle of ambition passes to the next, embedding within it a heavy burden of responsibility. Failing to meet these expectations can lead to profound sorrow, and in the direst cases, even to suicide. It’s in this landscape that coaching institutes assume a significant role, cultivating an atmosphere of uncertainty among students and parents. A stark discrepancy emerges between preparation for board examinations and competitive tests, amplifying the inequalities that plague the education system. The coaching industry’s massive marketing campaigns further exacerbate the situation, with some strategies veering into ethical grey areas. The tests themselves, designed to be more challenging than standardised exams, set the stage for feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt when not conquered. Our educational system is tailored to gauge an individual’s merit through examinations. Eminent thinker Michael J Sandel dubs this system the “tyranny of merit”, a sentiment echoed by the Supreme Court of India. Upholding the OBC reservation judgment, the Court called for a deeper evaluation of the “idea of merit”, highlighting its nuanced nature. Merit as a concept remains shrouded in misunderstanding and often goes unexamined within school curriculum. Adapting to new living arrangements, sourcing nourishing meals, battling isolation, and grappling with commutes form the backdrop against, which education unfolds. For marginalised communities and gender minorities, these hurdles are often amplified. Social media algorithms exacerbate mental health concerns, sowing loneliness and impeding attention spans and creativity. Technology emerges as a potential equaliser in this landscape. Online platforms now offer preparation opportunities from the comfort of one’s home. Government-curated or market-driven content could usher in a new era of accessibility.
- CLAT - 2024
- Verbal Reasoning
- Imagine you have just been appointed as a consultant for a manufacturing company that is experiencing a decline in its production efficiency. The company produces a wide range of products, and the management is concerned about the overall output. Your task is to identify the root causes of this decline and recommend solutions.
As you begin your investigation, you gather information and observe the following:
• The company recently introduced a new production system that is more automated but requires highly specialized operators.
• The workforce has reported a lack of motivation and job satisfaction, which has led to increased absenteeism.
• There have been several breakdowns in the new machinery, leading to production delays and quality issues.
• The company’s competitors have adopted similar automation technologies and are experiencing increased productivity.
• Customer complaints about product quality have increased in recent months.- CLAT - 2024
- Verbal Reasoning
- Students have been abuzz over how artificial intelligence tools can do their homework and programmers over how these can increase their productivity or take away their jobs. As much as digitization has transformed the country in recent years, there is a widespread feeling that at some point around the horizon, AI shall rejig everything in even more fundamental, fantastic, and frightening ways. This is why deciding how the coming changes should be regulated is very important. TRAI has made a strong case for an independent statutory authority to ensure the responsible development and use of AI in the country, a global agency along similar lines shall likely be pitched at the G20 leaders’ summit, and interestingly even American MNC Microsoft has floated a blueprint for AI governance in India. The great size and diversity of its “data points” make India of great interest to all developers of AI technologies.
But India is only at their receiving end, nowhere close to the US and China’s advances. Although lately, it is becoming obvious how much state censorship is encumbering China’s large language modeling, the country is still very much in the game with PhDs in fields related to AI, investments in AI chip hardware design, and domestic generative models like Wu Dao. The scientific accomplishments of India’s Chandrayaan mission have seen it being wooed for various international space collaborations. This promises spinoff technological benefits across Indian industry and is also geo-strategically useful. Likewise, it is only with sufficient AI prowess that India shall really get to play at the high table of global rulemaking for AI.
Knowing how much Indians’ future shall be shaped by generative AI needs matching efforts to create indigenous models. In this and at this stage, a proactive government role is key, rather than just waiting on some large corporation to do the needful. Missing this bus will after all be even more costly than missing the chip research one. Plus, GOI alone can push academia-industry collaborations with the necessary weight and urgency. This does not let other institutions off the hook. A US judge has rejected the copyright for an AI-generated artwork. Indian courts should start engaging with the broader issue of non-human agency rather than wait for precedence to be set elsewhere. Indian schools need to think beyond the ban-ChatGPT mindset. Let us lead instead of only being led.
[Extracted from “First, get the tech: Unless India develops domestic AI heft, it wouldn’t play any meaningful part in global regulatory efforts”, Times of India]- CLAT - 2024
- Verbal Reasoning
View More Questions
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWS LETTER
COLLEGE NOTIFICATIONSEXAM NOTIFICATIONSNEWS UPDATES
Download the Collegedunia app on 
© 2024 Collegedunia Web Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved