List of top English Questions asked in CUET (PG)

Amid consistent rise in deaths of pedestrians and cyclists, Punjab has taken the lead among the states and UTs to implement the 'right to walk' by making it mandatory for all road owning agencies, including the NHAI, to provide foot path and cycle tracks in all future expansion of roads and construction of new ones, reports Dipak Dash.
The state government has issued these directions following two court orders after PILs were filed at Punjab and Haryana HC and another in the Supreme Court. As per a communication from Punjab chief secretary Vijay Kumar Janjua to Punjab government's traffic adviser, Navdeep Asija, "in future all expansions of existing roads and construction of new roads, a mandatory provision of cycle tracks and footpaths should be made by all road owning departments and agencies". 
The letter sent last week added that all agencies such as the public works department, local bodies, NHAI and urban development departments have been instructed to prepare an action plan to construct footpaths and cycle tracks with a time frame and budget provision. 
TIMES VIEW: The right to walk is a cool idea. Pedestrian walkways and cycle tracks must be built everywhere. However, we must also audit the existing tracks and examine their lacunae. For instance, such tracks are regularly invaded by motorbikes. That apart, pedestrian-only tracks often have huge gaps, which makes walking a dangerous exercise. In other words, the right to walk must be converted into a proper mission with every angle taken care of to make it a success.
It depends on who is giving the rating: Centre on India's rank in press freedom index
KRISHNADAS RAJAGOPAL, NEW DELHI
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, made light of India's fall to 161st position in press freedom ranking, saying "that depends on who is giving the rating. I can have my own forum and give India the first rating".
The remake was in response to the Supreme Court's observation that India has fallen to the 161st position out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index published by the non-profit organization, reporters Without Borders. In 2022, India was ranked at 150.
India is ranked behind countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. "India is 161 in ranking in journalistic freedom," Justice K.M. Joseph, addressed the Union and Gujarat government, represented by Mr. Mehta during a hearing in the Billkis Bano case.
HEARING ON JULY 10
Change between Justice Joseph and Mr. Meht came while the Supreme Court ordered the publication of a notice giving the details of the case and the next date of court hearing, July 10, in two vernacular papers in Gujarat to alert those unserved among the 11 convicts who were released prematurely from their life imprisonment. They had been found guilty of the gang rape of Ms. Bano and the murder of her family members. Ms. Banop and other writ petitioners have separately challenged their remission. 
The hearing, at one point, saw the Supreme Court wonder whether some of the released convicts were making a "mockery" of or even "playing" with the court by either going incognito to hamper the serving of notice of the case on them or seeking time to file counter affidavits. Previous hearings have been a no go with lawyers for the men seeking adjournment on procedural grounds. 
The court decided to publish the notice in the newspapers so that the convicts would not take the plea of ignorance and the case could go ahead and be heard on merits.
The SC said, "Postings within the state cadre as well as joint cadre of a constituent state shall be made by the government of that state', that is, by the duly elected government. In our case, it shall be the government of NCTD. We, accordingly, hold that references to 'state government in relevant rules of All India Services or joint cadre services, of which NCTD is a part or which are in relation to NCTD, shall mean the government of NCTD."
CJI Chandrachud said this case dealt with the asymmetric federal model of governance in India involving the contest of power between a Union Territory and the Union government. The issue was who would have control over 'services in NCTD a government of the NCTD or the LG acting on behalf of the Union government a question which arose subsequent to a May 21, 2015, notification by the Union ministry of home affairs that gave the upper hand to the centre on 'services' in relation to the government of NCTD.
While ruling that Delhi government had legislative and executive power over services except on land, police and public order, the bench, importantly, said GNCTD being one of its kind (sui generis") Union Territory, parliament would have overriding legislative power over all subjects in list 2 (which are exclusive domains of state legislatures) and Last 3 (Concurrent List subjects on which both parliament and assemblies can legislate with primacy given to parliament enacted laws). This means, if the Delhi assembly enacts any law on any subject, parliament can pass a law "adding, amending and repealing" the legislation passed by the Delhi assembly.
Dwelling on federalism and responsibilities of an elected government, the CJI said, "In a democratic form of government, the real power of administration must reside in the elected arm of the state, subject to the confines of the constitution. A constitutionally entrenched and democratically elected government needs to have control over its administration. If a democratically elected government is not provided with the power to control the officers posted within its domain, then the principle underlying the triple chain of collective responsibility would become redundant." It explained the triple chains as civil service officers being accountable to ministers, ministers being accountable to parliament/legislature and parliament/legislature being accountable to the electorate.
"That is to say, if the government is not able to control and hold to account the officers posted in its service, then its responsibility towards the legislature as well as the public is diluted. The principle of collective responsibility extends to the responsibility of officers, who in turn report to the ministers." the SC said.
Taking into account the AAP government's allegation that bureaucrats were not listening to ministers in the elected government because of the centre's interference, the five- judge bench said, "If the officers stop reporting to the ministers or do not abide by their directions, the entire principle of collective responsibility is affected.
"A democratically elected government can perform only when there is an awareness on the the part of officers of the consequences which may ensue if they do not perform. If the officers feel that they are insulated from the control of the elected government which they are serving, then they become unaccountable or may not show commitment towards their performance."
Explaining the risks of an unaccountable bureaucracy in a democratic form of governance where accountability is well defined under the triple chain of command, the bench said, "An unaccountable and non-responsive civil service may pose a serious problem of governance in a democracy. It creates a possibility that the permanent executive, consisting of unelected civil service officers, who play a decisive role in implementation of government policy, may act in ways that disregard the will of the electorate."
"The success rate of transplants with living donors is higher than with brain-dead donors.' Unlike in western countries where cadaver donor transplantation is predominant, in India there has been a rise of living liver donors". Living donors or liver transplant (LDLT) can save patients with locally advanced liver cancer and acute liver failure though deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) in not suitable for most patients. LDLT can be done as soon as a family member is found fit to donate a part of the liver, while DDLT requires waiting in India for 6-18 months." Dr. S.K. Sarin, Director, Institution of Liver and Biliary Science, said, "A deceased donor is mostly preferred because of the risks to a living donor. But when the requirement is for, say 2,000 donors, we get just 300-400 deceased donors. But even with non-living donors, there are challenges, often even people aged 35 are obese or consume alcohol in large amounts. More than 60% of the donors are wives or mothers".
As per government rule, the donor has to be a first degree relative of the recipient, that is a husband, wife, brother, sister, father, mother, son or daughter. A healthy living donor can donate up to 60% of the liver, which grows back to normal size in 4-6 weeks.
"In north India, DDLT constitutes 3-4% of transplants, while in South India, it is higher at 10-15 %. Overall, 92% of recipients recover well, said Dr. Neerav Goyal of Apollo Hospitals. "The recipient goes on long term immuno-suppressant medications, usually life-long." Liver transplants do have some risks. "A thrombus may form in the blood vessels during the surgical process. The liver can also be rejected by the patient's body", pointed out Dr. Bhushan Bhole, senior consultant, GI surgery and liver transplantation, PSRI Hospital "A donated organ acts as a foreign organ and the body may not accept it."
Liver failure occurs due to non-alcoholic cirrhosis, alcoholic liver diseases, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. Another factor is acute liver failure in a short time due to Hepatitis A and E drug toxicity due to anti-TB medicines.
Post-transplant care involves regular blood tests and lifelong administration of medicines to prevent transplant rejection. These costs around Rs. 5,000 a month. But despite the need for long-term medication and regular follows ups, liver transplant recipients have an excellent quantity of life and a normal life expectancy. "More than 250 patients I know have lived 15-25 years after transplant, some of the little kids we transplanted have now become doctors, lawyers and sportspersons got married and have children of their own." smiled Arvinder Soin.
Captain Vs Generals
Pak army doesn't want to take over govt but it doesn't know how post-Imran-arrest protest will pan out
Following Imran Khan's dramatic arrest on Tuesday, Pakistan's 'polycrisis' has not only deepened but also morphed into a systemic question for that country. There can be no doubting that the manner of khan's arrest - it is the paramilitary Rangers that picked him up from the premises of the Islamabad high court was meant to send out a clear message to the former Pakistani PM: that he had crossed a red line by repeatedly pointing fingers at Pakistan's military-security establishment. But Khan has emerged as the most popular Pakistani leader in over a decade. And his refusal to play by the army's hybrid regime playbook has brought Pakistan to an inflection point.
As protests by Khan's PTI supporters spread, the hybrid regime is facing its sternest test. By all accounts the Shehbaz Sharif government wants to delay national polls scheduled for later this year.. It hopes this will take the wind out of Khan's political sails as cases pile up against him-the latest being the indictment in the Toshakhana case. But if the protests sustain, army chief Asim Munir would be forced to make a tough choice either directly step in and take control or put at risk the army's pre-eminent position in Pakistani society. The generals have played the role of Pakistan's stabiliser for decades, notwithstanding messy outcomes.
However, another military takeover would be tricky today's geopolitical climate. Pakistan's salience in international politics has rapidly declined over the last decade, particularly after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. True, china is still a benefactor through its CPEC projects. But that closely tracks Beijing's strategic and mercantilist interests. Therefore, without US backing, a Pakistan under generals would likely be shut out from IMF bailouts its dysfunctional economy needs desperately - forex reserves are still paltry, inflation is climbing and there's widespread general hardship.
Thus, General Munir will try his best to sustain the hybrid regime. He may even choose to allow the protests to continue till calls for more robust intervention arise. But popular movements are unpredictable. While we are not there yet, India should watch out for cracks in the Pakistani military establishment. Pakistan in utter chaos is not good news for India.