New Enroll here to Join NaBFID Analyst Into Class on May 6

    Question

    Rearrange the followingsixsentences a, b, c, d, e and f in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them. a) The Supreme Court verdict of May 2014 striking down a statutory provision for prior government clearance for a Central Bureau of Investigation probe against officials of the rank of joint secretary and above is the touchstone against which the constitutionality of the pre-investigation sanction requirement will be tested. b) The Union government, too, has a set of amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act pending since 2013, including a proviso for prior sanction. c) The court had observed that such a provision destroys the objective of anti-corruption legislation, blocks the truth from surfacing, thwarts independent investigation and forewarns corrupt officers. d) This is the first time a section prescribing punishment for disclosure is being introduced in India, though provisions barring investigation or prosecution without prior sanction are also in force in Maharashtra. e) Anti-corruption legislation in India seems to be in a state of unacceptable flux. f) However, the time limit for the sanctioning authority to act is 180 days in Rajasthan, and 90 days in Maharashtra.

    Which is the THIRD sentence of the

    paragraph?
    A f Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    B e Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    C d Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    D c Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    E b Correct Answer Incorrect Answer

    Solution

    d f b a c e This is the first time a section prescribing punishment for disclosure is being introduced in India, though provisions barring investigation or prosecution without prior sanction are also in force in Maharashtra. However, the time limit for the sanctioning authority to act is 180 days in Rajasthan, and 90 days in Maharashtra. The Union government, too, has a set of amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act pending since 2013, including a proviso for prior sanction. The Supreme Court verdict of May 2014 striking down a statutory provision for prior government clearance for a Central Bureau of Investigation probe against officials of the rank of joint secretary and above is the touchstone against which the constitutionality of the pre-investigation sanction requirement will be tested. The court had observed that such a provision destroys the objective of anti-corruption legislation, blocks the truth from surfacing, thwarts independent investigation and forewarns corrupt officers. Anti-corruption legislation in India seems to be in a state of unacceptable flux.

    Practice Next

    Relevant for Exams: