Comprehension
On the recommendation of Parliament, the President of India effectively abrogated Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and gave assent to the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019. The former state of Jammu & Kashmir has been reorganized as the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the new Union Territory of Ladakh on 31 October 2019,
The new Union Territory of Ladakh consists of two districts of Kargil and Leh. The rest of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir is in the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
By 2019, the state government of former Jammu and Kashmir had reorganized the areas of these 14 districts into 28 districts. The names of the new districts are as follows- Kupwara, Bandipur, Ganderbal, Srinagar, Budgam, Pulwama, Shupian, Kulgam, Rajouri, Ramban, Doda, Kishtivar, Samba and Kargil.
Out of these, Kargil district was carved out from the area of Leh and Ladakh district. The Leh district of the new Union Territory of Ladakh has been defined in the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2019, issued by the President of India, to include the areas of the districts of Gilgit, Gilgit Wazarat. Chilhas and Tribal Territory of 1947, in addition to the remaining areas of Leh and Ladakh districts of 1947, after carving out the Kargil District.
[Extracted from the article of Press Information Bureau, published by the Union Home Ministry on 2nd November 2019]
The new Union Territory of Ladakh consists of two districts of Kargil and Leh. The rest of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir is in the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
By 2019, the state government of former Jammu and Kashmir had reorganized the areas of these 14 districts into 28 districts. The names of the new districts are as follows- Kupwara, Bandipur, Ganderbal, Srinagar, Budgam, Pulwama, Shupian, Kulgam, Rajouri, Ramban, Doda, Kishtivar, Samba and Kargil.
Out of these, Kargil district was carved out from the area of Leh and Ladakh district. The Leh district of the new Union Territory of Ladakh has been defined in the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2019, issued by the President of India, to include the areas of the districts of Gilgit, Gilgit Wazarat. Chilhas and Tribal Territory of 1947, in addition to the remaining areas of Leh and Ladakh districts of 1947, after carving out the Kargil District.
[Extracted from the article of Press Information Bureau, published by the Union Home Ministry on 2nd November 2019]
Question: 1
Which of the following statements regarding Article 370 of the Constitution of India is correct?
Which of the following statements regarding Article 370 of the Constitution of India is correct?
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- It gave special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir
- It created a special tribunal for the state of Jammu and Kashmir on certain occasions
- It introduced Goods and Services Tax in Jammu and Kashmir
- It confers special jurisdiction on the Supreme Court on matters coming from Jammu & Kashmir
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The correct statement regarding Article 370 of the Constitution of India is: It gave special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Article 370 was a special provision that provided autonomous status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. It allowed the state to have its own Constitution and limited the Indian Parliament's legislative powers concerning the state. Most of the laws passed by the Indian Parliament required the state government's concurrence to be applicable in Jammu and Kashmir.
On August 5, 2019, the Government of India abrogated Article 370, thereby revoking the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. The state was reorganized into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, effective October 31, 2019.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, divided the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir into which of the following?
The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, divided the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir into which of the following?
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- 2 States
- 1 State and 1 Union Territory
- 2 Union Territories
- 1 State and 2 Union Territories
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
To solve the question about the division of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir by The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, we need to understand the background provided. The Act was passed following the abrogation of Article 370, and it led to the division into two distinct Union Territories:
- Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir: This includes the remaining areas of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir, minus the regions allocated to Ladakh. It now comprises districts such as Kupwara, Bandipur, Ganderbal, and others.
- Union Territory of Ladakh: Comprising the districts of Kargil and Leh. The Leh district includes specific regions defined in historical agreements, such as parts of Gilgit.
Therefore, the correct answer is that the former State was divided into 2 Union Territories.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
Which of the following Union Territories of India has a legislative assembly?
Which of the following Union Territories of India has a legislative assembly?
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands
- Jammu and Kashmir
- Daman and Diu
- Lakshadweep
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
To identify which of the Union Territories of India has a legislative assembly, we must consider the recent changes in India's political-administrative structure. The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (UT J&K) has been given a legislative assembly.
The reorganization of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories—Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh—occurred as part of the abrogation of Article 370 under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019. This act was effective as of October 31, 2019.
Of the options provided:
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands: This Union Territory does not have a legislative assembly.
- Jammu and Kashmir: This Union Territory has a legislative assembly, established as part of the reorganization act.
- Daman and Diu: Merged with Dadra and Nagar Haveli to form a single Union Territory known as Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, which does not have a legislative assembly.
- Lakshadweep: This Union Territory does not have a legislative assembly.
Given these details, the Union Territory with a legislative assembly is Jammu and Kashmir.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
How many States and Union Territories are present in India?
How many States and Union Territories are present in India?
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- 28 states and 8 Union territories
- 27 states and 8 Union territories
- 28 states and 7 Union territories
- 27 states and 7 Union territories
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
As of the latest updates, India comprises 28 states and 8 Union territories. This configuration came about after the abrogation of Article 370 by the Indian Parliament and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019. Here's a brief overview of the relevant changes:
The former state of Jammu & Kashmir has been bifurcated into two Union territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh as of 31 October 2019. This restructuring was pivotal in updating the administrative divisions of the country.
With these divisions effective, the total number of states remains 28. However, the addition of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh as Union territories, has brought the number of Union territories up to 8.
Thus, the correct answer to the query regarding the number of states and Union territories in India is: 28 states and 8 Union territories.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
Which among the following is the capital city of the Union Territory of Ladakh?
Which among the following is the capital city of the Union Territory of Ladakh?
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- Leh
- Changthang
- Nubra
- Diu
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The capital city of the Union Territory of Ladakh is Leh. The reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019 led to the creation of two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The Union Territory of Ladakh consists of two districts, namely Leh and Kargil. Leh is the capital city and serves as an administrative hub, playing a crucial role in the governance and administration of the newly formed Union Territory. This change was part of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, which was a significant political and administrative development in India.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 6
Which of the following is false?
Which of the following is false?
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- Kargil was formerly a union territory
- Ladakh is administered by J&K assembly
- Fifteen new districts were formed to be part of J&K in 2019
- All of the above
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
To determine which statement is false, we must examine each option against the provided information:
- Kargil was formerly a union territory.Explanation: According to the comprehension, Kargil was part of the area reorganized into the new Union Territory of Ladakh, not a former union territory itself. Thus, this statement is false.
- Ladakh is administered by J&K assembly.Explanation: The comprehension states that Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh were reorganized as separate union territories. Ladakh, therefore, is not administered by the J&K assembly. Hence, this statement is false.
- Fifteen new districts were formed to be part of J&K in 2019.Explanation: The comprehension clarifies that the total number of districts was reorganized from 14 to 28, which implies the addition of 14 new districts, not 15. Thus, this statement is false.
Since all the statements are false, the correct answer is "All of the above."
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top CLAT Questions
- In the realm of contemporary literature, the interplay between character and setting is a nuanced dance that shapes the narrative’s essence. The setting, often described with painstaking detail, becomes more than a backdrop; it becomes a character, influencing the plot and character development.
Consider, for instance, the barren expanse of the desert in Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake. The arid landscape mirrors the sense of isolation felt by the protagonist, Gogol, as he navigates his identity crisis in a foreign land. The relentless sun and vast sands are not mere descriptions; they are the silent witnesses to his inner turmoil.
On the other end of the literary spectrum, there is Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. The lush, vibrant Kerala backwaters are not just the setting; they are a character woven into the fabric of the story. The teeming, humid landscape reflects the complex web of human relationships and secrets that unravel in the narrative. This interplay is not confined to contemporary literature alone. In Shakespeare’s timeless tragedy Macbeth, the eerie and foreboding setting of the Scottish moors casts a dark shadow over the characters’ actions. The moors, shrouded in mist and mystery, serve as an ever-present omen of the impending tragedy. - The crisis of justice that is the subject matter of discussion in the media today is in fact the crisis of “justice for the middle class”. The main difference between India and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries is that whereas the middle class in these countries has reasonable access to justice, in India it does not. A vocal and powerful middle class has emerged in India since 1991. It is demanding reasonable access to justice. Much of the judicial reform effort will help meet this demand…
The question of justice for the poor is, however, an altogether different challenge. No country in the world has been able to secure justice for the poor. Most of the jails of the richest countries are filled with the poorest. The “masses” are more often victims of the criminal justice system than of crime. In India as well, jails are almost exclusively filled with the poor. The civil justice system is hardly accessible to them. They are often victimised by lawyers, touts and court staff. They are docket-excluded, a new type of untouchability. The language and the logic—and the colonial and feudal culture—of the judicial system are alien to them. It rarely takes cognisance of their needs and interests.
Their main concern, therefore, is to escape the attention of the justice system, criminal and civil. A landless Dalit person in the interior of Madhya Pradesh once gave me an insightful definition of a court from the perspective of the masses: “A court is a place where you are forcibly taken by the police to be punished; no one goes to a court.” In contrast, many lawyers and judges colloquially define a court as “a temple of justice where rights are protected”.
These sharply divergent visions mean that justice for one section is often injustice for another. Protecting the livelihood of traditional taxi and auto drivers from predatory pricing by corporate app-based taxi providers by imaginatively using the available tools of law to delay their incursion would be seen by the rich and by sections of the middle class as a failure of the judicial system, and possibly as also resulting in a downgrading of the “ease of doing business” measure. However, the masses would see such a judicial intervention as strong evidence of a good justice system. Although the conflict over competing visions of the nation and conflicting demands from social and economic segments have confined judicial reform of judicial administration mainly to “neutral” areas such as process reform, procedural law, technology, planning and court and case management, judge strength, and the workload of judges, there has been considerable improvement in these areas, and the judicial system has improved its performance.
[Extracted, with edits, from “Justice and the Two Ideas of India”, by G. Mohan Gopal, Frontline] - Everything she wanted was here, at Carignano, in Kasauli. Here, on the ridge of the mountain, in this quiet house. It was the place, and the time of life, that she had wanted and prepared for all her life-as she realized on the first day at Carignano, with a great, cool flowering of relief - and at last she had it. She wanted no one and nothing else. Whatever else came, or happened here, would be an unwelcome intrusion and distraction. This she tried to convey to the plodding postman with a cold and piercing stare from the height of the ridge onto his honest bull back. Unfortunately, he did not look up at her on the hilltop but stared stolidly down at the dust piling onto his shoes as he plodded on. A bullock-man, an oafish ox, she thought bitterly. She stepped backwards into the garden and the wind suddenly billowed up and threw the pine branches about as though to curtain her. She was grey, tall and thin and her silk sari made a sweeping, shivering sound and she fancied she could merge with the pine trees and be mistaken for one. To be a tree, no more and no less, was all she was prepared to undertake.
What pleased and satisfied her so, here at Carignano, was its barrenness. This was the chief virtue of all Kasauli of course-its starkness. It had rocks, it had pines, it had light and air. In every direction there was a sweeping view - to the north, of the mountains, to the south, of the plains. Occasionally an eagle swam through this clear unobstructed mass of light and air, that was all. And Carignano, her home on the ridge, had no more than that. Why should it? The sun shone on its white walls. Its windows were open the ones facing north opened on to the blue waves of the Himalayas flowing out and up to the line of ice and snow sketched upon the sky, while those that faced south looked down the plunging cliff to the plain stretching out, flat and sere to the blurred horizon.
Yes, there were some apricot trees close to the house. There were clumps of iris that had finished blooming. There was the kitchen with a wing of smoke lifting out of its chimney and a stack of wood outside its door. But these were incidental, almost unimportant.
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “Fire on the Mountain” by Anita Desai] - English literature is a vast and diverse field that has left an indelible mark on the world of letters. From the eloquent plays of William Shakespeare to the complex novels of Jane Austen and the profound poetry of William Wordsworth, English literature offers a window into the human experience. One of the luminaries of English literature is William Shakespeare, often hailed as the greatest playwright in the history of English language. His works, including Hamlet, Macbeth, and Romeo and Juliet, are celebrated for their exploration of human nature, love, ambition, and tragedy. His characters, such as the tormented Hamlet and the star-crossed lovers Romeo and Juliet, continue to captivate readers and audiences worldwide.
The 19th century ushered in a new era of literary giants. Jane Austen’s novels, such as Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility, provide incisive social commentary through the lens of wit and romance. Austen’s heroines, like Elizabeth Bennet and Elinor Dashwood, remain beloved literary figures known for their intelligence and resilience. The Romantic era brought forth poets like William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who celebrated * 8 UG the beauty of nature and the emotional intensity of the individual. Wordsworth’s ‘‘I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud’’ and Coleridge’s ‘‘The Rime of the Ancient Mariner’’ are testament to the power of the written words to evoke profound emotions and imagery. Moving towards 20th century, English literature continued to evolve. Virginia Woolf’s ground-breaking novel Mrs. Dalloway explored the inner thoughts and lives of its characters with a modernist narrative style. Dystopian visions, as seen in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four provided stark warnings about the dangers of totalitarianism and the erosion of individual freedom.
Today, English literature is a global phenomenon, transcending borders and languages. Indian authors like Arundhati Roy, with her novel The God of Small Things, have won prestigious international literary awards. The book not only explores intricate family dynamics but also delves into the broader socio-political landscape of India. In summary, English literature is a testament to the enduring power of storytelling and the written word. It encompasses an array of authors, themes, and styles that continue to captivate and inspire readers across the world. - On the evening of the 10th, General Dyer arrived at Amritsar, and the Deputy-Commissioner handed over the civil power to him. He issued a proclamation by word of mouth that no meetings should be held. Two days later, after there had been no sort of riot, nor murder, General Dyer heard that a meeting was to be held at the Jallianwala Bagh. He proceeded there with about fifty troops, half British, half Indian, and a certain number of Ghurkas, armed with their kukris. The Jallianwala Bagh is an open space, half a mile square, which has one entry wide enough for three persons. The troops got in and lined up on a mound of debris. The walls, seven feet high, and the surrounding houses enclosed the people. There were, too, three alleys through which the people might have been able to pass. Within thirty seconds of the troops getting in, General Dyer gave orders to fire, and the crowd of people, estimated at anything from 5,000 to 20,000, who were sitting on the ground peacefully listening to the mob oratory, were fired on. The result of the troops’ fire into the mass of people we do not know. But we do know that Dyer’s own estimate of the casualties resulting from ten minutes continual individual firing, was 400 to 500 killed and 1,500 wounded. The people were not able to escape. They were people who had not offered any violence and who had not been warned. These people were shot down. After ten minutes, the ammunition was exhausted and the troops marched off, and they left 1,500 wounded there. There were men lying there for two days, dying of thirst, eating the ground, bleeding to death and nobody to look after them. Those who lived nearby came and carried away some of the wounded from the heap of dead and dying, but the unfortunate country people died there miserably of their wounds. This is what is done in 1919 in British India…
Centuries hence you will find Indian children brought up to this spot, just as they visit now the Cawnpore Well, and you can imagine the feelings of these Indians for generations over this terrible business.
[Col. Wedgwood, MP, speaking in the British Parliament, 22 December 1919]
View More Questions