Passage 1
On 8 May 2017, India filed an Application instituting proceeding against Pakistan in respect of a dispute concerning alleged violations of the [1] of 24 April 1963 ―in the matter of the detention and trial of an Indian national, Mr. [2], who had been sentenced to death by a military court in Pakistan in April 2017. India claimed that Pakistan had failed to inform it, without delay, of the arrest and detention of its national.
It further contended that Mr. [2] had not been informed of his rights under Article 36 of the [1]. Also, India’s consular officers had been denied access to Mr. [2] while he was in custody, detention and prison, and had been unable to converse and correspond with him or arrange for his legal representation.
By an Order dated 18 May 2017, the Court directed Pakistan to ―take all measures at its disposal‖ to ensure that Mr. [2] would not be executed pending a final decision in the case, and to inform the Court of all the measures taken in implementation of that Order. It also decided that, until the Court had given its final decision, it would remain seized of the matters which formed the subject matter of the Order.
Public hearings on the merits of the case were held from 18 to 21 February 2019. In its Judgment of 17 July 2019, the Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to entertain India’s claims based on alleged violations of the [1]. The Court concluded that India’s Application was admissible.
Concerning India’s request for the Court to annul the decision of the military Court and restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence or conviction, and its further recommendation for the Court to direct Pakistan to take steps to annul the decision of the military Court, release Mr. [2] and facilitate his safe passage to India, the Court found that the submissions made by India could not be upheld. The Court also found, however, that Pakistan was under an obligation to provide, through its choosing, practical review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. [2], to ensure that full weight was given to the effect of the violation of the rights outlined in Article 36 of the [1].
Question
In the given passage, the name of the person sentenced to death by Pakistan in April 2017 has been replaced with [2]. What is the name of the person?
a. Ajit Doval
b. Ajay Ahuja
c. Abhinandan Varthaman
d. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav
Answer. (d)
In the given passage, the name of the Convention on the basis of which India filed its claims before the International Court of Justice has been replaced with [1]. What is the name of the Convention?
a. Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva
b. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
c. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
d. Tokyo Convention
Answer. (c)
Pakistan arrested Mr. [2] on charges of spying on behalf of which Indian agency?
a. Central Bureau of Investigation
b. Research and Analysis Wing
c. Intelligence Bureau
d. Criminal Investigation Department
Answer. (b)
Who amongst the following Indians have also been judges of the International Court of Justice?
a. Nagendra Singh
b. Dalveer Bhandari
c. B.N. Rau
d. All of the above
Answer. (d)
The law applied by the International Court of Justice is set out in:
a. The Statute of the International Court of Justice
b. Charter of the United Nations
c. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
d. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Answer. (a)
Passage 2
Iran overtook Russia to emerge as the top buyer of Indian tea last year after sanctions against the Islamic Republic halted imports other than specially negotiated deals. India and Iran have been trading through a rupee-based bank account to bypass restrictions imposed by the US. While this bilateral trade has boosted imports of Indian tea at higher-than-normal prices, the outlook for orthodox teas is uncertain, with even Lipton owner Unilever Plc weighing a sale of one of its best-known brands.
“This boost has come because of the rupee-rial trade arrangement that we have had with Iran,” said Azam Monem, a director at McLeod Russel India Ltd, which is among the nation’s largest tea exporters. “India’s diplomacy should allow us to remain a partner to Iran where we supply humanitarian aid, tea and rice.”
Overall, Indian exports dropped 3 per cent to 248 million kilogrammes last year as bad weather hit production in the crucial months of June and July. Prices rose 8.5 per cent to Rs 226 per kilogramme. India also saw a 30 per cent increase in shipments to China, the world’s biggest producer of tea, due to rising demand in the green-tea-drinking nation for India’s black-tea brands. Indian leaves such as Darjeeling, Assam and Nilgiri are used in processing the ready-to-drink milk tea popular across Asian countries.
However, India’s tea industry faces headwinds in controlling costs after an increase in wages last year. ―Prices are unlikely to rise in 2020 unless consumption surges, according to Vivek Goenka, chairman of the Indian Tea Association. ―Any material increase in wage rates in the new season, without a substantial increase in tea prices, would prolong the stress, said Kaushik Das, an analyst at Icra Ltd.
Question
1. Which of the following countries is the top producer of tea in the world?
a. India
b. China
c. Russia
d. Kenya
Answer. (b)
2. Which country was the largest importer of tea in the world in 2018?
- Egypt
- India
- USA
- Pakistan
Answer. (d)
3. Which country was the largest importer of tea in the world in 2019?
- Russia
- Iran
- United Kingdom
- Iraq
Answer. (b)
4. Name the largest tea producing region of India.
- Assam
- Madhya Pradesh
- Andhra Pradesh
- None of the above
Answer. (a)
