Dear Aspirants,
Vocabulary is an important part of English that helps you deal with all kinds of questions in objective as well as descriptive papers of various exams. In the recently concluded SBI Exams, we witnessed that a major part of the exam was based on vocabulary. Many questions were vocab based and we can expect the same in the upcoming exams. It becomes very important to learn ample amount of words for the upcoming IBPS Exams. You can learn new words daily from our Daily Word List . Here is a list of words from the Hindu Editorial. Learn the words and make your own sentences on the basis of the given word list.
The sedition debate
Thoroughly overhauling Section 124-A is good, but repealing it is much better
Rulers everywhere tend to treat trenchant criticism as attempts to
excite disaffection and disloyalty. That is perhaps the only reason that
Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, enacted under colonial rule, remains on
the statute book. There have been repeated instances of its misuse. Regimes at
the Centre and the States have often been shown in poor light after they invoked the section against activists,
detractors, writers and even cartoonists. Since Independence, many have seen
the irony of retaining a provision that was used extensively to suppress the
freedom struggle. Despite all this, Section 124-A has tenaciously survived all attempts by successive generations to
reconsider it, if not repeal it altogether. The Law Commission, for the third
time in five decades, is now in the process of revisiting the section. Its
consultation paper calls for a thorough reconsideration and presents the
various issues related to it before the public for a national debate. In
particular, it has raised the pertinent
question: how far is it justified for India to retain an offence introduced by
the British to suppress the freedom struggle, when Britain itself abolished it
10 years ago? In an earlier report in 1968, the Law Commission had rejected the
idea of repealing the section. In 1971, the panel wanted the scope of the
section to be expanded to cover the Constitution, the legislature and the
judiciary, in addition to the government to be established by law, as
institutions against which ‘disaffection’ should not be tolerated. The only
dilution it mooted was to modify the
wide gap between the two jail terms prescribed in the section (either three
years or life) and fix the maximum sanction at seven years’ rigorous
imprisonment with fine.
excite disaffection and disloyalty. That is perhaps the only reason that
Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, enacted under colonial rule, remains on
the statute book. There have been repeated instances of its misuse. Regimes at
the Centre and the States have often been shown in poor light after they invoked the section against activists,
detractors, writers and even cartoonists. Since Independence, many have seen
the irony of retaining a provision that was used extensively to suppress the
freedom struggle. Despite all this, Section 124-A has tenaciously survived all attempts by successive generations to
reconsider it, if not repeal it altogether. The Law Commission, for the third
time in five decades, is now in the process of revisiting the section. Its
consultation paper calls for a thorough reconsideration and presents the
various issues related to it before the public for a national debate. In
particular, it has raised the pertinent
question: how far is it justified for India to retain an offence introduced by
the British to suppress the freedom struggle, when Britain itself abolished it
10 years ago? In an earlier report in 1968, the Law Commission had rejected the
idea of repealing the section. In 1971, the panel wanted the scope of the
section to be expanded to cover the Constitution, the legislature and the
judiciary, in addition to the government to be established by law, as
institutions against which ‘disaffection’ should not be tolerated. The only
dilution it mooted was to modify the
wide gap between the two jail terms prescribed in the section (either three
years or life) and fix the maximum sanction at seven years’ rigorous
imprisonment with fine.
The foremost objection to the provision
on sedition is that its definition remains too wide. ‘Overbroad’ definitions
typically cover both what is innocuous
and what is harmful. Under the present law, strong criticism against government
policies and personalities, slogans voicing disapprobation of leaders and stinging depictions of an
unresponsive or insensitive regime are all likely to be treated as ‘seditious’,
and not merely those that overtly threaten public order or constitute actual
incitement to violence. In fact, so mindless have some prosecutions been in
recent years that the core principle enunciated
by the Supreme Court — that the incitement to violence or tendency to
create public disorder are the essential ingredients of the offence — has been
forgotten. However, as long as sedition is seen as a reasonable restriction on
free speech on the ground of preserving public order, it will be difficult to
contain its mischief. There can only be two ways of undoing the harm it does to
citizens’ fundamental rights: it can be amended so that there is a much
narrower definition of what constitutes sedition, but the far better course is
to do away with it altogether.
on sedition is that its definition remains too wide. ‘Overbroad’ definitions
typically cover both what is innocuous
and what is harmful. Under the present law, strong criticism against government
policies and personalities, slogans voicing disapprobation of leaders and stinging depictions of an
unresponsive or insensitive regime are all likely to be treated as ‘seditious’,
and not merely those that overtly threaten public order or constitute actual
incitement to violence. In fact, so mindless have some prosecutions been in
recent years that the core principle enunciated
by the Supreme Court — that the incitement to violence or tendency to
create public disorder are the essential ingredients of the offence — has been
forgotten. However, as long as sedition is seen as a reasonable restriction on
free speech on the ground of preserving public order, it will be difficult to
contain its mischief. There can only be two ways of undoing the harm it does to
citizens’ fundamental rights: it can be amended so that there is a much
narrower definition of what constitutes sedition, but the far better course is
to do away with it altogether.
1. Overhaul: (verb) पूरी मरम्मत
Meaning: take apart (a piece of
machinery or equipment) in order to examine it and repair it if necessary.
machinery or equipment) in order to examine it and repair it if necessary.
Synonyms: revamp, improve,
repair, renew
repair, renew
Antonyms: damage, destroy, break,
injure
injure
2. Repeal: (verb) निरस्त करना
Meaning: revoke or annul (a law
or act of parliament).
or act of parliament).
Synonyms: abandon, abort,
rescind, scrub, scrap, abolish, abrogate
rescind, scrub, scrap, abolish, abrogate
Antonyms: continue, enforce,
establish, sanction, validate
establish, sanction, validate
3. Trenchant: (adjective) तीव्र
Meaning: vigorous or incisive in
expression or style.
expression or style.
Synonyms: honed, stropped,
whetted, edged
whetted, edged
Antonyms: blunt, dull, obtuse
4. Invoke: (verb) आह्वान करना
Meaning: cite or appeal to
(someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an
argument.
(someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an
argument.
Synonyms: cite, adduce, instance
Antonyms: waive
5. Tenacious: (adjective) दृढ़
Meaning: tending to keep a firm
hold of something; clinging or adhering closely.
hold of something; clinging or adhering closely.
Synonyms: firm, clinging, forceful
Antonyms: loose, weak
6. Pertinent: (adjective) उचित
Meaning: relevant or applicable
to a particular matter; apposite.
to a particular matter; apposite.
Synonyms: apposite, applicable,
germane, appropriate
germane, appropriate
Antonyms: irrelevant,
inappropriate
inappropriate
7. Moot: (verb) विवादास्पद
Meaning: raise (a question or
topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility).
topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility).
Synonyms: raise, broach, propose,
suggest
suggest
Antonyms: inarguable,
indisputable, indubitable
indisputable, indubitable
8. Innocuous: (adjective) अहानिकर
Meaning: not harmful or
offensive.
offensive.
Synonyms: harmless, safe, benign,
anodyne
anodyne
Antonyms: deleterious, noxious,
baneful, baleful, pernicious
baneful, baleful, pernicious
9. Disapprobation: (noun) अमान्यता
Meaning: strong disapproval,
typically on moral grounds.
typically on moral grounds.
Synonyms: deprecation, disesteem,
disfavor, displeasure
disfavor, displeasure
Antonyms: approbation, approval,
favor
favor
10. Enunciate: (verb) प्रतिपादन करना
Meaning: express (a proposition,
theory, etc.) in clear or definite terms.
theory, etc.) in clear or definite terms.
Synonyms: affirm, articulate,
intone, propound, announce
intone, propound, announce
Antonyms: conceal, confine,
deny, repress, muffle
You may also like to Read:
Daily Vocabulary Words 06 & 07 Augus...
Daily Vocabulary Words 1st December 2022...
