Directions (1-9): In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed in the passage and against each, five words are suggested, one of which fits the blanks appropriately. Find out the appropriate word in each case.
An ——–(1)———- event took place on January 12 when the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, after the Chief Justice of India (CJI), held a press conference, issued a statement, and also answered questions from the media. Justice J. Chelameswar, at whose residence the press conference was held, said that the judges were “left with no choice” other than to communicate to the nation the many “less than desirable things” that have happened “in the last few months”.
They said in their statement that “certain judicial orders passed by this court” have “adversely affected the overall functioning of the justice delivery system.” Justice Chelameswar said that all four of them are “convinced that unless this institution is preserved and it maintains its ——-(2)——-, democracy will not survive in this country.”
The four judges have an impeccable record of integrity, ——(3)———, and impartiality. They felt that it was necessary to inform the nation about the lack of ——-(4)—— by the CJI in the process of administration of justice. They further said that they did not want the country 20 years from now to think that they had “sold their souls”.
From a plain reading of their statement and their replies to questions at the press conference, it is clear that they issued the statement as a last resort, with deep ——–(5)——–, in order to save democracy and the Supreme Court. They had no option but to address the nation and inform its citizens about the lack of impartiality, which is the bedrock of administration of justice.
The four judges were absolutely right in informing the public of the dangers that lie ahead. Democracy is ——-(6)——– in the Constitution. It is their duty as Supreme Court judges to protect the Constitution. If there is no democracy, there is no Constitution and no constitutional democracy.
It is not as if the four judges did not try for months to convince the CJI that he must not resort to selectivity in the assignment of cases, but it bore no results. Even on the day of the press conference, they met the CJI (in regard to the listing of cases) but could not convince him. Unless this lack of impartiality in the administration of justice is ——–(7)——– into, and unless rules are framed on a rational basis and a system is ——-(8)——– for an impartial allocation of cases, the damaged faith of the people of India in the impartiality of the Supreme Court will not be fully restored.
It was expected of the Attorney General of India as a constitutional authority to squarely confront the serious issues raised by the four judges and ensure that the faith of the people in the independence and impartiality of judges is restored. Needless to say, that independence and impartiality form the basic structure of the Constitution.
This is an opportunity for the Attorney General to save the Constitution. He should not act as an agent of the government, but as a constitutional authority. Equally, it is his constitutional duty to squarely attend to the vital issues raised by the four judges in discussion with the CJI and all other judges of the Supreme Court to find a solution that will restore the ——–(9)——— of the Supreme Court.
- a) unprecedented
- a) equanimity
e) none of the above
- a) ignorance
- a) baised
- a) happiness
- a) humiliate
- a) enquired
- a) destroyed
- a) dishonour